[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 28205-28231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           COUNTY SCHOOLS FUNDING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 352 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2389.

                              {time}  1322


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2389) to 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, with Mr. Kolbe in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House considers H.R. 2389, a bill that has 
been under consideration in my subcommittee for several months, but 
whose time has been long in coming. Nearly 100 years ago the Federal 
Government, as a condition of managing our national forest lands, 
established a compact with forest-dependent communities in rural 
America. Under the terms of this compact, the government would own and 
manage the forests, not only for the long-term environmental benefit of 
the resource, but also for the long-term social and economic benefit of 
rural communities in and adjacent to the forest.
  Recently, revenue-sharing payments with rural communities guaranteed 
under the compact have dropped in some communities by as much as 90 
percent. Local administrator after local administrator told my 
subcommittee about the drastic and tragic measures their school systems 
have taken just to fight foreclosure. The compact is not working, and 
our rural schools cannot wait any longer.
  A coalition of local school systems developed a set of principles 
which attempts to breath new life into their compact with the Federal 
Government. Their idea has been well received across the country. Their 
supporters top 800 grass roots organizations in 36 States, that range 
from school districts and administrators to the National Education 
Association, the National

[[Page 28206]]

Association of Counties, the United States Chamber of Commerce, 
organized labor, and other groups.
  Their principles are embodied in H.R. 2389, the Secure Rural Schools 
and Communities Self-determination Act of 1999. As we consider this 
legislation today, we, as Members of this House, are faced with one 
overriding question: Who knows better what needs to be done to help 
forest-dependent communities in rural America, rural America, or 
Washington?
  This bill is representative government at its best. Local leaders 
recognize that the compacts of 1908 and 1937 need to be strengthened 
for the short term to immediately arrest the decline in and stabilize 
the revenues derived from Federal forest lands until permanent 
improvements to existing law can be made.
  They crafted their solution, garnered support from all regions of the 
country, and entrusted us to do the right thing.
  The challenges facing forest counties are so dramatic and so 
widespread that soon after the House Committee on Agriculture 
unanimously approved H.R. 2389, several Members expressed a strong 
interest in the bill. The legislation was introduced by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), and 
I commend them for their initiative.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) became actively engaged, and spent countless hours 
working with us to ensure the compacts between the Federal government 
and the forest counties are honored.
  The bill we consider today is the product of the locally-crafted 
solution and our intense interest to promote the interests of forest 
counties. H.R. 2389 establishes a temporary national safety net which 
ensures a stable payment to forest communities for the short term, 
while giving local communities and educators a direct stake in crafting 
a long-term policy that will put schoolchildren in forest communities 
on equal footing with their peers in other parts of the country.
  Despite the overwhelming support for this bill, we do expect a poison 
pill amendment to be offered. The expected amendment will be dressed up 
to appear as a county-friendly amendment. We have talked it through 
with the counties, and they oppose this and all amendments, and support 
H.R. 2389 as it is finally crafted.
  Time is of the essence. Forest counties cannot wait any longer. Key 
Senators have agreed to take this bill and use it as their vehicle in 
the Senate. We must oppose this and any other amendment, for quick 
passage in both the House and Senate. H.R. 2389 is strongly supported 
by the National Education Association and the National Association of 
Counties, two longtime advocates of rural education. They also oppose 
any amendments.
  I hope that we will be fully committed to helping all the proponents 
of H.R. 2389, the most important being the families and communities of 
rural America. This bill helps rural America achieve what they have set 
out to achieve. It revitalizes their compact with the Federal 
government in a way that will truly benefit their children and maintain 
the ecological, social, and economic integrity of our forests and 
forest-dependent rural communities in both the short and long term.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389, the County Schools 
Funding Revitalization Act of 1999.
  The funding and day-to-day operation of schools and county 
governments located within our vast network of national forests present 
a unique situation for rural America. In fact, there are more than 800 
rural communities that cannot include national forest lands in their 
taxable land base because the Federal government prohibits that option.
  This limits a rural community's tax base, and presents a serious 
problem when 98 percent of an individual county's total land is located 
within the boundaries of a national forest.
  In order to provide replacement revenue, Congress enacted a 25 
percent receipt-sharing requirement in 1908 for national forest system 
land and a 50 percent receipt-sharing requirement in 1937 for Bureau of 
Land Management land. Over time, communities have understandably grown 
to depend on the 25 percent payment from the Forest Service, as well as 
the 50 percent payment from the BLM.
  Faced with the stringent requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act and its judicial interpretations, there is not a single 
community within the national forest system that can rationally depend 
on timber harvest alone as a source of revenue for schools or county 
roads.

                              {time}  1330

  The current situation in east Texas is a prime example. Prior to the 
August 16, 1999, a court injunction banning all timber sales in east 
Texas National Forest counties received more than $5.6 million from the 
25 percent receipt sharing requirement in 1998 alone.
  Under the serious stipulations of this court injunction, however, 
that figure will now be zero, placing unimaginable financial strain on 
school systems.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated occurrence. School systems and 
local governments all over rural America are dependent on revenue from 
the National Forest System, but an injunction that prevents receipt 
sharing leaves these entities without the ability to do orderly budget 
planning.
  H.R. 2389 and the substitute amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) are a good start towards correcting this 
situation. The Goodlatte amendment in the nature of a substitute 
improves upon the central goal of stabilizing the payment to schools 
and counties.
  First, a full annual payment should be calculated by averaging the 
highest 3 years of the 25 percent payments between 1985 to 1999. The 
first portion of full payment would come from annual timber harvest, 
and the remainder of the full payment would come from appropriated 
funds. A similar formula is provided for BLM lands.
  In addition, the Goodlatte substitute requires the counties to use a 
portion of their full payment to initiate local projects on Federal 
Forest land. By placing a 20 percent limitation on the use of the full 
payment, the counties are given incentives to organize and develop 
sustainable forest harvest plans. These plans will then be presented to 
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior for 
further consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an important connection between the viability 
of our rural communities and the vast resources that all citizens have 
a vested interest in protecting. This legislation allows local input in 
guiding the management of our National Forest lands for the communities 
and individuals who rely on them most. I encourage my colleagues to 
support passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389, the County Schools 
Funding Revitalization Act of 1999.
  The funding and day-to-day operations of schools and county 
governments located within our vast network of national forests present 
a unique situation for rural America. In fact, there are more than 800 
rural communities that cannot include national forest lands in their 
taxable land base because the federal government prohibits that option. 
This limits a rural community's tax base and presents a serious problem 
when 98% of an individual county's total land is located within the 
boundaries of a national forest.
  In order to provide replacement revenue, Congress enacted a 25% 
receipt sharing requirement in 1908 for National Forest System Lands, 
and a 50% receipt sharing requirement in 1937 for Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) land. Over time, communities have understandably grown 
to depend on the 25% payment from the Forest Service, as well as the 
50% payment from the BLM.
  Faced with the stringent requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act and its judicial interpretations, there is not a single 
community within the National Forest System that can rationally depend 
on timber harvest alone as a source of revenue for schools or county 
roads.

[[Page 28207]]

  The current situation in East Texas is a prime example. Prior to the 
August 16, 1999 court injunction banning all timber sales in East 
Texas, National Forest counties received more than $5.6 million dollars 
from the 25% receipt sharing requirement in 1998 alone. Under the 
serious stipulations of this court injunction, however, that figure 
will now be zero, placing unimaginable financial strain on school 
systems.
   Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated occurrence. School systems and 
local governments all over rural America are dependent on revenue from 
the National Forest System, but an injunction that prevents receipt 
sharing leaves these entities without the ability to do orderly budget 
planning.
  H.R. 2389, and the substitute amendment to be offered by Mr. 
Goodlatte, are a good start towards correcting this situation. The 
Goodlatte amendment, in the nature of a substitute, improves upon the 
central goal of stabilizing the payments to schools and counties.
  First, a full annual payment would be calculated by averaging the 
highest three years of the 25% payments between 1985 to 1999. The first 
portion of full payment would come from annual timber harvest, and the 
remainder of the full payment would come from appropriated funds. A 
similar formula is provided for BLM lands.
  In addition, the Goodlatte substitute requires the counties to use a 
portion of their full payment to initiate local projects on federal 
forestlands. By placing a 20% limitation on the use of the full 
payment, the counties are given incentives to organize and develop 
sustainable forest harvest plans. These plans will then be presented to 
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior for 
further consideration.
   Mr. Chairman, there is an important connection between the viability 
of our rural communities and the vast resources that all citizens have 
a vested interest in protecting. This legislation allows local input in 
guiding the management of our national forest lands for the communities 
and individuals who rely on them most.
  I encourage my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I 
would also like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), for all of his hard work in putting together such a strong 
bill that enjoys wide bipartisan support.
  This legislation also enjoys the support of the National Forest 
Counties and Schools Coalition, which represents 800 rural counties, 
5,000 school districts and 1.2 million school children and includes an 
impressive and diverse array of interest groups representing education, 
labor unions, forest products, State and local governments and farm 
groups.
  This bill will accomplish several important goals. First and 
foremost, it will stabilize the revenue sharing payments made by the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to counties with Federal 
lands.
  It will help local governments and school districts restore the 
quality of education provided to the school children.
  It will provide temporary relief to counties and school districts by 
authorizing a reliable and predictable level of payments. These 
payments will have the added advantage of neither encouraging the long-
term reliance on appropriations nor discouraging the management of 
Federal lands in a manner that will generate revenues.
  Lastly, it will facilitate the development of a long-term method of 
providing payments to States and counties by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will ensure that we continue to honor 
the commitment that we established with rural counties and schools; a 
commitment that dates back to 1908 when our National Forests were 
formed.
  In addition to helping reverse the 10-year decline in forest reserve 
funds, it will allow counties and schools to restore many important 
school functions, such as hiring more teachers, reestablishing music 
and art programs, providing student transportation and purchasing 
library books. And, it treats all 800 counties that rely on National 
Forests very equitably.
  This bill is incredibly important for the 1.2 million school children 
in rural forest-dependent counties, to help ensure that these children 
have the same quality of schools and education as other students do.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would note that this bill is a piece of win-
win legislation of legislation for the forests, for the communities 
which depend on forests, and for the hard-working families that make up 
these communities. It authorizes forest improvement projects that will 
stimulate local economic growth while promoting forest improvements and 
it sets up a panel designed to help all of us look for the most 
effective ways of fostering and preserving this long-term relationship 
for the future.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Goodlatte substitute 
amendment to H.R. 2389, the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act 
of 1999. The issue of forest revenue payments by the Federal Government 
to local affected communities is very important to many communities 
across rural America and to a large portion of the Second Congressional 
District of Florida, which is a very rural district that encompasses 19 
counties which has two national forests in it, the Apalachicola and the 
Osceola.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have been working on this issue for many 
years and even before I came to Congress when I was serving in the 
Florida State legislature. I am happy that this Congress is finally 
addressing and trying to solve this issue that affects so many 
communities across the Nation.
  As has been said before, in 1908, the Federal Government entered into 
a compact with rural communities in which the government was the 
dominant landowner. Under this compact, counties with National Forest 
lands received 25 percent of the revenue generated from the forest 
lands to compensate them for diminished local property tax base. By 
law, these revenues finance public schools and local road 
infrastructure. However, in recent years, in the last 10 years, the 
principal source of these revenues has sharply curtailed due to changes 
in Federal forest management policy.
  Those revenues, shared with States and counties, have declined 
significantly. As we know, payments to some counties have dropped to 
less than 10 percent of the historic levels under this compact, and the 
impact on rural communities and schools has been staggering. In fact, 
in the Apalachicola National Forest in North Florida the revenues have 
dropped 89 percent in the last 10 years. This decline in shared 
revenues has severely impacted or crippled educational funding and the 
quality of education provided and the services offered in the affected 
counties.
  I will not detail all the various painful cuts that have been 
incurred by our communities and our schools, but I want to emphasize 
the severity of the actions that has been required. The most far-
reaching and devastating impact of the declining revenues is the 
adverse effect on the future of our children. An education system 
crippled by such funding cuts cannot train our young people in the 
skills needed to join tomorrow's society as contributing, productive, 
taxpaying citizens. It is clear to me and many others that the compact 
of 1908 is broken and needs to be fixed immediately. That is why the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and I introduced the County Schools 
Funding Revitalization Act of 1999.
  This legislation was based on principles that were part of a 
compromise agreement reached by the National Forest Counties and 
Schools Coalition. This bill is significant because it was developed 
not by a Washington-knows-best approach but from a bottom-up approach 
and based on a consensus of 800 groups from approximately 26 States, 
including school superintendents, county commissioners, educators,

[[Page 28208]]

the National Education Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  In an effort to improve the bill's chance of passage and to be as 
inclusive as possible, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and I 
began to work with key members of the Senate and with the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  As many know, reaching a compromise with that group was no small 
accomplishment in itself. However, I honestly believe that we have come 
together and have improved this bill and in doing so have increased the 
chance of it becoming law.
  This substitute contains three main provisions. First, it would 
restore stability to the 25 percent payment compact by ensuring a 
predictable payment level to forest communities for an interim 7-year 
period. That payment would be 80 percent of the highest of the 3-year 
average since 1984.
  Secondly, counties would receive an additional 20 percent of the 
average amount described above for projects recommended by local 
community advisory committees, if approved by the Forest Service or the 
Bureau of Land Management. All projects would have to comply, as was 
said earlier, with all environmental laws and regulations, as well as 
all applicable forest plans.
  Finally, the bill requires the Federal Government to collaborate with 
local community and school representatives as part of the Forest 
Counties Payment Committee to develop a long-term permanent exclusion 
that will fix the 1908 compact for the long-term.
  I want to thank my four colleagues, my partner in writing this bill, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), who has walked us through this maze, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been wonderful in helping us reach a 
compromise, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), for 
their efforts to bring a piece of legislation that actually has a 
chance of becoming law.
  In closing, the Federal Government must fulfill the promise made to 
these communities in 1908. I urge support of the Goodlatte substitute 
and opposition to any amendments that would upset this fine balance 
that has been achieved. Together we can fix the compact and restore 
long-term stability to our rural schools.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal), the chief sponsor of the legislation on our side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, before I proceed, I would like to join in thanking 
those who have made this compromise as it comes to the floor today 
possible. First of all, to my original cosponsor, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd), who just spoke, his efforts and those of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), as he has taken this 
legislation and worked with us; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and others on the Committee on Agriculture 
who have worked with us to bring this issue to the floor today.
  We believe that the proposal that is before us is a reasonable, 
short-term solution to a problem that has continued to get worse over 
the years. As we have heard other speakers say, this legislation grows 
out of the existing law that was a compact arrangement beginning in 
1908 for Forest Service counties and then in 1937 for those Bureau of 
Land Management counties, to share revenue generated from Federal lands 
with the local communities in which those lands are located.
  We have heard the statistics that we have seen across the board on 
Forest Service lands, about a 70 percent decrease in some communities, 
as much as in excess of a 90 percent decrease in the revenue they were 
receiving to support their local school systems, road programs and so 
forth.
  Let me give a dollar idea of how much that is. For Forest Service 
lands, the peak year was in 1989 when the revenue that was being shared 
was $1.44 billion. That dropped in 1998 to only $557 million.
  On the Oregon and California receipts, they declined to $51 million 
in 1998 from the peak year of 1989 of some $235 million. So it is easy 
to see that when a revenue stream is reduced by more than 70 percent 
and sometimes more than 90 percent to local communities, the impact can 
be devastating.
  We recognize that this legislation is not a long-term permanent 
solution. It has built into it a mechanism whereby we hope to arrive at 
that solution; a committee that is appointed, made up of local 
officials, Forest Service officials, Bureau of Land Management 
officials, who will study the issue and come back to Congress with a 
proposal.
  As has already been indicated, this legislation is an outgrowth of 
the communities themselves asking us to take action. In March of this 
year, a national conference was held in Reno, Nevada, and out of that 
came the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, this 800-
member group that we have heard referenced here. This legislation is in 
response to their request.
  In conclusion, I would like to once again thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and in particular all of our staffs who have 
worked diligently to bring this issue to the floor today. I would urge 
its adoption without amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak in 
support of the critical issue of county schools funding. We must 
support our rural schools and communities, and H.R. 2389 is an 
important effort for those with forest lands in their districts.
  In the ninth congressional district I serve in Georgia, 15 of my 20 
counties include national forest land. In fact, the Chattahoochee 
National Forest encompasses more than fifty percent of my district. 
Counties that have the largest amount of forest land in my district 
include Towns County with 64% and Rabun County with 63%. Such 
communities do not collect property taxes for these federal lands and 
greatly depend upon forestry resources for their schools and economies. 
Therefore, effective forest management is an issue of vital importance 
in rural areas such as mine, and there are multiple forest uses to 
consider (scenic areas, wilderness, timber production, recreation, and 
wildlife designation). As a Co-Chairman of the Forestry 2000 
Congressional Task Force, I am working to provide balance between 
societal and environmental concerns and the timber industry, 
specifically in the areas of forest management and health, taxes, 
endangered species, property rights, funding matters, and public land 
revisions.
  Additionally, nothing is more important to the future of our country 
than the opportunity for high quality education for all Americans. I 
believe in the value of education, and we must prepare our nation's 
children for the 21st century. As a member of the House Education and 
the Workforce Committee, I am actively involved in designing and 
examining legislation to benefit those who are closest to our nation's 
students. Those at the local level have the greatest responsibility in 
educating and preparing our children for the future.
  While education is predominantly a state and local issue, many have 
taken the ``Washington knows best'' attitude and have attached endless 
strings to federal dollars. What I hear schools and educators really 
need is not more paperwork and red tape, but the flexibility to help 
children more efficiently. Thus, I have focused my attention on 
assisting state and local governments in providing a quality education 
for America's youth.
  For too long, we have relied on Washington bureaucracies to solve our 
nation's problems. It is time to create a more rational approach in 
addressing issues at the federal level by basing decisions on what 
works back at home. With those thoughts in mind, I introduced with my 
colleague, Representative Allen Boyd, the County Schools Funding 
Revitalization Act of 1999 (H.R. 2389).
  This legislation is a locally designed solution to the education 
funding shortages in communities dependent upon timber revenues. 
Specifically, in March of 1999, a national conference of organizations 
concerned about forest revenue sharing payments and rural socio-
economic stability convened in Reno, Nevada. From this conference 
emerged the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition (NFCSC), a 
unique group of over 800 local, regional, and national organizations 
which share the common objective of strengthening

[[Page 28209]]

and improving rural schools and forest dependent communities in both 
the short and long term. The NFCSC developed a set of joint principles 
to guide lawmakers in developing legislation to improve forest revenue 
sharing payments. I urge lawmakers to pay attention to these principals 
submitted from communities across the country as we work to address 
this issue.
  As a matter of background, the National Forest System, managed by the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) within the Department of Agriculture, was 
established in 1907 and has grown to include 192 million acres of 
federal lands. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within 
the Department of the Interior manages over 2.6 million acres of 
federal lands.
  The federal government recognized that, when it secured these lands 
in federal ownership, it deprived the adjacent counties of revenues 
they would have otherwise received if the lands were sold or 
transferred into private ownership. Accordingly, in 1908 Congress 
enacted a law providing that 25% of the revenues from National Forests 
be paid to the counties in which those lands were situated for the 
benefit of public schools and roads. Similarly, in 1937, Congress 
established that 50% of the revenues from the revested and reconveyed 
BLM lands be paid to the counties in which those lands were located for 
similar public purposes.
  Since that time, counties adjacent to federal forests have relied on 
the compacts of 1908 and 1937 to help finance rural schools and roads 
and maintain a stable socio-economic infrastructure. In recent years, 
however, the principal source of these revenues, federal timer sales, 
has declined by over 70% nationwide, a payments to many counties have 
dropped to less than 10% of their historic levels under the compact. 
The corresponding revenues shared with rural counties throughout the 
country have declined dramatically, crippling educational funding and 
severely eroding the quality of education offered to rural school 
children. Many have been forced to lay off teachers, bus drivers, 
nurses, and other employees; postpone badly needed building repairs and 
other capital expenditures; eliminate lunch programs; and curtail 
extracurricular activities. Further, local county budgets have been 
badly strained as communities have been forced to cut funding for 
social programs and local infrastructure to offset lost 25% payment 
revenues. As a result, rural communities are suffering severe economic 
downturns with increases in unemployment, family dislocation, domestic 
violence, substance abuse, and welfare enrollment.
  In 1993, Congress enacted a partial response to this crisis by 
establishing a temporary safety net payment system for 72 counties in 
Oregon, Washington and Northern California, where federal timber sales 
were reduced by over 80% to protect the northern spotted owl. To date, 
Congress has not provided similar assistance to the other 730 counties 
across the nation, which have suffered similar hardships because of 
declining forest revenues.
  The Goodlatte substitute to H.R. 2389, entitled the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self Determination Act, was developed with input 
and support from the National Forest Counties & Schools Coalition and 
is a unique compromise endorsed by over 800 education, labor, industry, 
and country government organizations. The bill would restore stability 
and predictability to the annual payments made to states and counties 
containing national forest system lands for use by the counties for the 
benefit of public schools, roads, and communities.
  H.R. 2389 restores stability to the 25% payment compact by ensuring a 
predictable payment level to federal forest communities for an interim 
7-year period. The measure also requires the federal government to 
collaborate with local community and school representatives to develop 
a permanent solution that will fix the 1908 compact for the long term.
  It is my hope that members in Congress will respect the solutions and 
opinions of our local communities put forth by the National Forest 
Counties and Schools Coalition. By supporting and passing the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, together we can fix 
the compact and restore long-term stability to our rural schools and 
governments and the families that depend on them.
  Again, thank you for the honor to speak today. I ask you to support 
your local and rural schools by voting for H.R. 2389.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) for yielding the time and also for his leadership on the 
Committee on Agriculture in allowing us to pass this bill out of the 
committee and now bring it to the floor.
  I also want to thank the many who have joined together, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), and the 
others, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to be sure that we 
have a bill that we have reasonable expectations of seeing passed 
through the Congress, through the House, through the Senate.
  I want to emphasize at the outset that this bill is a very carefully 
crafted compromise; and though there will be an amendment offered 
today, at least one, I want all of the Members of the House to 
understand that the efforts that have gone into crafting this 
compromise, this very delicate compromise, is very important to 
preserve, to ensure that this bill will be well received when it 
reaches the Senate.
  This bill really arises out of a problem that has been growing for a 
number of years in many of our counties that are dependent upon 
revenues from our National Forest to support our county budgets and to 
support our school district budgets.
  In my own case, in east Texas, where we have four National Forests, 
the problem has been particularly acute, because we have been under an 
injunction in east Texas that has, for almost 2 years now, halted all 
harvesting in our National Forest.
  I think if we look at the situation in east Texas and all across the 
country, what we see is that our school districts and our county 
governments have been held hostage to the ongoing national debate over 
National Forest policy.
  I think that it is time for us to let our counties and our school 
districts be free of the impact, the adverse impact of that national 
debate. This bill is designed to do that by providing a guaranteed 
level of funding from our National Forest for those forest dependent 
counties and school districts. This is a very real problem.
  In fact, today we have with us here in the gallery two county judges 
from my own district, Judge Mark Evans and Judge Chris VonDoenhoff, who 
have fought the problems that have been brought about by the lack of 
revenues from our National Forest on their particular county budgets.
  They were a part of the coalition of school districts and county 
officials that have worked to bring this bill to the floor, a coalition 
that has 800 different organizations supporting this legislation.
  The counties that they represent each have lost significant dollars 
as a result of the injunction that now exists halting all harvesting of 
timber in our National Forests. In fact, when we compare the revenues 
that those two counties, Houston County and Trinity County, in east 
Texas received in 1996 to what they are receiving today, they have lost 
90 percent of their revenues from the National Forest. So this is a 
very serious problem for all of the counties and school districts in 
areas where there are National Forests.
  We talked to an individual today in one of our school districts who 
advised us of the hardship that they are feeling as a result of the 
loss of revenues. There was even an article in one of my local papers 
recently that talked about the fact that one of the school bus drivers 
is having to drive a broken down school bus solely because the school 
district had to lay off the mechanics that take care of the maintenance 
of the school buses because of the loss of Federal forest revenues.
  So I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I am 
very pleased to have all of the Members that have joined with us on 
this compromise legislation. I think it is important for us all to 
understand that this is a bill that not only should be well received by 
those who are dependent upon forest revenues to operate their schools 
and their counties, but this is also a bill that should enjoy the 
support of the environmental community because it does have the effect 
of taking our school districts and our counties out of the middle of 
the national debate over National Forest management practices.

[[Page 28210]]

  I think it is time to do this. Our school districts deserve this kind 
of protection. Our counties deserve the protection. In the long-term, I 
think it is the right thing to do for the country. I hope all the 
Members will reject any amendments, help us preserve this compromise 
and vote in favor of this very good piece of legislation.


                Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Chair will remind the 
Member not to refer to occupants of the gallery.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and to thank him for his 
hard work in fashioning the compromise that we have here today.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his kind words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389 as amended by the 
Goodlatte substitute. The Goodlatte substitute reflects many, many 
hours of tough negotiations, 7 hours on last Friday alone.
  I want to thank all of the staff who worked on getting the details of 
this draft right. I especially wish to thank Greg Kostka of the 
Legislative Counsel's Office for his responsiveness and dedication. So 
often we fail to appreciate the talent and the professionalism of the 
Legislative Counsel's Office. I want to make certain that is 
acknowledged here and now.
  I need to begin with two caveats about this agreement just so there 
is no risk of misunderstanding as we go through the remainder of the 
legislative process. This substitute is a reasonable agreement. But it 
represents just about as far as we can possibly compromise on this 
issue. If the other body changes anything at all in this bill, we are 
under no obligation whatsoever to accept those changes, nor are we 
under any obligation to support a bill that supports those changes. We 
should be willing, as we always must be, to look at changes. But keep 
in mind that any changes would unnecessarily threaten the House 
coalition that is supporting the Goodlatte amendment. That needs to be 
clear.
  There is, however, one change that all House supporters agree that 
the other body has to make. The Goodlatte substitute uses 
appropriations to fund county payments. The final bill will have to use 
mandatory funds for that purpose.
  I would point out that previously in the well the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, addressed this subject 
very eloquently and articulately. Let me repeat, the final bill will 
have to use mandatory funds for that purpose.
  I know that that is the intention of all the supporters of this bill. 
Unless this becomes a mandatory spending bill, this legislation would 
threaten both the guaranteed payment to the counties, and we do not 
want to do that, and other Forest Service appropriations, which might 
be cannibalized to provide the guaranteed payment, something that I 
would oppose vehemently.
  So, too, I point out, do my friends associated with the League of 
Conservation Voters who, in a mailing to all Members, addressed that 
point. They happen to be right on that point. We are working together 
with them.
  With those caveats, I do urge my colleagues to support this 
substitute and to oppose all amendments.
  The substitute ensures that schools and areas with National Forests 
will have a generous stream of Federal funding. Like all other versions 
of this bill, the substitute provides counties with full payment equal 
to 100 percent of the average payment received during the top 3 years 
between 1984 and 1999. Again, this is quite generous. But I do not mind 
being generous with education. That is a wise investment in our future.
  The substitute protects the counties while also protecting our 
National Forests, which were needlessly put at risk in some other 
versions, early incantations of this bill. The substitute accomplishes 
that by adding environmental safeguards to title II of this bill, 
something that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) pointed out, 
which requires counties to spend money on projects in National Forests 
instead of just applying the money to the traditional purposes of roads 
and schools.
  The substitute makes clear that the Federal Government decides 
whether proposed projects can go forward, and that that decision is 
made only after completing the usual environmental analyses. The 
projects must comply with all Federal laws. The Secretaries of 
Agriculture and Interior alone have the power to reject a proposed 
project, but approved projects are subject to all the standard appeals 
and reviews. That is very important to emphasize.
  In short, the bill now clearly lays out the role of the counties, the 
advisory board, and the Secretaries, and makes clear that these 
projects are to be treated just as if they had originated with the 
Secretaries.
  The substitute also eliminates the incentives to use project funds to 
harvest trees. Under earlier versions of this bill, the counties and 
the Forest Service each would have received 50 percent of the timber 
receipts, thereby recoupling the counties' treasuries to forestry 
payments, that is something we do not want to do, as well as creating 
an enormous incentive to choose timber harvesting over other such sorts 
of projects, such as ecosystem restoration. That was totally 
unacceptable.
  Under the substitute, all the receipts from the program will go into 
special funds in each region to which counties may apply to projects, 
and those funds will return to the general fund of the Treasury at the 
end of fiscal 2007.
  Madam Chairman, we believe this substitute has eliminated the 
provisions of the bill that would have been of greatest detriment to 
the environment.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, for his willingness to negotiate. I urge that the House pass 
this substitute and oppose all amendments thereto.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Chairman, this is a compromise that has been in the making for 
some time. It is a compromise that has come with a lot of people coming 
to the tables and a lot of variance of it. But it also, I think, is 
exemplary what we can do when we set our mind to do it.
  Now, this is not a permanent fix, though it is, indeed, a reasonable 
and celebrated victory to move this forward and to make sure that 
school systems that are in these areas where there are large holdings 
of Federal lands are not put at the mercy of how we make these 
decisions, nor should it be seen as a substitute to put the environment 
at the risk of having to fund our schools.
  So this is why we celebrate the compromise. It recognizes both of 
those forces are good, that the environment, protecting our forest is 
good, but equally as important is making sure that the children in 
rural area have an opportunity for the education that they, not 
choosing, but live in communities that are heavily dependent on lands 
that are held by the Federal Government.
  So I want to urge that we support this bill and also hold this 
process that is perhaps a process that we can look at other difficult 
issues to try to work out a compromise.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389, 
a bill that will provide much needed financial security for our rural 
communities and schools that have been so hard hit by the decline in 
timber production on our Nation's forests.
  In 1908, Congress recognized that the Federal Government's control of 
the

[[Page 28211]]

huge amount of untaxed land in rural areas would have a serious 
negative impact on the ability of rural counties to maintain schools 
and other basic services. Congress enacted a law to pay 25 percent of 
the revenues from National Forests to the local counties so they can 
provide for their schools and their roads.
  So how does Federal land control affect a county today? Let me give 
my colleagues a couple of examples. Lake County, in rural southeastern 
Oregon, is larger than the State of New Jersey, and four times the size 
of Delaware. About three-quarters of the county is controlled by the 
Federal Government. So what do my colleagues think would happen to 
Delaware or New Jersey if three-quarters of their tax roll was 
eliminated and three-quarters of their land was handed over to the 
Federal Government? I think they would have problems meeting the bottom 
line just as Lake County does.
  I asked Lake County Commissioner Jane O'Keefe what this legislation 
will mean to her county. She said that, if the bill becomes law, the 
county would be able to again adequately maintain one of its most 
important investments, that of its infrastructure of its roads and its 
schools. It will keep the critical linkage between Lake County and the 
Federal forests that lie within its boundaries. It will provide Lake 
County with a temporary solution to the fiscal crisis that many rural 
counties are facing in maintaining infrastructure while creating a 
process to permanently address the county payments issue.
  Grant County Judge Dennis Reynolds told me that, in 1992 and 1993, 
Grant County received $12 million. Last year, they received less than 
$1.5 million. Next year they are expected to receive only a million.

                              {time}  1400

  With a tenth of the receipts they received just 7 years ago, Judge 
Reynolds said Grant County is not doing any new contribution or 
reconstruction of their roads; they are simply trying to maintain the 
roads they currently have. I could cite similar examples in the other 
18 counties in my district. This legislation is good for our schools, 
it is good for our counties, it is good for our communities.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and all my colleagues who stayed 
at the table and made this legislation possible.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I would first like to commend my colleagues, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner) for their work on this bill.
  The purpose of this bill is to more adequately compensate counties 
for the losses that they sustain at the expense of the Forest Service 
or the Bureau of Land Management-owned lands. Schools, local roads and 
county budgets should not suffer because national forest lands lie in 
their county.
  This bill sets an important precedent that Congress must follow in 
the future. If the Federal Government owns land in a particular 
locality, we should see to it that these counties receive funds to make 
up the lost property tax base.
  My home county of Arkansas County in Southeast Arkansas receives a 
payment in lieu of taxes from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While 
the structure of these payments is not affected by this bill, the bill 
makes the point that all counties containing Federal land should be 
sufficiently compensated. Parts of the St. Francis National Forest and 
the Ozark National Forest do lie in my district, and those counties 
will benefit from this bill.
  Madam Chairman, we should vote to pass this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey).
  Mr. COOKSEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2389. Rural 
communities that depend on national forest receipts to fund education 
are facing a crisis. By law, the Forest Service must share 25 percent 
of national forest revenues with the counties in which they are 
generated as a ``payment in lieu of property taxes.'' This payment is 
used to fund local schools and roads.
  However, severe declines in forest receipts over the last several 
years have drained school budgets in hundreds of rural counties, 
forcing deep cuts in education programs and bringing some school 
districts to the brink of collapse. Schools have canceled classes, cut 
teachers, eliminated extracurricular activities, and cut corners in 
every conceivable way to keep their doors open.
  Recently, rural communities from all over America have come together 
in a unique coalition, the National Forest Counties and Schools 
Coalition, a unique and diverse grass roots coalition of over 550 local 
and national organizations representing rural communities in 36 States. 
This coalition has come together to address this serious problem.
  Their proposal, H.R. 2389, the County Schools Funding Revitalization 
Act of 1999, will stabilize funding for forest-dependent schools and 
allow rural communities to help craft a new Federal policy that will 
strengthen and improve education in forest communities for the long 
term.
  H.R. 2389 is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 
the National Association of Counties. I join them in supporting H.R. 
2389.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I thank my colleagues for all their hard 
work on this important piece of legislation.
  When the Federal Government decided to reclaim the Oregon and 
California Railroad grant lands in 1916 and 1919, the Government took 
on a responsibility and made a promise to reimburse those counties that 
lost their tax base after these lands were reclaimed by the Federal 
Government. These counties, including six in my district, expend their 
local tax revenues on efforts that directly affect these Federal lands 
and the people that use them.
  But times have changed, people's attitudes have changed, and the way 
we manage our lands have changed. We realize that logging at will 
impacted our lands and clean water. The logging of the 1980s, that saw 
extensive revenue brought into my district for schools and roads, are 
long gone. Over the last 10 years, I have seen class sizes grow, 
teachers, after-school programs and many other services reduced or 
eliminated because, without the timber receipts, we simply did not have 
the additional money for education and infrastructure.
  In 1993, Congress recognized this trend and enacted an alternative 
safety net payment to 72 counties in Oregon, Washington, and 
California. Federal timber sales have been restricted or prohibited due 
to protection of certain species under the Northwest Forest Plan. This 
safety net is expected to expire in 2 years. This is not just a problem 
in the Northwest. This affects over 800 counties throughout the country 
from Oregon to Florida.
  The children in these 800 counties, including six in my district, 
deserve the same opportunity and the same quality of schools and 
education opportunities as the rest of America. We made a promise to 
them. We must extend the safety net for an additional 4 years while we 
work with these communities to draft a permanent solution to fund 
infrastructure and, most importantly, our schools.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting ``yes'' for education and 
voting ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Chairman, I want to tell my colleagues about 
Mariposa County, where I was born and raised. It has a single school

[[Page 28212]]

district within it struggling to make ends meet for about 2,600 
students. Arts programs for children have been cut back, six of the 
districts schools do not have a lunchroom where the children can eat, 
60 percent of Mariposa County school buildings are modular, temporary 
structures, and the school district's bus fleet is rapidly aging.
  Such decay is due in part to a lack of management on the national 
forests. Over the past decade, Mariposa County has gone from generating 
$800,000 each year from the receipt program to less than $100,000 as a 
result of diminished forest management.
  Mariposa County's resources are Federal lands, so the county is 
unable to generate a sufficient tax base. It, therefore, relies on 
funds derived from the receipt program. It is vital that Congress pass 
H.R. 2389, which creates a system to encourage rural forest communities 
to be self-sufficient and provide funding for schools in these areas.
  Approval of H.R. 2389 is also necessary to prevent the administration 
from implementing its plan to remove economic incentives to rural 
communities by decoupling forest receipts and giving direct payments to 
counties that are not linked to forest management. The loss of the 25 
percent receipts would further devastate rural schools and their 
already economically ailing communities experiencing decreased forest 
management.
  The economies of some rural communities, in Northern California in 
particular, depend almost entirely on the management of forest. In the 
absence of receipts, the areas have little else except government 
welfare upon which to survive. The County Schools Funding 
Revitalization Act is needed to establish a stable system of funds to 
provide a solid future for rural schoolchildren.
  I strongly support H.R. 2389 on behalf of the rural children 
throughout my district who simply have had enough cuts in their schools 
and must be afforded the opportunity to receive the best education 
possible.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. This is very important legislation before this body, and we 
are hearing from Members coast to coast on what this means to people in 
their home States and their counties, particularly to smaller rural 
school districts and rural counties where there is little other 
economic opportunity and where the county property tax bases are not 
sufficient.
  In my district it is doubly important. We have not only Forest 
Service lands, we have something called the O and C lands. More than 
half of my district is owned by the United States Government. And with 
the changes that have come about in forest management in the last few 
years, the revenues to those counties have dropped off dramatically, or 
would have dropped off dramatically, had we not gotten a guarantee in 
1993 when the Clinton forest plan was put into place. That plan expires 
in the year 2003, and each year under that plan we get fewer revenues.
  If this legislation passes today and becomes law, those revenues will 
immediately increase, and that will mean more funding for schools, that 
will mean more funding for rural law enforcement, that will mean some 
additional funds to meet unmet road maintenance and repair needs across 
southwest Oregon. Those are important programs.
  This is legislation that has tremendous merit. As I mentioned 
earlier, for my colleagues who do not have these sorts of Federal 
lands, if they can think of it in the way we have dealt with base 
closings in this Congress; that when Federal bases are closed, payments 
are made into those communities for the conversion of their economies; 
and often, again, those bases revert to those local communities.
  Again, I am not, nor would I ever suggest, and I will adamantly 
oppose, any return of these lands to the States or local governments. I 
believe they are best managed in the Federal interest. But there is no 
option to raise revenues off of these lands. And some of the things 
that were mentioned earlier, in terms of recreation and all that, yes, 
in fact, the recreation can possibly be enhanced by some of these local 
projects, investments can be made. I have a bicycle path created 
between two formerly timber-dependent communities in the southern part 
of my district. It is beginning to attract additional tourism and 
economic development to that area. But much, much more can be done.
  The payments that were to be made for the transition under the 
President's forest plan were not adequate for many of these rural 
economies. Our rate of unemployment in Oregon is one of the highest in 
the United States. And in rural Oregon it is among the highest in the 
United States. We need a little bit more help, and this bill will 
provide that additional help.
  So I would recommend this bill to my colleagues, not just because it 
benefits the people of Oregon but because it benefits hundreds of 
counties all across America and from a wide breadth of folks on both 
sides of the aisle, whose voices I think we are hearing asking for 
their colleagues' support.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in strong support of the County Schools Funding 
Revitalization Act.
  Back in my home district, I have heard firsthand the worries of 
educators about the lack of funding in their school districts. My good 
friend, Mr. Bob Douglas, the superintendent of schools in Tehama 
County, recently shared with me information about deteriorating 
conditions in Tehama's school system. And they are bad. Teachers have 
been laid off, causing increases in classroom size; some school bus 
services have been discontinued, leaving children stranded at the 
beginning or end of the day and parents forced to either delay going to 
work or to come home from work to take them home. Textbook budgets have 
been slashed, vocational training restricted, counseling programs 
reduced, and that single most valuable piece of our educational system, 
the library, has had its hours curtailed.
  Virtually every part of the school system in forest counties, like 
many of mine, have been affected by the reductions in this funding. And 
this is not restricted to Tehama County. I have also heard from folks 
in Butte, Colusa, and Glenn Counties. Parents and teachers who every 
day see the impact of reduced funding on our children have stressed to 
me the urgency of this matter.
  We spend a lot of time here throwing rhetoric back and forth across 
that center aisle. We argue about who is spending more on education and 
who is spending less. Well, my colleagues, now is the time to put our 
money where our mouth is. This bill will help level the playing field 
between children of rural counties and those who live in cities so that 
every child, regardless of where they live, has the opportunity to meet 
the expectations and expand the horizons that their parents hold so 
dear.
  This bill will help ensure that the local communities who have fallen 
on hard times in recent years have the funding to provide an adequate 
education for that most valuable resource, that one thing we all live 
and breathe for every day, that being for our children. My colleagues, 
we cannot let down our children from America's rural areas. We must 
continue to make education a priority.
  Please join me in voting ``yes'' on the County Schools Funding 
Revitalization Act.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, right now the United States Government 
is destroying public land at a loss of $300 million per year to 
taxpayers. That is a lot of money to spend on the destruction of our 
national forests.

                              {time}  1415

  Some of my colleagues say that if we do not expand our corporate 
welfare to the timber industries, there will be no money for our 
Nation's children. That

[[Page 28213]]

is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Timber sales have been decreasing 
and the money for rural schools is on the decline. We need to provide a 
real solution to the problem, not a false choice between trees or 
schools.
  Supporters of this bill say we need to address the declining rate of 
funding for schools. Yet 13 States will experience a permanent 
reduction in education and infrastructure funding under this bill. The 
fact is we can afford to give our rural schools the funding they need 
and deserve, but we must separate funding to rural countries from 
timber receipts.
  I am a strong supporter of rural education. I ask my colleagues that 
if they are true supporters of rural education, then give students what 
they need, payments that are not dependent upon fluctuating timber 
sales. Our children deserve a steady supply of funding and a healthy 
environment. This bill provides neither.
  This bill was not written to help students. It actually scratches the 
back of the timber industry. The National Forest Protection and 
Restoration Act provides for rural counties by offering them guaranteed 
annual funding. Counties would no longer have to depend on the Forest 
Service for what they need. They would have a budget that allows them 
to plan for the future. They would no longer have to clearcut for our 
kids.
  It seems that the supporters of this bill cannot see the students 
through the trees, so their solution is to chop the trees down. We are 
talking about the future of our Nation's children. Let us give them 
what they need without pandering to big business.
  I support a no vote on H.R. 2389.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I would just say that we have heard the term used 
over and over by speaker after speaker on both sides of the aisle that 
this is a reasonable short-term solution, it is a compromise, there has 
been a good-faith effort put forward by those who have worked very hard 
on this legislation they bring to us today; and, as indication of that, 
whereas when we started the administration was threatening to ask for a 
presidential veto of this legislation, they have withdrawn that threat.
  There is still opposition from the administration for the bill, but 
we are making good progress; and I believe that it is very highly 
probable that this can become law.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me the time, and I rise to support this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I think it is important, because for the first time 
in a long time, there is a realization that we own a lot of this 
country. We own a third of America, we, the national taxpayers.
  In my view, there has been a real insensitivity toward Federal policy 
and how it impacts rural America. And that is the problem that we are 
finally facing up to today. It is a matter of when we change the 
Federal land use policies and counties and States are predominantly 
opened by the Federal Government, it has a huge impact on the economic 
base and the quality of life in those communities.
  I am here to say that I think the Congresses in the past and 
administrations have been very insensitive to the impact on rural 
America.
  Why do we own a third of this country? For a number of reasons. So 
that we have land for recreation. So that we have land for wilderness 
areas. So that we have land for people to hunt and fish and recreate 
on. Also, it was purchased so that we would have the natural resources 
that we have that would be well managed and that would be available for 
the future.
  Now, somehow all that got mixed up by legislators and administrations 
and this whole policy kind of got thrown out of the window, that part 
of the reason that we own a third of this country is that we have 
resources for our future and the multi-use prospect was kind of thrown 
out, the baby with the bath water. I think that is the discussion that 
needs to be clear today and precise, that we are here today.
  Now, we are going to help fix schools. We are going to help fix local 
roads. But the loss of those industries that used natural resources are 
still gone, and that base out there is still very fragile.
  I urge Members of Congress, because so often I have ended up debating 
suburbanites who come from suburbia and urban areas who have little 
sensitivity towards rural America, that out in rural America we cut 
timber, we drill for oil, we dig for coal, we mine natural resources, 
and we farm and we manufacture.
  When they take over half of that away from us, and we have counties 
and States that are predominantly owned by Government, and the 
Government changes its policies quickly, we have huge impacts on the 
quality of rural life and the opportunities that are there. There is 
enough land for all. If we manage it well, if we used good sound 
science, our future can be strong.
  I wish we could get by this debate that cutting down a tree is some 
moral act. It is the one most renewable resource we have in America. 
Well-managed forests will produce logs forever. Our great grandchildren 
will be logging on the same forests that we log on if it is done right. 
It is a resource.
  So I am pleased today that there is finally a realization that 
Federal policies have had an impact on rural America and it has not 
been good.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chairman, I first want to refute the statement made by the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) a little while ago that 13 
States were going to lose funding or have reduced funding as a result 
of this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Forty-six States and Puerto Rico will receive increases in funding 
under this legislation, including the State of Georgia, from which the 
gentlewoman hails, which will receive an 87 percent increase. No States 
will receive a reduction. Four States will be level-funded under this 
legislation.
  Some of the increases, to give my colleagues an example, Alaska will 
receive a 204 percent increase, Arizona a 264 percent increase, 
California a 93 percent increase, Florida a 125 percent increase, 
Georgia an 87 percent increase, Indiana an 185 percent increase, 
Missouri a 103 percent increase, New Mexico a 173 percent increase, New 
York a 212 percent increase, Ohio 1,203 percent increase, South 
Carolina 226 percent increase. The list goes on and on. Many, many 
States will receive substantial increases. No State will be cut as a 
result of this legislation.
  Secondly, it is important to note that the amendment that is about to 
be offered is a poison pill amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
it.
  I would call to their attention the organizations that are a part of 
the National Forest, Counties, and Schools Coalition that opposes this 
legislation and want to see more funds get into rural schools.
  The Alliance for America, the American Association of Educational 
Service Agencies, and the American Association of School Administrators 
support this legislation and oppose the poison pill amendment.
  The Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee; the 
Independent Forest Products Association; the International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the National Association of 
Counties; the National Association of County Engineers; the National 
Education Association; Organizations Concerned About Rural Education; 
the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers 
International; People for the U.S.A.; the Southern Forest Products 
Association; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 
America; the United Mine Workers of America; the United States Chamber 
of Commerce; and the Western Council of Industrial Workers, just to 
name a few of the more than 800 organizations in 39 States which 
support this legislation and oppose any amendments thereto.

[[Page 28214]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. 
H.R. 2389 followed a flawed path since its inception, both in the 
development of its policy and in the secrecy with which its language 
was closely guarded until early this week. The underlying goal behind 
H.R. 2389 was to establish an interim procedure that would provide more 
money to rural counties for education and road building. This was to 
make up for reduced payments to the Twenty-Five Percent Fund because of 
decreases in timber harvesting over the past decade. Unfortunatley, 
there is nothing interim about this legislation. It establishes a multi 
year program that increases logging in our National Forests and further 
solidifies a pattern created at the beginning of the century that 
educated our children at the expense of environment. Sacrificing their 
natural heritage isn't necessary today so as to asssure an investment 
in their future and a sound educational opportunity.
  H.R. 2389 had the potential to reverse Twenty-Five Percent Fund's 
century long destructive path by creating a program that decouples 
county payments tied to the amount of timber harvested from public 
lands. Instead, this legislation gives counties some of the highest 
timber payments ever and yet encourages them to harvest already thinned 
forests in a potentially unsustainable manner. This legislation should 
have broken that policy and spending pattern. Instead, it enshrines it. 
This country should educate our children about protecting the 
environment, not educate our children at its expense.
  H.R. 2389 establishes a special community projects program in Title 
II, but its method of implementation will unknowingly to most create a 
tenuous relationship between federal land managers and the counties who 
will manage Federal lands through Title II projects. These projects 
will reduce funds going to rural governments and school systems by 
requiring that 20 percent of the county payments be spent on local 
forest management projects. The profits from these projects will then 
be funneled into a special projects account to be spent on more of 
these projects, thus creating an everlasting sort of synergistic 
logging effect. If the overall goal of this legislation is aid our 
rural schools and counties, then I hope that this House will at least 
use common sense and give all counties the option to use up 20 percent 
of their funds on these special projects instead of requiring that they 
use 20 percent of their funds only on special projects.
  This interim legislation establishes a working advisory group whose 
goal is to solve the county payment issue. Unfortunately, Title III 
attempts to reinvent Government by creating a top heavy advisory panel 
that fails to represent all interests involved in the formulation of a 
new program. When we look down the road nearly a decade from now, after 
this legislation sunsets, the Forest Service Chief should have, in his 
hands, the advisory panels recommendation. Will he act on it? Who 
knows? The chief is certainly not bound to. The advisory panel, for all 
its bells and whistles, in effect, serves little purpose and most 
likely will accomplish nothing. The Forest Service has no compelling 
reason to accept their recommendation, and, frankly, when I look at the 
make up of the panel, it's not likely to come up with recommendations 
that are balanced.
  This body must comprehensively revise the county payments issue and 
decouple all payment to counties from timber production, and understand 
that the issue is how and if to make this program a permanent mandatory 
appropriation. The framework for this solution has already been laid. 
This body must build the structure into a working program that benefits 
our counties, our forests and our children.
  It was my hope that this legislation would come to the floor today. 
Many of us went into this week with blinders over our eyes. We were 
given little opportunity to review this legislation and determine 
innovative solutions to correct this complex issue. H.R. 2389 is a 
flawed proposal that takes an antiquated approach to providing counties 
funds for education and road building at the expense of our National 
Forests. Proponents want to keep their cake and eat it too. This 
legislation is promoting a century old program at a time when the 
Forest Service is managing our forests in a progressive, ecological 
sound and scientific manner. Everyone in this body recognizes the need 
for the education of our young. Should it come at the expense of our 
environment when there are sound proposals already on the table for the 
House to consider? The short answer to this is no. We are one of the 
richest nations in the world and this sends a signal that we cannot 
afford to properly educate our children without using the slash and 
burn techniques of years past. I urge my colleague to vote no on this 
legislation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, the bill before us today, H.R. 2389, the 
County Schools Funding Revitalization Act, is important to the people 
and communities of Northern Michigan.
  Much of my congressional district lies in the Ottawa, and Hiawatha, 
National Forests. Forest products are my district main industry, and 
they have a great financial, environmental, cultural, historical and 
recreational impact on my constituents.
  My constituents depend on strong, vibrant national forests. We have 
been good stewards of our land and its natural resource; the forests 
depend on us for nurturing and protection.
  This proper stewardship helps both the economy and the environment. 
Continued timber sales help in guaranteeing the future health of our 
national forests.
  Since 1991, more trees die and rot each year in national forests than 
is sold for timber. I doubt if anyone in this chamber would view this 
as a proper and efficient use of our resources.
  Since the Federal government does not pay property taxes on its own 
lands, the several counties in my district with national forest lands 
depend on the 25-percent payments in order to provide essential 
services such as education, law enforcement, emergency fire and 
medical, search and rescue, solid waste management, road maintenance, 
and other health and human services.
  The forest industry is one of the top employers in my district. 
Overall, Michigan generates over $90 million in timber-based 
employment.
  My district has been suffering from high unemployment. The financial 
guarantee and funding stability provided by this legislation will help 
the economy of Northern Michigan.
  While I would like to see higher levels of funding in this bill for 
Region Nine of the Upper Midwest, I also accept the need to provide 
stable levels of funding for our communities and for our schools.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2389.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, modified by the 
amendments printed in House Report 106-437, is considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended, is as follows:

     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 1999''.
       (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--LOCALLY INITIATED PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LANDS

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. General limitation on use of project funds.
Sec. 203. Submission of project proposals by participating counties.
Sec. 204. Evaluation and approval of projects by Secretary concerned.
Sec. 205. Local advisory committees.
Sec. 206. Use of project funds.
Sec. 207. Duration of availability of a county's project funds.
Sec. 208. Treatment of funds generated by locally initiated projects.

             TITLE III--FOREST COUNTIES PAYMENTS COMMITTEE

Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. National advisory committee to develop long-term methods to 
              meet statutory obligation of Federal lands to contribute 
              to public education and other public services.
Sec. 303. Functions of Advisory Committee.
Sec. 304. Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements.
Sec. 305. Termination of Advisory Committee.
Sec. 306. Sense of Congress regarding Advisory Committee 
              recommendations.

[[Page 28215]]

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 402. Treatment of funds and revenues.
Sec. 403. 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 predominantly 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) Even without such revenues, these same counties have 
     expended public funds year after year to provide services, 
     such 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 their loss of future revenues and 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 50 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.
       (8) For several decades during the dramatic growth of the 
     American economy, counties dependent on and supportive of 
     these Federal lands received and relied on increasing shares 
     of these revenues to provide educational opportunities for 
     the children of residents of these counties.
       (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 severely impacted 
     or crippled educational funding in, and the quality of 
     education provided by, the affected 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 educational funding those 
     revenues provide.
       (13) Although alternative payments are not an adequate 
     substitute for the revenues, wages, purchasing of local goods 
     and services, and social opportunities that are generated 
     when the Federal lands are managed in a manner that 
     encourages revenue-producing activities, such alternative 
     payments are critically needed now to stabilize educational 
     funding in the affected counties.
       (14) Changes in Federal land management, in addition to 
     having curtailed timber sales, have altered the historic, 
     cooperative relationship between counties and the Forest 
     Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
       (15) Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
     Management face significant backlogs in infrastructure 
     maintenance and ecosystem restoration that are not likely to 
     be addressed through annual appropriations.
       (16) New relationships between the counties in which these 
     Federal lands are located and the managers of these Federal 
     lands need to be formed to benefit both the natural resources 
     and rural communities of the United States as the 21st 
     century begins.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide Federal funds to county governments that are 
     dependent on and supportive of the Federal lands so as to 
     assist such counties in restoring funding for education and 
     other public services that the counties must provide to 
     county residents and visitors;
       (2) to provide these funds on a temporary basis in a form 
     that is environmentally sound and consistent with applicable 
     resource management plans;
       (3) to facilitate the development, by the Federal 
     Government and the counties which benefit from the shared 
     revenues from the Federal lands, of a new cooperative 
     relationship in Federal land management and the development 
     of local consensus in implementing applicable plans for the 
     Federal lands;
       (4) to identify and implement projects on the Federal lands 
     that enjoy broad-based local support; and
       (5) to make additional investments in infrastructure 
     maintenance and ecosystem restoration on Federal 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)); 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 6th 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 
     sections 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 that eligible 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 in effect 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 
     1999.

     SEC. 102. PAYMENTS TO STATES FROM FOREST SERVICE 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 of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2006. The payment for a fiscal year shall 
     be made as soon as practicable after the end of that fiscal 
     year.
       (b) Payment Amounts.--The payment to an eligible State 
     under subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall consist of the 
     following:
       (1) The 25-percent payments and safety net payments under 
     section 13982 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993 (Public

[[Page 28216]]

     Law 103-66; 16 U.S.C. 500 note) applicable to that State for 
     that fiscal year.
       (2) If the amount under paragraph (1) is less than the full 
     payment amount in effect for that State for that fiscal year, 
     such additional funds as may be appropriated to provide a 
     total payment not to exceed the full payment amount, but only 
     to the extent such additional funds are provided in advance 
     as discretionary appropriations included in appropriation 
     Acts.
       (c) Distribution and Expenditure of Payments.--
       (1) Distribution method.--An eligible State that receives a 
     payment under subsection (a) shall distribute the payment 
     among all eligible counties in the State, with each eligible 
     county receiving the same percentage of that payment as the 
     percentage of the State's total 25-percent payments and 
     safety net payments under section 13982 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 U.S.C. 500 
     note) that were distributed to that county for fiscal years 
     of the eligibility period.
       (2) Expenditure purposes.--Subject to subsection (d), 
     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.
       (d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
       (1) General rule.--In the case of an eligible county to 
     which $100,000 or more is distributed in a fiscal year 
     pursuant to subsection (c)--
       (A) 80 percent of the funds distributed to the eligible 
     county shall be expended in the same manner in which the 25-
     percent payments are required to be expended; and
       (B) 20 percent of the funds distributed to the eligible 
     county shall be reserved and expended by the eligible county 
     in accordance with title II.
       (2) Counties with minor distributions.--In the case of each 
     eligible county to which less than $100,000 is distributed 
     for fiscal year 2000 pursuant to subsection (c), the eligible 
     county shall make an election whether or not to be subject to 
     the requirements of paragraph (1) for that fiscal year and 
     all subsequent fiscal years for which payments are made under 
     subsection (a). The county shall notify the Secretary of 
     Agriculture of its election under this subsection not later 
     than 60 days after the county receives its distribution for 
     fiscal year 2000.

     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 years 2000 through 2006. The payment for a fiscal 
     year shall be made as soon as practicable after the end of 
     that fiscal year.
       (b) Payment Amounts.--The payment to an eligible county 
     under subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall consist of the 
     following:
       (1) The 50-percent payments and safety net payments under 
     section 13983 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993 (Public Law 103-66; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note) applicable to 
     that county for that fiscal year.
       (2) If the amount under paragraph (1) is less than the full 
     payment amount in effect for that county for that fiscal 
     year, such additional funds as may be appropriated to provide 
     a total payment not to exceed the full payment amount, but 
     only to the extent such additional funds are provided in 
     advance as discretionary appropriations included in 
     appropriation Acts.
       (c) Expenditure of Payments.--Subject to subsection (d), 
     payments received by eligible counties under subsection (a) 
     shall be expended in the same manner in which 50-percent 
     payments are required to be expended.
       (d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--In the case 
     of an eligible county to which a payment is made in a fiscal 
     year pursuant to subsection (a)--
       (1) 80 percent of the payment to the eligible county shall 
     be expended in the same manner in which the 50-percent 
     payments are required to be expended; and
       (2) 20 percent of the payment to the eligible county shall 
     be reserved and expended by the eligible county in accordance 
     with title II.

         TITLE II--LOCALLY INITIATED 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) is required to expend a portion of those funds in the 
     manner provided in section 102(d)(1)(B) or 103(d)(2) or 
     elects under section 102(d)(2) to expend a portion of those 
     funds in accordance with section 102(d)(1)(B).
       (2) Project funds.--The term ``project funds'' means all 
     funds reserved by an eligible county under section 
     102(d)(1)(B) or 103(d)(2) for expenditure in accordance with 
     this title and all funds that an eligible county elects under 
     section 102(d)(2) to reserve under section 102(d)(1)(B).
       (3) Local advisory committee.--The term ``local advisory 
     committee'' means an advisory committee established by the 
     Secretary concerned under 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 land and resource management plans 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 with respect to the 
     Federal lands described in section 3(1)(B) and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture with respect to the Federal lands described in 
     section 3(1)(A).
       (6) Special account.--The term ``special account'' means an 
     account in the Treasury established under section 208(c) for 
     each region of the Forest Service, and for the Bureau of Land 
     Management.

     SEC. 202. GENERAL LIMITATION ON USE OF PROJECT FUNDS.

       Project funds shall be expended solely on projects that 
     meet the requirements of this title and are conducted on the 
     Federal lands.

     SEC. 203. SUBMISSION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS BY PARTICIPATING 
                   COUNTIES.

       (a) Submission of Project Proposals to Secretary 
     Concerned.--
       (1) Projects funded using project funds.--Not later than 
     September 30, 2001, and each September 30 thereafter through 
     2009, each participating county shall submit to the Secretary 
     concerned a description of any projects that the county 
     proposes the Secretary undertake using any project funds 
     reserved by the county during the three-fiscal year period 
     consisting of the fiscal year in which the submission is made 
     and the preceding two fiscal years. A participating county 
     does not have to submit all of its project proposals for a 
     year at the same time.
       (2) Projects funded using special accounts.--Until 
     September 30, 2007, a participating county may also submit to 
     the Secretary concerned a description of any projects that 
     the county proposes the Secretary undertake using amounts in 
     a special account in lieu of or in addition to the county's 
     project funds.
       (3) Joint projects.--Participating counties may pool their 
     project funds and jointly propose a project or group of 
     projects to the Secretary concerned under paragraph (1). 
     Participating counties may also jointly propose a project or 
     group of projects to the Secretary concerned under paragraph 
     (2).
       (b) Required Description of Projects.--In submitting 
     proposed projects to the Secretary concerned under subsection 
     (a), a participating county shall include in the description 
     of each proposed project the following information:
       (1) The purpose of the project.
       (2) An estimation of the amount of any timber, forage, and 
     other commodities anticipated to be harvested or generated as 
     part of the project.
       (3) The anticipated duration of the project.
       (4) The anticipated cost of the project.
       (5) The proposed source of funding for the project, whether 
     project funds, funds from the appropriate special account, or 
     both.
       (6) The anticipated revenue, if any, to be generated by the 
     project.
       (c) Role of Local Advisory Committee.--A participating 
     county may propose a project to the Secretary concerned under 
     subsection (a) only if the project has been reviewed and 
     approved by the relevant local advisory committee in 
     accordance with the requirements of section 205, including 
     the procedures issued under subsection (d) of such section.
       (d) Authorized Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Projects proposed under subsection (a) 
     shall consist of any type of project or activity that the 
     Secretary concerned may otherwise carry out on the Federal 
     lands.
       (2) Search, rescue, and emergency services.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a participating county may 
     submit as a proposed project under subsection (a) a proposal 
     that the county 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 may only be the special account for the 
     region in which the county is located or, in the case of a 
     county that receives 50-percent payments, the special account 
     for the Bureau of Land Management.
       (3) Community service work camps.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), a participating county may submit as a 
     proposed project under subsection (a) a proposal that the 
     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.

[[Page 28217]]



     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 participating county under section 203 only if 
     the proposed project satisfies each of the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The project complies with all Federal laws and all 
     Federal rules, regulations, and policies.
       (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 relevant local 
     advisory committee in accordance with section 205, including 
     the procedures issued under subsection (d) of such section.
       (4) The project has been described by the participating 
     county in accordance with section 203(b).
       (b) Environmental Reviews.--
       (1) Review required.--Before making a decision to approve a 
     proposed project under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     concerned shall complete any environmental review required by 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 321 
     et seq.) in connection with the project and any consultation 
     and biological assessment required by the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in connection with the 
     project.
       (2) Treatment of review.--Decisions of the Secretary 
     concerned related to an environmental review or consultation 
     conducted under paragraph (1) shall not be subject to 
     administrative appeal or judicial review unless and until the 
     Secretary approves the project under subsection (a) for which 
     the review or consultation was conducted.
       (3) Payment of review costs.--
       (A) Request for payment by county.--The Secretary concerned 
     may request the participating county or counties submitting a 
     proposed project to use project funds to pay for any 
     environmental review or consultation required under paragraph 
     (1) in connection with the project. When such a payment is 
     requested, the Secretary concerned shall not begin the 
     environmental review or consultation until and unless the 
     payment is received.
       (B) Effect of refusal to pay.--If a participating county 
     refuses to make the requested payment under subparagraph (A) 
     in connection with a proposed project, the participating 
     county shall withdraw the submission of the project from 
     further consideration by the Secretary concerned. Such a 
     withdrawal shall be deemed to be a rejection of the project 
     for purposes of section 207(d).
       (c) Time Periods for Consideration of Projects.--
       (1) Projects requiring environmental review.--If the 
     Secretary concerned determines that an environmental review 
     or consultation is required for a proposed project pursuant 
     to subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall make a 
     decision under subsection (a) to approve or reject the 
     project, to the extent practicable, within 30 days after the 
     completion of the last of the required environmental reviews 
     and consultations.
       (2) Other projects.--If the Secretary concerned determines 
     that an environmental review or consultation is not required 
     for a proposed project, the Secretary shall make a decision 
     under subsection (a) to approve or reject the project, to the 
     extent practicable, within 60 days after the date of that 
     determination.
       (d) 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. Within 30 days after making the 
     rejection decision, the Secretary concerned shall notify in 
     writing the participating county that submitted the proposed 
     project of the rejection and the reasons therefor.
       (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.
       (3) Project approval as final agency action.--A decision by 
     the Secretary concerned to approve a project under subsection 
     (a) shall be considered a final agency action under the 
     Administrative Procedures Act.
       (e) Source and Conduct of Project.--For purposes of Federal 
     law, a project approved by the Secretary concerned under this 
     section shall be considered to have originated with the 
     Secretary.
       (f) Implementation of Approved Projects.--
       (1) Responsibility of secretary.--The Secretary concerned 
     shall be responsible for carrying out projects approved by 
     the Secretary under this section. The Secretary concerned 
     shall carry out the projects in compliance with all Federal 
     laws and all Federal rules, regulations, and policies and in 
     the same manner as projects of the same kind that originate 
     with the Secretary.
       (2) Cooperation.--The Secretary concerned may enter into 
     contracts 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.
       (3) Best value stewardship contracting.--To enter into a 
     contract authorized by paragraph (2), the Secretary concerned 
     may use a contracting method that secures, for the best 
     price, the best quality service, as determined by the 
     Secretary based upon the following:
       (A) The technical demands and complexity of the work to be 
     done.
       (B) The ecological 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 use by the contractor of low value species and 
     byproducts.
       (E) The commitment of the contractor to hiring highly 
     qualified workers and local residents.
       (g) Time For Commencement.--
       (1) Projects funded using project funds.--If an approved 
     project is to be funded in whole or in part using project 
     funds to be provided by a participating county or counties, 
     the Secretary concerned shall commence the project as soon as 
     practicable after the receipt of the project funds pursuant 
     to section 206 from the county.
       (2) Projects funded using special accounts.--If an approved 
     project is to be funded using amounts from a special account 
     in lieu of any project funds, the Secretary concerned shall 
     commence the project as soon as practicable after the 
     approval decision is made.

     SEC. 205. LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Establishment and Purpose of Local Advisory 
     Committees.--
       (1) Establishment.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary concerned shall establish and maintain, for 
     each unit of Federal lands, a local advisory committee to 
     review projects proposed by participating counties and to 
     recommend projects to participating counties.
       (2) Combination or division of units.--The Secretary 
     concerned may, at the Secretary's sole discretion, combine or 
     divide units of Federal lands for the purpose of establishing 
     local advisory committees.
       (b) Appointment by the Secretary.--
       (1) Appointment and term.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     appoint the members of local advisory committees for a term 
     of 2 years beginning on the date of appointment. The 
     Secretary concerned may reappoint members to subsequent 2-
     year terms.
       (2) Basic requirements.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     ensure that each local advisory committee established by the 
     Secretary meets the requirements of subsection (c).
       (3) Initial appointment.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     make initial appointments to the local advisory committees 
     not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (4) Vacancies.--The Secretary concerned shall make 
     appointments to fill vacancies on any local advisory 
     committee as soon as practicable after the vacancy has 
     occurred.
       (5) Compensation.--Members of the local advisory committees 
     shall not receive any compensation.
       (c) Composition of Advisory Committee.--
       (1) Number.--Each local advisory committee shall be 
     comprised of 15 members.
       (2) Community interests represented.--Each local advisory 
     committee shall have at least one member representing each of 
     the following:
       (A) Local resource users.
       (B) Environmental interests.
       (C) Forest workers.
       (D) Organized labor representatives.
       (E) Elected county officials.
       (F) School officials or teachers.
       (3) Geographic distribution.--To the extent practicable, 
     the members of a local advisory committee shall be drawn from 
     throughout the area covered by the committee.
       (4) Chairperson.--A majority on each local advisory 
     committee shall select the chairperson of the committee.
       (d) Approval Procedures.--
       (1) Issuance.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretaries concerned shall 
     jointly issue the approval procedures that each local 
     advisory committee must use in order to ensure that a local 
     advisory committee only approves projects that are broadly 
     supported by the committee. The Secretaries shall publish the 
     procedures in the Federal Register.
       (2) Treatment of procedures.--The issuance and content of 
     the procedures issued under paragraph (1) shall not be 
     subject to administrative appeal or judicial review. Nothing 
     in this paragraph shall affect the responsibility of local 
     advisory committees to comply with the procedures.
       (e) Other Committee Authorities and Requirements.--
       (1) Staff assistance.--A local advisory committee may 
     submit to the Secretary concerned a request for staff 
     assistance from Federal employees under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary.
       (2) Meetings.--All meetings of a local advisory committee 
     shall be announced at least one week in advance in a local 
     newspaper of record and shall be open to the public.

[[Page 28218]]

       (3) Records.--A local advisory committee shall maintain 
     records of the meetings of the committee and make the records 
     available for public inspection.
       (f) Federal Advisory Committee Act Exemption.--The local 
     advisory committees shall be exempt from the provisions of 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 206. USE OF PROJECT FUNDS.

       (a) Agreement Regarding Schedule and Cost of Project.--
       (1) Agreement between parties.--As soon as practicable 
     after the approval of a project by the Secretary concerned 
     under section 204, the Secretary concerned and the chief 
     administrative official of the participating county (or one 
     such official representing a group of participating counties) 
     shall enter into an agreement addressing, at a minimum, the 
     following with respect to the project:
       (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 the participating county or counties 
     for the failure of the Secretary concerned to comply with the 
     terms of the agreement.
       (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 
     project funds, the participating county or counties that are 
     parties to the agreement shall transfer to the Secretary 
     concerned an amount of project funds equal to--
       (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 by the county or counties; or
       (B) in the case of a multi-year project, the amount 
     specified in the agreement to be paid by the county or 
     counties for the first fiscal year.
       (2) Condition on project commencement.--The Secretary 
     concerned shall not commence a project pursuant to section 
     204(g)(1) until the project funds required to be transferred 
     under paragraph (1) for the project have been received by the 
     Secretary.
       (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 
     participating county or counties shall transfer to the 
     Secretary concerned 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 county 
     fails to transfer the required amounts as required by the 
     agreement.
       (4) Special rule for work camp projects.--In the case of a 
     project described in section 203(d)(3) and approved under 
     section 204, the agreement required by subsection (a) shall 
     specify the manner in which a participating county that is a 
     party to the agreement may retain project funds to cover the 
     costs of the project.
       (c) Availability of Transferred Funds.--Project funds 
     transferred to the Secretary concerned under this section 
     shall remain available until the project is completed.

     SEC. 207. DURATION OF AVAILABILITY OF A COUNTY'S PROJECT 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) Submission of Proposed Projects to Obligate Funds.--By 
     the end of each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2009, a 
     participating county 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 the county 
     received under title I in the second preceding fiscal year.
       (b) Transfer of Unobligated Funds.--If a participating 
     county fails to comply with subsection (a) for a fiscal year, 
     any project funds that the county received in the second 
     preceding fiscal year and remaining unobligated shall be 
     returned to the Secretary of the Treasury for disposition as 
     provided in subsection (c).
       (c) Disposition of Returned Funds.--
       (1) Deposit in special accounts.--In the case of project 
     funds returned under subsection (b) in fiscal year 2004, 
     2005, or 2006, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit 
     the funds in the appropriate special account.
       (2) Deposit in general fund.--After fiscal year 2006, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit returned project 
     funds in the general fund of the Treasury.
       (d) Effect of Rejection of Projects.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (b), any project funds of a participating county 
     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 the county to expend in the 
     same manner as the funds reserved by the county under section 
     102(d)(1)(A) or 103(d)(1), whichever applies to the funds 
     involved. The project funds covered by this subsection shall 
     remain available until expended.
       (e) Effect of Court Orders.--
       (1) Projects funded using project funds.--If an approved 
     project is enjoined or prohibited by a Federal court after 
     funds for the project are transferred to the Secretary 
     concerned under section 206, the Secretary concerned shall 
     return any unobligated project funds related to that project 
     to the participating county or counties that transferred 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(d)(1)(A) or 103(d)(1), whichever 
     applies to the funds involved. The funds shall remain 
     available until expended and shall be exempt from the 
     requirements of subsection (b).
       (2) Projects funded using special accounts.--If an approved 
     project is enjoined or prohibited by a Federal court after 
     funds from a special account have been reserved for the 
     project under section 208, the Secretary concerned shall 
     treat the funds in the same manner as revenues described in 
     section 208(a).

     SEC. 208. TREATMENT OF FUNDS GENERATED BY LOCALLY INITIATED 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Payment to Secretary.--Any and all revenues generated 
     from a project carried out in whole or in part using project 
     funds or funds from a special account shall be paid to the 
     Secretary concerned.
       (b) Deposit.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary concerned shall deposit the revenues described 
     in subsection (a) as follows:
       (1) Through fiscal year 2006, the revenues shall be 
     deposited in the appropriate special account as provided in 
     subsection (c).
       (2) After fiscal year 2006, the revenues shall be deposited 
     in the general fund of the Treasury.
       (c) Regional and BLM Special Accounts.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury an 
     account for each region of the Forest Service and an account 
     for the Bureau of Land Management. The accounts shall consist 
     of the following:
       (A) Revenues described in subsection (a) and deposited 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(1).
       (B) Project funds deposited pursuant to section 207(c)(1).
       (C) Interest earned on amounts in the special accounts.
       (2) Required deposit in forest service accounts.--If the 
     revenue-generating project was carried out in whole or in 
     part using project funds that were reserved pursuant to 
     section 102(d)(1)(B), the revenues shall be deposited in the 
     account established under paragraph (1) for the Forest 
     Service region in which the project was conducted.
       (3) Required deposit in blm account.--If the revenue-
     generating project was carried out in whole or in part using 
     project funds that were reserved pursuant to section 
     103(d)(2), the revenues shall be deposited in the account 
     established under paragraph (1) for the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (4) Projects conducted using special account funds.--If the 
     revenue-generating project was carried out using amounts from 
     a special account in lieu of any project funds, the revenues 
     shall be deposited in the special account from which the 
     amounts were derived.
       (d) Use of Accounts to Conduct Projects.--
       (1) Authority to use accounts.--The Secretary concerned may 
     use amounts in the special accounts, without appropriation, 
     to fund projects submitted by participating counties under 
     section 203(a)(2) that have been approved by the Secretary 
     concerned under section 204.
       (2) Source of funds; project locations.--Funds in a special 
     account established under subsection (c)(1) for a region of 
     the Forest Service region may be expended only for projects 
     approved under section 204 to be conducted in that region. 
     Funds in the special account established under subsection 
     (c)(1) for the Bureau of Land Management may be expended only 
     for projects approved under section 204 to be conducted on 
     Federal lands described in section 3(1)(B).
       (3) Duration of authority.--No funds may be obligated under 
     this subsection after September 30, 2007. Unobligated amounts 
     in the special accounts after that date shall be promptly 
     transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.

             TITLE III--FOREST COUNTIES PAYMENTS COMMITTEE

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee'' 
     means the Forest Counties Payments Committee established by 
     section 302.
       (2) House committees of jurisdiction.--The term ``House 
     committees of jurisdiction'' means the Committee on 
     Agriculture, the Committee on Resources, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Senate committees of jurisdiction.--The term ``Senate 
     committees of jurisdiction'' means the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources, and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate.

[[Page 28219]]

       (4) Sustainable forestry.--The term ``sustainable 
     forestry'' means principles of sustainable forest management 
     that equally consider ecological, economic, and social 
     factors in the management of Federal lands.

     SEC. 302. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP LONG-TERM 
                   METHODS TO MEET STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF FEDERAL 
                   LANDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO PUBLIC EDUCATION AND 
                   OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment of Forest Counties Payments Committee.--
     There is hereby established an advisory committee, to be 
     known as the Forest Counties Payments Committee, to develop 
     recommendations, consistent with sustainable forestry, 
     regarding methods to ensure that States and counties in which 
     Federal lands are situated receive adequate Federal payments 
     to be used for the benefit of public education and other 
     public purposes.
       (b) Members.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed of 
     the following members:
       (1) The Chief of the Forest Service, or a designee of the 
     Chief who has significant expertise in sustainable forestry.
       (2) The Director of the Bureau of Land Management, or a 
     designee of the Director who has significant expertise in 
     sustainable forestry
       (3) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or 
     the Director's designee.
       (4) Two members who are elected members of the governing 
     branches of eligible counties; one such member to be 
     appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate (in 
     consultation with the chairmen and ranking members of the 
     Senate committees of jurisdiction) and one such member to be 
     appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives (in 
     consultation with the chairmen and ranking members of the 
     House committees of jurisdiction) within 60 days of the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (5) Two members who are elected members of school boards 
     for, superintendents from, or teachers employed by, school 
     districts in eligible counties; one such member to be 
     appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate (in 
     consultation with the chairmen and ranking members of the 
     Senate committees of jurisdiction) and one such member to be 
     appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives (in 
     consultation with the chairmen and ranking members of the 
     House committees of jurisdiction) within 60 days of the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Geographic Representation.--In making appointments 
     under paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (b), the President 
     pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives shall seek to ensure that the Advisory 
     Committee members are selected from geographically diverse 
     locations.
       (d) Organization of Advisory Committee.--
       (1) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Advisory Committee 
     shall be selected from among the members appointed pursuant 
     to paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (b).
       (2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the membership of the 
     Advisory Committee shall be filled in the same manner as 
     required by subsection (b). A vacancy shall not impair the 
     authority of the remaining members to perform the functions 
     of the Advisory Committee under section 303.
       (3) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory Committee 
     who are not officers or employees of the United States, while 
     attending meetings or other events held by the Advisory 
     Committee or at which the members serve as representatives of 
     the Advisory Committee or while otherwise serving at the 
     request of the Chairperson, shall each be entitled to receive 
     compensation at a rate not in excess of the maximum rate of 
     pay for grade GS-18, as provided in the General Schedule 
     under section 5532 of title 5, United States Code, including 
     traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular places 
     of business shall each be reimbursed for travel expenses, 
     including per diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by 
     section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in 
     Government service employed intermittently.
       (e) Staff and Rules.--
       (1) Executive director.--The Advisory Committee shall have 
     an Executive Director, who shall be appointed (without regard 
     to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service) by the Advisory 
     Committee and serve at the pleasure of the Advisory 
     Committee. The Executive Director shall report to the 
     Advisory Committee and assume such duties as the Advisory 
     Committee may assign. The Executive Director shall be paid at 
     a rate not in excess of pay for grade GS-18, as provided in 
     the General Schedule under 5332 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Other staff.--In addition to authority to appoint 
     personnel subject to the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, governing appointments to the competitive service, and 
     to pay such personnel in accordance with the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     the Advisory Committee shall have authority to enter into 
     contracts with private or public organizations which may 
     furnish the Advisory Committee with such administrative and 
     technical personnel as may be necessary to carry out the 
     functions of the Advisory Committee under section 303. To the 
     extent practicable, such administrative and technical 
     personnel, and other necessary support services, shall be 
     provided for the Advisory Committee by the Chief of the 
     Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (3) Committee rules.--The Advisory Committee may establish 
     such procedural and administrative rules as are necessary for 
     the performance of its functions under section 303.
       (f) Federal Agency Cooperation.--The heads of the 
     departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive 
     branch of the Federal Government shall cooperate with the 
     Advisory Committee in the performance of its functions under 
     subsection (c) and shall furnish to the Advisory Committee 
     information which the Advisory Committee deems necessary to 
     carry out such functions.

     SEC. 303. FUNCTIONS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Development of Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall develop 
     recommendations for policy or legislative initiatives (or 
     both) regarding alternatives for, or substitutes to, the 
     short-term payments required by title I in order to provide a 
     long-term method to generate annual payments to eligible 
     States and eligible counties at or above the full payment 
     amount.
       (2) Reporting requirements.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Advisory Committee 
     shall submit to the Senate committees of jurisdiction and the 
     House committees of jurisdiction a final report containing 
     the recommendations developed under this subsection. The 
     Advisory Committee shall submit semiannual progress reports 
     on its activities and expenditures to the Senate committees 
     of jurisdiction and the House committees of jurisdiction 
     until the final report has been submitted.
       (b) Guidance for Committee.--In developing the 
     recommendations required by subsection (a), the Advisory 
     Committee shall--
       (1) evaluate the method by which payments are made to 
     eligible States and eligible counties under title I and the 
     use of such payments;
       (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the local advisory 
     committees established pursuant to section 205; and
       (3) consider the impact on eligible States and eligible 
     counties of revenues derived from the historic multiple use 
     of the Federal lands.
       (c) Monitoring and Related Reporting Activities.--The 
     Advisory Committee shall monitor the payments made to 
     eligible States and eligible counties pursuant to title I and 
     submit to the Senate committees of jurisdiction and the House 
     committees of jurisdiction an annual report describing the 
     amounts and sources of such payments and containing such 
     comments as the Advisory Committee may have regarding such 
     payments.
       (d) Testimony.--The Advisory Committee shall make itself 
     available for testimony or comments on the reports required 
     to be submitted by the Advisory Committee and on any 
     legislation or regulations to implement any recommendations 
     made in such reports in any congressional hearings or any 
     rulemaking or other administrative decision process.

     SEC. 304. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT REQUIREMENTS.

       Except as may be provided in this title, the provisions of 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 305. TERMINATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       The Advisory Committee shall terminate three years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 306. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the payments to eligible 
     States and eligible counties required by title I should be 
     replaced by a long-term solution to generate payments 
     conforming to the guidance provided by section 303(b) and 
     that any promulgation of regulations or enactment of 
     legislation to establish such method should be completed 
     within two years after the date of submission of the final 
     report required by section 303(a).

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     are necessary to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 402. TREATMENT OF FUNDS AND REVENUES.

       Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in section 401, funds transferred to a 
     Secretary concerned under section 206, and revenues described 
     in section 208(a) shall be in addition to any other annual 
     appropriations for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
     Management.

     SEC. 403. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 6903(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (J) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (K), respectively; and

[[Page 28220]]

       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 1999;''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he or she has printed in the designated 
place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered 
read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


          Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. George Miller of California:
       Page 24, line 5, insert after ``Federal laws'' the 
     following: ``(including the Act of March 3, 1931, commonly 
     known as the Davis-Bacon Act)''.
       Page 24, lien 16, strike ``T'' and insert ``subject to 
     paragraph (1), to''.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I will be brief on 
this amendment.
  Under this legislation, which many of my colleagues are supporting, 
and in their efforts to try and address a real problem about support 
for school finance in a number of rural areas and resource dependent 
areas, they have provided for a set-aside of some 20 percent of the 
money to be used in local projects. And in the consideration of that, 
in the secretarial approval of those projects, they state that ``the 
Secretary concerned shall carry out all projects in compliance with all 
Federal laws, rules, and Federal regulations.'' I would add to that 
including the law known as the Davis-Bacon Act.
  The reason for doing this is it is not quite clear after discussing 
with a number of people, including some of the staff on the committee, 
exactly the impact of the stewardship contracts under which these would 
be let, which I think is an effort to try to make sure that the 
Government, in fact, gets both the best quality work and gets the best 
price for that work and provides some flexibility in making that 
determination.
  I just want to make sure that, in that process, since this will be 
done with Federal dollars, that we do not undermine the prevailing wage 
provisions of the existing law. So that is why I am offering this 
amendment. I understand it may be acceptable to the committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, this we view as a technical amendment. We think the 
bill's language is clear on its face, that it includes all Federal 
laws, which would include the Davis-Bacon Act. But since it is, in our 
view, simply surplusage and that the language in the bill is not 
changed by the Miller amendment and it does nothing to affect the 
provisions related to the Davis-Bacon Act and it is not the intent of 
the language to exclude the Davis-Bacon Act, we do not object to the 
adoption of this amendment, which is technical in nature.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       Page 12, strike line 11 and all that follows through line 9 
     on page 13, and insert the following:
       (d) Election to Reserve Portion of Payment for Title II 
     Projects.--Each eligible county that receives a distribution 
     under subsection (c) for a fiscal year may elect to reserve 
     up to 20 percent of the funds for expenditure in accordance 
     with title II.
       Page 14, strike lines 13 through 22, and insert the 
     following:
       Election to Reserve Portion of Payment for Title II 
     Projects.--Each eligible county to which a payment is made 
     under subsection (a) for a fiscal year may elect to reserve 
     up to 20 percent of the payment for expenditure in accordance 
     with title II.
       Page 15, strike lines 9 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       (B) elects under section 102(d) or 103(d) to expend a 
     portion of those funds in the manner provided in this title.
       (2) Project funds.--The term ``project funds'' means all 
     funds reserved by an eligible county under section 102(d) or 
     103(d) for expenditure in accordance with this title.
       Page 33, lines 18 and 19, strike ``the funds reserved by 
     the county under section 102(d)(1)(A) or 103(d)(1)'' and 
     insert ``25-percent payments or 50-percent payments''.
       Page 34, lines 8 and 9, strike ``the funds reserved by the 
     county under section 102(d)(1)(A) or 103(d)(1)'' and insert 
     ``25-percent payments or 50-percent payments''.
       Page 35, line 24, strike ``section 102(d)(1)(B)'' and 
     insert ``section 102)d)''.
       Page 36, line 6, strike ``section 103(d)(2) and insert 
     ``section 103(d)''.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, as I begin, I wanted to 
acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  I think we all share the same goal, which is to provide the secure 
and steady and consistent funding for that important resource known as 
our public schools. And in that spirit, I believe that the amendment 
that I offer is a simple one but an important one. It would give local 
discretion on the use of the payments that would go to local 
governments under the bill.

                              {time}  1430

  As I said earlier, the amendment would not make the bill perfect. In 
fact, I do not believe it would make the bill acceptable so far as I am 
concerned, because it does not break the link between Federal 
assistance and timber harvests. But the amendment would at least mean 
that a county would not be forced to spend 20 percent of its payment 
for doing things that otherwise would be funded under the budgets of 
the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.
  That is what the bill as it stands now would do. It says that if a 
county gets more than $100,000 under the bill, that 20 percent of the 
total payment would have to be used for public land projects. But 
suppose that a county had other priorities. Suppose that the school 
board and county commissioners had reviewed their needs and decided 
that they wanted to spend all of the payments on schools and roads. 
Remember, under current law that is where the money would go. But under 
this bill, the answer would be, too bad. The bill says that Congress 
does not want them to have that choice.
  My amendment would provide that discretion. It would allow a local 
government to use up to 20 percent of its payment for work on the 
Federal lands, but it would not require it. It would let the local 
officials decide for themselves. I think that is the right thing to do, 
regardless of how much money might be involved. But this is not a 
matter of theory, Madam Chairman.
  We could be talking about some substantial sums, especially for some 
of our rural counties. Let me give my colleagues an example. Based on 
Forest Service estimates from 1998 payment levels, under the bill one 
county in my district, Clear Creek County, stands to lose its 
discretion over $100,000. In a rural county like Clear Creek, that is 
real money. As I look at other counties in Colorado, they might be in 
the same boat. In fact, 22 counties would have less to spend on roads 
and schools under this bill than under current law according to the 
same Forest Service estimates based on 1998 payments.
  I will not list them all, but I will mention that this bill's Federal 
mandate would override local discretion

[[Page 28221]]

over more than $22,000 in Park County; $27,000 in Gunnison County; and 
more than $53,000 in Mesa County. And the bill would impose its Federal 
mandate on Grand County to the tune of $336,000.
  Those other three counties I just mentioned are not in my district; 
but even if they were, I do not think their commissioners would agree 
if I said the Federal Government knew better about how they should 
spend their money than they do. In fact, I do not think that they 
should have to make that choice, which is why my amendment would let 
them decide how to spend those funds regardless of how much money is 
involved.
  Madam Chairman, I think there are many serious questions about this 
whole idea of getting local governments into the business of paying for 
projects on Federal lands. But my amendment does not deal with those 
questions. It is much more limited. In fact, it seems to me that the 
bill's supporters should welcome this amendment. After all, the bill is 
called the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act 
of 1999; and this is a self-determination amendment, pure and simple.
  Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. I would again 
mention that I think it is not the dollars we are talking about; it is 
the principle of local control.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment is the poison pill that many of the folks who 
have spoken on the floor here thus far have talked about. This 
legislation, the substitute that I offered that was made the underlying 
text as a part of the rule, is a very carefully crafted compromise 
involving Members of the House, Members of the Senate. It involves 
Members of the Republican side of the aisle, Members of the Democratic 
side of the aisle. It involves Members representing environmental 
interests; it involves Members representing local government interests, 
and they are joined by the 800-member coalition that constitutes 
hundreds and hundreds of local county governments and local school 
boards that are opposed to this amendment and which support the 
underlying legislation because they want to see something done on this 
issue.
  This amendment is a deal-breaker. This amendment will cause this 
entire process to collapse. We will not get this bill through the 
Senate; we will not get it signed into law unless we keep this 
carefully crafted compromise together. This is a compromise that I 
worked on very extensively with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  It is an agreement that is a crafted compromise, drafted in 
conjunction with Senators Craig and Wyden in the Senate to assure swift 
action in the Senate. This amendment would undermine this compromise, 
pushing the effort to stabilize payments to the States and counties 
back months and perhaps for good. Local education, county, labor and 
business interests have studied both the Goodlatte compromise and the 
Udall-Vento amendment and have determined that the Goodlatte compromise 
is a better idea. The National Education Association, the National 
Association of Counties, labor, the United States Chamber of Commerce, 
the Forest Counties and Schools Coalition representing 800 counties, 
5,000 school districts, 1.2 million school children in rural America 
have all supported the Goodlatte compromise and oppose the Udall-Vento 
amendment. I would urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was 
curious what the objection was to increasing local control as my 
amendment intends to do.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Counties want to have the connection between not only 
the people that live in that county but the land in that county, and 
the connection that exists now and as a part of this compromise 
continues with the 20 percent that will be dealt with by members of the 
community. Local government, environmental organizations, business 
organizations, and the Forest Service will sit down together and using 
those funds, plan how they can best promote the environmental health of 
their county and the economic health of their county. We are determined 
to continue that connection between the federally owned land and those 
people who live in those counties and who want to, knowing that their 
livelihood comes from that, want to make sure that that connection 
persists.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If I might, I would point out that the 
amendment would allow that to occur, those kinds of collaborative 
efforts could continue to take place, but they just would not require 
as the bill now does that 20 percent of those dollars would have to go 
to those kinds of collaborations. It would give the commissioners, the 
school boards, the option of doing those kinds of projects but also if 
they felt their schools needed all of those resources, that they could 
be applied in that fiscal year to those resources, and the next year 
they might put them into a bike path project or into ecotourism or 
whatever the opportunity might be.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, let me just say to the gentleman 
that it is a 100-year-old connection that we are talking about here 
that is being preserved. A substantial change has been made to assure 
that those counties will get, and will get quickly, the kind of support 
that they need. But if this decoupling that the gentleman is advocating 
takes place in the legislation, it will go asunder in the United States 
Senate and nothing will happen and we will be at the current levels of 
support that currently exist.
  So I have to strongly oppose the amendment and support the strong 
nationwide coalition of Members from 39 States who want to make sure 
that that connection between the land and the counties continues and 
that we not get into this business of each year having the decision 
made in each county whether or not that is going to go forward.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodlatte was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I would just say that I would 
hazard a guess, there is no district in America that is more affected 
by this legislation than mine. I think we could run the numbers and 
probably find that to be clearly the case. Every county commission 
within that district supports this legislation. And, further, I want 
this kind of a guarantee, because we have got some habitat improvement 
projects and other activities that need to take place on those 
watersheds, in those communities and in those counties that I want to 
see take place.
  Normally, I would be one to advocate for local option and local 
control, but this is part of a bigger compromise that will help the 
environment, it will help our schools, it will help our counties; and 
nobody in this House is probably more affected by this legislation than 
I and the counties that I represent.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I believe that we are all working toward the 
same goal. My amendment would not serve as a decoupling mechanism. In 
fact, I think we still have more work to do in that particular way. I 
would again just emphasize that I think we are trying to reach the same 
outcomes. My amendment would make sure that local communities have the 
ultimate say in how those moneys are used year to year, and they could 
take part in the kinds of projects my good colleague and friend from 
Oregon suggests, but it just would not require that they take part in 
those projects.

[[Page 28222]]


  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just say, following on to 
what the gentleman from Colorado has just said about his amendment, as 
you look through even in the cases of the counties that get more than 
$100,000 so the set-aside kicks in, in a number of instances the set-
aside is $8,000, $15,000, $10,000, it is a very small amount of money. 
To believe that you are going to somehow initiate a big comprehensive 
planning operation on the forest for $8,000, while $8,000 would buy you 
a lot of textbooks or contribute to one of 100,000 teachers----
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I was in a county in the 
gentleman's State earlier this year in which on one timber sale, $2 
million was going to go to the county, which would require that in this 
instance 20 percent of that, or $400,000.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I understand that. That is fine.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. George Miller of California, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Goodlatte was allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We have no problem with you doing 
this. The question is mandating it. We were out here a couple of weeks 
ago, we were all for Ed-flex, because in many instances you have small 
programs that cost you more to administer than the benefit. The 
gentleman from Colorado's point is that the county can then make that 
option. If you have got $400,000 coming in out of $2 million in 
receipts, you can probably do something meaningful on the forest. If 
you have $8,000 coming in with all due respect, you may be better off 
helping the schools buy the textbooks or supplies where you can get a 
dollar-to-dollar benefit instead of engaging in some kind of mythical 
planning process when you only have 8 to 10 to $12,000. That is the 
benefit of his amendment.
  It goes for the most efficient use in those counties where the set-
aside turns out to be relatively small. Obviously in some counties in 
Oregon and probably even in California where you have substantial 
receipts, this option may make some sense. But that is because you are 
playing with the critical mass of dollars where you can create some of 
those projects on the forest that might even benefit----
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, under $100,000 they can opt out. 
Under $100,000, that is $20,000, to use the gentleman's example.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Counties that are over $100,000, 
when they opt out, the 20 percent amounts to 7, 8, $9,000; so it is a 
relatively small amount of money. They ought to have the option to use 
the money as they see fit, which may mean they go into this program but 
also----
  Mr. GOODLATTE. When the total receipts by the county are under 
$100,000, they do have the option to opt out.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. But over $100,000, they get $100,000 
and 20 percent is $20,000. The list of set-asides is here, and some of 
it is as low as $8,000. So they could put that into their schools in a 
more efficient fashion. That is the argument here.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. If it is over $100,000, it is going to be $20,000 plus 
20 percent of whatever the amount over $100,000 was, so I do not see 
where the gentleman's example would ever apply.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado.
  First of all, I think it is important to know that the numbers that 
he was quoting earlier in his presentation during the amendment would 
be numbers that that county might receive if the bill were written in a 
different way. It is not dollars that they are receiving now. He is 
assuming that it was written so that they would get 100 percent of the 
3-year average rather than the 80 percent, so it is a little bit 
misleading to say they are going to be losing that money. They do not 
get it now under current law.
  The other thing that I want to say about the community projects is 
that this was an idea that was brought to us by some folks in the other 
body. We thought it was a good idea, because what has happened in our 
local communities as we have engaged in this bitter battle over forest 
management practices, and we have recognized the impact that it has had 
on our local economies and our local schools, is that many people in 
those local economies have engaged in a bitter and divisive battle with 
the local environmentalist community. They have created some real hard 
feelings in the communities.
  I think the intent of this community projects idea is to get 
everybody to come back to working together, to figure out how we can 
use this money in a way that benefits the whole community. I can see in 
some of the areas in the district that I represent in north Florida, 
that we have had a community that has been totally timber-dependent 
basically. That timber industry now is gone. We are trying to move to 
an ecotourism industry, for instance. We could use some of these 
dollars to help develop that, bike paths have been mentioned here, 
search and rescue missions, fire protection, those kinds of things that 
are needed in the national forest whose costs now are borne by the 
local governments. I would urge strongly that the House reject this 
amendment, because it would kick out of balance this very fine 
compromise that we have here and could cost the bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I point out during the debate on the rule the 
gentleman from Colorado indicated that even if this amendment were to 
pass, he would still oppose the bill. So clearly this is nothing more 
than a poison pill to derail this effort to help get some funds back to 
these local counties and to make sure that we still maintain this 
compact that has existed for 100 years between the Federal Government, 
the owner of in some instances 60, 70, 80 percent of the land in some 
of these counties, and the people who are trying to make a living in 
these counties.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is a very good 
point. I want to again say this provision, title II, could go a long 
way toward restoring some cooperative spirit in our communities among 
some groups that have not liked each other very much. I would strongly 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I want to respond to my friend from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte). I want to be frank and up front with my comments on the 
rule about where I stood on the legislation itself. I think, again, we 
are all striving to find a way to provide consistent and steady funding 
for school districts, particularly in rural areas. I stand shoulder to 
shoulder with the gentleman in attempts to make sure that we do that as 
soon as possible, frankly.
  As far as my amendment being a poison pill, the gentleman may wish to 
characterize it that way, but I think it is offered in a spirit of 
local control and the principle that if an area wants to spend the 
money on the projects that are suggested, it can. However, it is not 
required to. I do not think in my opinion that that should be enough to 
kill what is an important effort, and a sincere effort on your parts, 
to meet the needs of these rural areas.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I strongly oppose the 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall), and encourage the other Members to vote against it.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.

[[Page 28223]]

  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Udall amendment, and I 
commend the Goodlatte compromise legislation that is in front of us. A 
lot of work went into this and there is a huge amount of support across 
the Nation to see this bill through, to make sure that we have better 
support for our schools, not just in the Western States, but across the 
Nation where these programs have impacted all of our States.
  There is no topic that has greater ramifications for the schools in 
my State than this particular issue, because my State is generally a 
rural State. In the last year alone, funds distributed to Idaho 
counties from Federal timber receipts declined by 44 percent.
  One can imagine the impact in these small rural counties that it has 
on schools. Idaho County alone lost $1.3 million. Now, when we are 
dealing with trillions of dollars here, $1.3 million seems like small 
change. But to an Idaho county, where our schools are involved, it is 
not small change.
  This follows many years of similar reductions because of the 
reduction in activity on the forest lands. The effects on local schools 
have been very staggering. In some of our schools, school services like 
nursing and art and music programs, athletics, counseling, and lunch 
programs have been eliminated.
  Madam Chairman, in some of our schools in Idaho they have actually 
reduced the number of days they can keep the schools open. We have some 
schools now operating only 4 days. In other areas, local school boards 
are actually having to make decisions with regard to the future of 
certain schools in their counties.
  Now, is this what we really want for our rural children with regard 
to the uncertainty of their educational future? H.R. 2389 will give the 
rural children these opportunities that they need, and it does it 
without artificially severing the historic partnership between counties 
and the national forests that began back in 1908.
  Two days ago, President Clinton addressed over 400 of the Nation's 
top teachers and called on Congress to adequately fund public education 
in the inner cities. Well, two months ago this same President also 
visited urban schools and stated that he wanted to offer a hand up, 
rather than a handout.
  Well, by opposing H.R. 2389, he, this administration, this President, 
is saying that urban schools are important, but rural schools are not. 
It is a bad message.
  We must make all children a priority in this Nation, and that is what 
H.R. 2389 does. Please join me and the National Education Association, 
the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 
the National Forest, Counties and Schools Coalition in reaffirming our 
commitment to our American children in rural America, as well as the 
children in urban America. Please support H.R. 2389.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I first want to point out that I had received 
correspondence yesterday from the League of Conservation Voters, which 
has sent correspondence in opposition to this measure. Of course, I 
joined them in opposition to the measure and in support of my colleague 
from Colorado's amendment that would provide discretion to the counties 
that received this money as to how they would utilize it.
  I understand for counties that receive over $100,000 and those under 
the O and C lands, that there is no discretion, that they mandate that 
20 percent of these dollars would be used for these special projects 
which are initiated by the advisory committees and submitted to the 
respective Secretary for funding.
  Now, I submit that all of this advocacy about education is very 
interesting, but the first thing you are doing with these dollars, at 
least in these counties that get over $100,000, which is most of the 
counties I expect affected by this, is taking 20 percent of it away and 
putting it into other special projects.
  This is sort of a grant program that is embedded in here into this 
initiative. What it does, of course, is set up some more government in 
terms of dozens of advisory committees who would basically have to 
initiate, and, therefore, would have the power to submit or not submit. 
So basically it is only up to them.
  I do not know about what correspondence my colleagues are getting 
from back home; but the last time I read mine, it did not say we need 
more government structure back here, our school boards are not good 
enough to do the job, we need more people that are in these positions 
to make these decisions; that we want to take power away from school 
board, take power away from county commissioners, and create special 
advisory committees which would control 20 percent of the receipts that 
we would otherwise receive from having national forests in our area, 
because, of course, now we are not talking about production anymore in 
the forests, not talking about the 25 percent in terms of production in 
the good years and bad years. You are trying to eliminate the roller 
coaster. I appreciate that issue. But the fact is you are just taking 
that money out of there, and you are objecting to the Udall amendment 
which would give discretion to the county commissioners to do that.
  In other words, this is one of those amendments that I hear often 
reported by some colleagues in this chamber as Washington knows best; 
one size fits all.
  These are the types of discussions that we have had. Of course, this 
grant program, this initiative that is buried in this bill, is going to 
completely fly under the cover here, under the radar, in terms of what 
goes down. So I do not think we need these dozens of advisory 
committees.
  But the very least you could do is, if one suggests the counties 
support this, is let them make the decision locally as to how those 
dollars are spent. They might have some of their own ideas about how to 
use this, because you are guaranteeing 1 dollar out of 5 will not be 
used for schools by virtue of the way the resolution is written in most 
of the counties that are affected.
  You are ensuring that every project, of course, has to be approved by 
the Secretary of Agriculture, or Interior, I guess, in the case of the 
O and C lands, but the fact is that that is setting the Secretary up 
for confrontation. And I do not think that these amendments in this 
particular mode you are talking about, and I appreciate the good 
intentions of bringing everyone together, holding hands and talking 
about how they are going to get along; but the fact of the matter is 
the way this is structured, I can tell you right now you are going to 
have a lot of proposals that are going to come up here; the Secretary 
is going to decide you need an environmental impact statement; you need 
an environmental assessment. He has just so many days to make the 
decisions. Those costs have to be borne by the local communities. I 
just think it is an unworkable proposition.
  We do not need more government. At the very least you can improve 
this bill somewhat, I do not think it is saveable, as I said earlier, 
but you can improve it somewhat by letting the local governments or the 
counties make the decisions on how they are going to use these 
resources.
  This bill has many flaws to it. This is one very obvious flaw. I 
think there are many other problems with the bill, but I would think 
that in presenting this particular solution, that you would do a lot 
better letting the counties, rather than just superimposing this 
program all across the forests, there is no working model any place, 
this is not a pilot, this is going to go into effect in each county and 
the counties that receive the dollars under this bill.
  So, there is no working model of this in any place that I am aware 
of, and I think it is not easily demonstrable that it is workable. So 
there are many provisions written into this that I think are unwieldy. 
I think at least letting the counties make this decision and avoiding 
the Washington-knows-best type of model here would serve you much 
better. So I would urge Members to vote for the Udall amendment.

[[Page 28224]]


  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I want to speak in opposition to this amendment and 
for the community project section of this bill. I do so for one main 
reason, and that is that this bill, as it is so crafted, gives 
flexibility for local governments to do local forest management plans, 
like Quincy Library groups. This amendment would prevent that from 
happening.
  The Quincy Library group, as you may well recall, was something that 
developed in the Town of Quincy after the Spotted Owl wars, and the 
President came out and said, ``Why do you not solve your problems 
locally?''
  That gave the incentive for local environmentalists, local business 
folks, local government leaders, to sit in what was the Quincy Library 
group, and they met there because they could not shout at each other at 
a library, and they actually got together and put together a forest 
management plan that worked for the local communities and also provided 
for better forest health than the current law that applied in that 
land.
  Now, this is a wonderful plan; and I think that the bill as it is 
crafted allows for flexibility in the local governments to develop 
Quincy Library groups all across the country. I might remind this body 
too that the Quincy Library group, the forest plan that resulted from 
that, when it was brought to a vote on the floor of the House, passed 
429 to 1 and is currently being stymied by the administration because 
it drives a wedge into the local and national leaders of the 
environmental community; and the national environmental leaders are 
threatened for the loss of power, even at the expense of a plan that 
provides better forest health. I would submit that is really what is 
going on here.
  I think it is ironic that the national environmental lobby is opposed 
to a bill such as this, even when the possibility of local forest 
management plans will result in better forest health. That is why I 
oppose this amendment and urge for the passage of the bill as it 
stands.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I wanted to just for the 
record clarify that my amendment would not prevent these kinds of local 
projects that the gentleman mentioned and that have great success in 
some areas. You draw attention to the Quincy Library model.
  What it would require, it would not prevent a county from deciding to 
undertake these kinds of projects. It just would not require that a 
county would have to spend up to 20 percent of the monies allocated on 
these kinds of projects.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, the bill allows 
funding for counties should they propose to set up local Quincy Library 
plans. I agree with the gentleman, it does not prevent that from 
happening; but in poor counties like the one I come from, it gives the 
flexibility to local officials to decide to use some of that money to 
fund a Quincy Library group plan locally. I do submit that that is what 
has got the national environmental lobby scared to death, because it is 
a threat to their power base.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Again, the law as it is now written and as I 
read it, it would be a mandate that these local communities would have 
to spend 20 percent, no less, on these kinds of projects.
  I would also submit that a number of the national environmental 
groups very much want to find a solution to this situation, where 
timber receipts are tied to school funding, but they are not 
necessarily driven by a fear of additional Quincy Library groups.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I would submit 
that the national environmental lobbies' primary reason for opposing 
this bill is because it gives local communities the ability to fund 
Quincy Library type groups in their district. I submit that is why the 
national environmental lobby is scared to death of this bill. That is 
why I support it wholeheartedly and oppose the amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Udall amendment.
  It is interesting to listen to the debate thus far, and what we see 
is those who offer the amendment are opposed and will vote against the 
legislation, no matter whether the amendment goes on or not.
  In fact, it is important here to understand that when the delicate 
compromise was put together on this bill, the provision that we are now 
debating, the 20 percent set-aside for local projects, when that was 
placed in this delicate compromise, it was a major concession by the 
county officials, the school officials who formed the coalition that 
represents the group that is pushing the passage of this bill.
  I think it is important for us to understand that the passage of this 
bill will be a major victory, not only for the counties and schools 
that depend on forest revenues to run their counties and their school 
districts, but this bill will be a major victory for the 
environmentalists, because the formula placed in this bill will 
minimize the impact of harvesting of timber in our national forests, on 
our county budgets and school district budgets.
  That effect will remove our counties and school districts from the 
national debate over the management of our national forests, and that 
clearly is a big victory for the environmental community.
  With regard to the specific amendment being offered, I think it is 
interesting to note that if we survey the national battle over forest 
management policy, what we will find is more often than not the only 
discussion over that policy occurs in the courthouse when somebody 
files a suit, as happened in my own district in East Texas, where 
currently we are under an injunction where we cannot harvest timber, 
creating a severe financial hardship for my counties and school 
districts.
  What this amendment does, it basically requires the interested 
parties to get together and talk about the national forest, to talk 
about the proper utilization of it. The language was carefully crafted 
to ensure protection of environmental interests, because the advisory 
committee that will make a determination, with the approval of the 
Secretary, of what the 20 percent will be spent on locally consists of, 
and I am reading from the bill, ``Local resource users, environmental 
interests, forest workers, organized labor, elected county officials, 
school officials, or teachers.''
  That is the coalition, that is the advisory group that will make the 
determination as to what happens with the 20 percent.
  So I say it was a major concession on the part of county officials 
and school officials to accept this language, which is a pro-
environmental language section of the bill which ironically is now 
being opposed by those who purport to represent the environmental 
interests.
  I say that we are at a critical point in time in the national debate 
over forest policy. To defeat this bill would give up a historic 
opportunity to strike a compromise that will end the battle that has 
been ongoing between our school districts and our counties and the 
environmental community.
  So I would urge rejection of the Udall amendment, not because it is 
offered in bad faith, but because it jeopardizes a compromise that was 
reached with environmental interests that was agreed to by the 
coalition that supports the bill in the first place, and it will 
jeopardize the future of this legislation in the Senate.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, the opponents of this legislation, the supporters of 
this amendment, have raised two objections to this legislation, two 
areas of objections. First is the downlink issue, and I believe that 
what they would really like to do is to turn our counties into

[[Page 28225]]

wards of the State, to be totally dependent upon the appropriations 
process, totally dependent upon the Federal government to fund their 
local school districts.
  I am totally opposed to doing that. That is exactly what they have 
proposed that we do, that no longer would there be a link between what 
is happening locally, what is happening with their local economy. No 
longer would they have an interest in what is happening in their local 
forests. They would now have to come, hat in hand, to the Members of 
Congress to beg for school funding. That is exactly what the downlink 
issue would do.
  Again, it would increase the power of the Federal government, 
increase the power of the individual Members of Congress, and make all 
of their local school districts beholden to the appropriations process 
that happens here in the House of Representatives, ever more powerful.
  We heard someone talk about the era of big government, and wanting no 
more big government. The truth is that this is big government in and of 
itself. All of a sudden, Members of Congress become more powerful. 
Their school board members have to come to them for funding for their 
schools. That is exactly the wrong thing we ought to be doing. Yet, it 
is one of the objections that has been brought up on this legislation.
  The second objection, which is related to this particular amendment, 
talks about the 20 percent set-aside. We wonder, how could people that 
claim to be environmentalists, people who claim to care about the 
environment, be opposed to what this legislation does?
  The real truth of it is that the national environmental groups are 
opposed to this because they need confrontation. They do not want 
solution. What happens when we get all of the local stakeholders 
together, what happens when we get somebody who actually lives in the 
community to sit down with somebody else that lives in the community 
and talk about a forest plan that actually solves the problem, is they 
come up with the solution, because people who live there, people who 
work there, people who see each other in the grocery store every day 
and whose kids go to the same school all of a sudden have to sit down 
together and come up with a solution, and they do it because they live 
there and they have something at stake.
  But the national environmental groups do not want a solution. They 
thrive on controversy. Members have all seen the letters they send out. 
If all of a sudden we had a solution they cannot raise money anymore, 
so they are opposed to finding that kind of a solution. They are 
terrified of finding a solution. What they want is they want to 
continue the controversy.
  Why did they oppose the Quincy Library group? Not because it did not 
solve the environmental problems, not because it did not solve a 
problem that was very real, that was local, that was driving the locals 
nuts. They were opposed to it because it was a solution. They were 
opposed to it because, darn it, people got together and they came up 
with a solution. It was the local resource users, the local schools, 
the local businessmen and the local environmentalists that sat down and 
came up with a solution.
  By passing this legislation as is, what we end up with is we end up 
with people all over the country, not just in Quincy, not just sitting 
down in a little library that was underfunded in an area where the 
schools are getting nowhere near the funding that they should, but it 
would be all over the country, local people would sit down and they 
would come up with a solution to solve their local problems.
  That is what we want. That is what we are trying to solve with this 
particular legislation.
  I realize that the gentleman is saying that he wants to make this 
optional, but he knows as well as I do that if we do not craft this 
legislation in the very delicate balance that we have, that all of a 
sudden, these projects just do not happen, because there is always a 
need for school funding. There is always the necessity for more money 
for local schools. That is why we try to solve it by increasing the 
money substantially.
  What he is trying to do is he is trying to take away the ability for 
them to sit down and solve these problems. That is the result of this 
amendment, and he knows it, the end result of all of this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I want to point out again that the amendment would 
only give the local entities the option. It would not require them to 
involve themselves in the kinds of I think very effective local 
decision-making processes that the gentleman talks about.
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, I realize, as I said, that the 
gentleman's amendment does not completely take away that option. But 
the practical reality of the gentleman's amendment is it does take away 
the option, because once we create that competition for funding, we 
take away that option.
  What we are attempting to do with this legislation is encourage these 
people to sit down and do the right thing and come up with local 
solutions. If the gentleman's amendment were to be adopted by this 
body, in practical reality, we take away that option. They will never 
have that option of doing that, as a direct result of what the 
gentleman is doing.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
projects of which the gentleman speaks, if they are that high a 
priority, we ought to be looking at other ways of supporting them, as 
well.
  I would remind the gentleman, in the bill there is talk of all kinds 
of other kinds of projects on Federal lands, bike paths, ecotourism. We 
should see we do that in the future.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. POMBO. Just to respond to what the gentleman is saying, Madam 
Chairman, I understand that there are a great many needs and a great 
many issues that are out there. They are very important.
  In this legislation, we are trying to take care of a very specific 
need in the education of our children in rural counties. That is the 
primary focus of what we are trying to do.
  But at the same time that all of this is going on, we have an 
administration that is talking about setting aside an additional 40 to 
60 million acres. We have them running around talking about setting 
aside hundreds of millions of dollars a year to buy more private land 
and turn it into public land. This problem is going to be exacerbated. 
This problem is only going to get worse.
  We are attempting to try to solve a very real problem with the 
education of our students in rural counties.
  Mr. PHELPS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and my good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), for providing the 
leadership of one of the few bipartisan compromises I have seen that is 
meaningful, as a new Member, to pass or at least come to this stage in 
this session.
  I am very thrilled to rise in support and be a cosponsor of this 
measure, which provides new hope for struggling rural school districts 
across the country.
  I respectfully rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend, a new 
Member, who shares a commitment to strong funding for education, both 
of us do. I know that he has proven and will prove to be that.
  But my Southern Illinois district is home to the Shawnee National 
Forest, which covers 8 of the 27 counties I represent. Any Member with 
Federal land

[[Page 28226]]

in his or her district knows that for centuries these counties have 
depended on Federal payments to compensate for a diminished local 
property tax base.
  The Forest Service has historically shared a portion of its receipts 
with counties that include large tracts of Forest Service lands. 
Unfortunately, many counties have seen these payments decline 
drastically in recent years due to reductions in logging and other 
revenue-generating activities.
  Madam Chairman, I understand the need to alter our forest management 
practice to reflect increased concerns for habitat protection and 
greater use of forests for recreation. However, our children should not 
be forced to suffer when these changes result in a shortfall in funding 
for schools and other basic needs.
  H.R. 2389 promises that rural forest communities will once again be 
able to depend on adequate and consistent payment for county schools 
and roads, regardless of forest management decisions over which they 
have no control.
  Under this bill, Illinois will enjoy a 68 percent increase in the 
payments it receives from the Forest Service. Because H.R. 2389 
promises counties the higher of either of their 25 percent annual 
payment or their high 3-year average payment, no State and no county 
will lose money under this legislation.
  It is also important to note that the final version of this measure 
represents a compromise carefully crafted by rural communities, 
education groups, business leaders, and labor organizations. They all 
have agreed that this legislation provides an effective solution to a 
growing problem, allowing for the improvement of schools and local 
infrastructure while stakeholders and policymakers work toward a 
permanent resolution to the county payment issue.

                              {time}  1515

  Madam Chairman, this legislation is critical to rural communities 
across the country, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
its passage.
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let me 
say why. First of all, we have a lousy policy in the United States. It 
is an addiction policy. It is addiction where we say to schools they 
have to be addicted to cutting publicly-owned trees in order to have 
enough money to run their school. Congress has made it that way and it 
should have never been that way.
  That addiction to cutting trees is because the more trees that are 
cut the more revenue that can be generated. Now, take rural schools in 
agricultural communities, they are not addicted to how much wheat is 
cut or corn is cut.
  This is a foolish policy. We say that if one is a school in a 
National Forest county, that they have to be in favor of cutting as 
much timber as they possibly can in publicly-owned forests, National 
Forests. This does not apply to State forests. This does not apply to 
private lands that are cut, only to National Forests.
  There is a debate going on of why we have this silly policy of 
addicting schools to forest timber harvests. That is why the President 
has said let us cure this addiction; let us delink the funding of 
schools to the cutting of trees. It is the only area in the United 
States where public policy has this linkage. It is foolish.
  Now, the proponents of this bill, and I think we are moving in the 
right direction, are trying to do something about it but they want to 
keep people a little bit addicted. They want to keep that 20 percent 
set aside by saying, with this money it can be used but remember the 
demand is whether it is going to be used for an ecotourism trail, fine, 
how much revenue is that going to generate versus revenue to cut more 
trees? We know where the interests are going to be. They are going to 
say let us spend that money to promote more tree cutting. That is not 
delinkage. That is not trying to cure the addiction.
  This amendment does that. This amendment says if one is interested in 
schools in the United States, then give all of this money to schools 
because that is what this bill is about, funding schools. So this silly 
idea that part of that can be set aside and it will be delinked, and 
will essentially get schools off the addiction, is totally wrong. I 
support 100 percent this amendment. If this amendment fails we ought 
not to be passing the bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that 
I think we should delink trees and schools, but I want to make sure all 
of the body understands that my amendment does not go that far. It just 
says when the money is delivered to the county's doorstep that the 
counties and those elected officials and those decisionmakers decide 
how it is spent; that there is no requirement that 20 percent be used 
on projects on Federal lands.
  It is about local control. It is about making sure that the people on 
the ground make the decisions about whether that money is used for 
schools or for roads or for a Quincy Library effort.
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
reminding me that he still has that local control because, frankly, 
schools in the United States are funded by property taxes and the only 
reason we are in this is because some States have still made those 
schools totally dependent on property taxes, so when there is 
federally-owned land they do not have a lot of property taxes.
  In California, it has shifted because we do not do that by property 
taxes anymore. The State funds the schools. Those counties that still 
have Federal property have some impact, but do not think that this is a 
bill where one is going to try to get schools totally and fully 
financed as long as they are linked to cutting trees. That is the wrong 
policy for the United States.
  We should not be having our National Forests be the only way we can 
fund an adequate education in the United States.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, just in brief response to my good friend from 
California, we have major problems in our forests today. I represent 11 
National Forests. Particularly in California, where we have stopped 
fires since the early 1900s and we have forests that the Forest Service 
says are 2 and 3 and 4 times denser than they have been historically, 
we have forests that are burning down, forests that we can use some of 
that wood to provide the wood product, the paper product that our 
Nation needs, and at the same time we have extremists within some of 
the environmental movements that would not allow us to remove one 
single tree, even if it is dead, from our National Forests, and that 
really stands at the crux of the problem here today.
  Madam Chairman, on behalf of the rural school children in my 
district, I rise in strong opposition to the Udall-Vento amendment 
which will gut the substance of this bill.
  The Northern California District I represent contains all or part of 
11 National Forests. The citizens of my district have seen firsthand 
how the Clinton-Gore administration's locking up of our National Forest 
through their zero-cut forest management policy has virtually crippled 
educational funding in rural America.
  Allow me to provide one example of the drastic drop in school funding 
that we have seen in my district. The Plumas National Forest, which is 
tied to schools in Plumas, Butte and Sierra Counties, generated $3.1 
million in education funding in 1993. In contrast, the Plumas National 
Forest only generated $1.7 million in 1997. Because of this drastic 
drop in funding, schools have been forced to drop classes, cut programs 
and eliminate extracurricular activities.
  This bill provides the short-term stability in educational funding 
which these communities desperately need while enabling them to 
participate with their Federal agencies in a program that will help to 
begin to restore health to our overgrown National Forest System.

[[Page 28227]]

  The Udall-Vento amendment would take away this local control.
  Madam Chairman, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act was created in the spirit of the Quincy Library 
Group, a diverse coalition of local environmentalists, forest-product 
industry representatives, labor, local officials and concerned citizens 
that developed a forest health proposal for the forests surrounding the 
small rural community of Quincy, California, in my northern California 
district.
  The Quincy Group developed a forest pilot project that became the 
basis of Federal legislation, which I sponsored and which passed last 
Congress overwhelmingly by a margin of 429-to-1. The group crafted a 
way to manage our forests for health and safety while providing for a 
responsible ecologically sound level of harvesting to benefit local 
counties and schools.
  By passing the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery 
Act, this Congress recognized that local groups are better able to 
craft solutions that best benefit their local forests, communities and 
schools and that we can create win-win solutions when local 
communities, not Washington, are the source of those solutions. 
Contrary to this administration's policies, Washington does not know 
best.
  Madam Chairman, this bill will create hundreds of Quincy Library 
Groups across the country, where communities will finally be given a 
greater voice in the management of their local National Forests and the 
funding of their schools. The Udall amendment will take away this 
important voice. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment and for the bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, the last speaker on the other side raised the 
administration's position on this, and I think it is important to find 
out exactly where the administration is.
  The administration has been AWOL on this issue from the beginning. 
The administration continues to maintain the Sierra Club/Wilderness 
Society position of decoupling or nothing, and when the gentleman says 
we should not have to cut trees in order to fund schools, what the 
gentleman is overlooking is that this bill moves in the direction of 
assuring that the schools get the funds no matter what level of timber 
harvesting takes place but it continues to maintain that connection not 
just for timber harvesting.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Goodlatte, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Herger 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, the effect of that is that for 
watershed protection, for recreational projects, for environmental 
improvement of our forests by thinning and other tree-harvesting 
measures that are environmentally sound, every one of these projects 
has to comply with every single Federal law. The effect of this is to 
continue that connection.
  More importantly, even if the other side were successful in passing 
what they want, the reality will never change that these communities 
are dependent upon these forests because they use such a great portion 
of the land in those counties. So the jobs that are lost, that is 
additional loss to the schools in a particular county. When businesses 
close down and move out, that is additional tax revenue that does not 
go to the schools and so the net effect of what the gentleman is saying 
that we should have no connection between the land and its people is a 
very, very bad policy.
  This amendment should not be supported because the effect of it is 
going to disconnect people with centuries of connection to their 
communities and to their land for their economic survival.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Chairman, it is my opinion that it is the 
administration's goal to get everybody out of the forest and put rural 
communities on welfare.
  A very good point was made in that the best forest management plans 
are from local input. This administration's ill-conceived notion is 
that no management is good forest health, and that is just not true. So 
I agree and align myself with the gentleman's statement. The 
administration's goal is to get people out of Federal lands and put 
rural communities on welfare. That is the goal.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger) for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, we heard a few minutes ago my colleagues talk about 
the addiction, and what this legislation would do is it would give us 
the opportunity to break that addiction. It would give us the 
opportunity to find a solution that is driven locally.
  We hear about local control. Well, all the people that vote against 
every bill that ever comes to this floor that has anything to do with 
local control all of a sudden are talking about it. The reason they are 
talking about it is that the national environmental groups are 
terrified, they are terrified, that local people are actually going to 
get together and find a solution, because they thrive on conflict. It 
is the very existence of their organizations, and if we get local 
people together talking about the problems and finding solutions we 
will have a solution and that addiction will be broken.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, from the beginning there are people on the poles of 
this issue who have wanted this to be a debate about forest policy and 
not a debate about schools, about vital county services. I have to say 
a few of the last speakers are succeeding in dragging us back to that 
point.
  Successfully, throughout the day, we have been addressing the needs 
of the schools, the needs of counties that are more than half owned by 
the Federal Government, with few alternatives, with depressed rural 
economies, with underfunded schools, with few sheriffs deputies and 
other tremendous needs going unmet.
  What we heard out of the last few speakers, they want to assassinate 
the administration here. Well, let us get it straight. Who proposed 
giving this money to the counties and schools to begin with? It was the 
President, in the budget a year ago.
  What did the Republican majority do in the last Congress on this 
issue? Nothing. They did not even hold a hearing.
  Now, this Congress there has been some action, but not through a 
regular process. It did not go through my committee where I sit, the 
Committee on Resources, which it should have by all rights. Now we are 
down on the floor and there are people here who would just as soon blow 
this up as opposed to get something done here today.
  This is an important issue. This is not a perfect bill. It is not the 
bill I would have written. It is probably not the bill that we would 
have had if it had gone through the regular process, but it is vitally 
important and it is the best we can do today here in the United States 
House of Representatives.
  The administration has not sent a veto threat. They have raised 
concerns about parts of this bill, concerns which can be worked out 
with the Senate if it is going to be signed into law, and it needs to 
be signed into law. For the sake of the kids and the counties, it must 
pass.
  So let us not go where the poles in this debate want us to go. Let us 
not drag this out into a debate of forest policy. We can debate that 
every day of the week and we can all disagree and

[[Page 28228]]

we can come down here and just have a great time pounding on each other 
or we can do it in committee, we can do it in the hallways, in the 
cloakrooms, everywhere else. This is not about forest policy. It is 
about money. It is about vital funds for kids, for schools, for 
counties, for law enforcement, for roads and infrastructure. Please 
support passage of this bill.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Udall amendment. 
As one who has participated in this discussion for the last couple of 
years, I am glad to see us finally get to the point to where we can 
achieve what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) was just talking 
about that we need to achieve today with the amendment before us.
  At first glance, the Udall amendment seems to make sense, and I know 
that is certainly the gentleman's intention by allowing local entities 
total discretion in the use of their full payments.
  Usually, I support that kind of flexibility given to the local level 
for the use of such funds. But this is not a simple amendment as it 
appears. We have over 830 local entities that are suggesting that the 
compromise that we have heard mentioned over and over and over again is 
the best solution for us to date.
  An extensive coalition of grassroots or organizations, including 
education, rural development and labor organizations, have come 
together to determine the parameter of the payments provided. They 
recognize that local communities need a steady source of funding for 
things like education and the investment to ensure the long-term 
viability of these local communities dependent on timber resources.
  The Udall amendment, unfortunately, provides no assurance that 
funding would be available for local communities to develop a long-term 
sustainable solution for management of their forestlands. The bill will 
provide an incentive for local communities to participate and develop 
the resources available to the communities.
  Please oppose the Udall amendment. Support the bill on final passage.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, I sense that we are about to wind up here. We have 
had a spirited debate. I think the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have best said it in the 
last two statements.
  I would be remiss at this point in time if I did not pause to again 
thank the Members, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their 
role in making this happen.
  Also, I want to thank all of the staff. This is my first opportunity 
to be heavily involved in a bill like this on the floor. I want to tell 
my colleagues that we have some very professional staff here, Dave 
Tenny and Kevin Kramp from the House Committee on Agriculture, Doug 
Crandall from the House Committee on Resources, Jennifer Rich from the 
office of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), Penny Dodge from the 
office of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), David Goldston from 
the office of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), Chris 
Schloesser from my staff, and also Greg Kosta from Legislative Counsel. 
I want to give my thanks to all of those folks.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam chairman, as we come to the conclusion of the debate on this 
amendment, I quite frankly am surprised we can still see across this 
room because it has become smoke filled, and traditional smoke screens 
have all been thrown up as we debated this amendment. But let me just 
deal with some basic, pure legislative arithmetic.
  This bill, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) says, is not a 
debate about forest policy. It was not intended to be. This amendment 
is a smoke screen for that debate. Because, in all honesty, and I 
admire his candor on it, the proponent of the amendment admits that, 
even if it is adopted, he will not support the bill because he does 
want to debate the forest policy of delinkage.
  That is a debate for another day. If we debate delinkage, we ought to 
debate the issues of delinking those local sheriff's departments of 
having to provide law enforcement protection for those forests in their 
counties. We ought to debate their search and rescue efforts that cost 
them tens of thousands of dollars in very small rural communities when 
they have to find somebody who has drowned in one of our rivers or 
whose plane has crashed in one of our National Forests. But that is a 
debate for another day.
  But let us talk about the legislative math, about what is before us. 
We are talking about giving to our counties that qualify the average of 
the highest 3 years from 1984 through 1999. I want to tell my 
colleagues what that does in my State of Georgia. The debate of the 
amendment is about 80 percent or 100 percent, let me tell my colleagues 
what the real story is.
  In my State of Georgia, if they get 80 percent of the highest 3 years 
for that time frame compared with what they have gotten on average for 
the last 3 years, they will get a 250 percent increase. Now, that is 
Georgia math. 250 percent, even if it is at an 80 percent level, is a 
whole lot better than 100 percent of what one is getting now. That 
holds true for almost every State across this country.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues what the math of the amendment is; and 
that is 100 percent of nothing is still nothing. If this amendment 
passes, that is exactly what will happen. The compromise of the groups 
that have supported this bill as it now comes before us, that 
compromise will disintegrate, and the gentleman will get 100 percent, 
but it will be 100 percent of nothing. I oppose the amendment. I urge 
its defeat, and I urge the adoption of the bill as proposed.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Let me just say 
that I rise in strong support of the Udall amendment because I think it 
is an important amendment. There will be varying amounts of money that 
will be available if one has the 20 percent set-aside, a 20 percent 
that is mandated within this legislation.
  This is supposedly an argument, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) said and as has been said over the last several years as 
timber policy in this country has changed, that this is an argument 
about sustaining the rural schools and county roads and other 
obligations of county governments where one has high ownership of 
Federal lands and timber based economies.
  If this is about maintaining those schools, schools that are in dire 
straits, I sit on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we 
listen to these schools every day in that committee talk about the 
problems of rural schools, talk about the problems of the western 
United States, of rural schools.
  We just had a bipartisan effort to try to get additional money to 
those schools under ESEA to provide them additional flexibility. We 
understand that problem. It is a very real problem. The administration, 
as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) pointed out, offered 
legislation to make whole these schools without coupling it to forest 
policy.
  Why is this amendment important? This amendment is important, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), because 
it recognizes what this 20 percent set-aside is. This 20 percent set-
aside is the last gasping of the forest industry in these areas to try 
to see whether or not they can bootstrap themselves into additional 
logging in these areas, to try to tell the communities that they can 
bring in additional monies even if it is

[[Page 28229]]

contrary to the national interest of the National Forests and the 
people of this country.
  That is what this 20 percent set-aside is. That is why they fought so 
hard about it. I do not know how they got the school districts to do 
it. I do not know how they got the NEA and the School Boards 
Association and others, because supposedly the school boards are in 
such terrible trouble, that is why we need this legislation, but they 
took 20 percent of the money off the top on a mandatory mandate by the 
Congress.
  Now, we are told that, if one wants local flexibility, it is a poison 
pill. Six weeks ago, we are out here arguing that we had to give 
absolute flexibility to local governments, we had to give absolute 
flexibility to local schools. My, how far we have come from the 
Contract on America when local flexibility is a poison pill.
  But we are going to go ahead, if this legislation is passed without 
the Udall amendment, we are going to set up 150 Federal advisory 
committees. They are going to try to see whether or not they can come 
up with projects on the forests. That is not a problem.
  But do my colleagues know what? If the local community decides that 
100 percent of these receipts should go into the schools, why should 
not they be able to make that determination? They are prohibited from 
making that determination because there is a Federal mandate in this 
legislation that says the local community cannot make that decision.
  So even if they decide what is in their best interest, they do not 
get to make that decision. They do not get to make that decision. That 
is why the Udall amendment is important. Because the fact of the matter 
is, what we are trying to do here and what this formula tries to do, is 
we take the highest users of forest policy when maybe, perhaps, the 
poorest policy was at its most irresponsible level, where we were 
timbering lands far beyond their sustained yield, far beyond their 
sustained productivity.
  That is why we are in the fix we are in today, because those lands 
have been butchered in such a fashion that they no longer will yield, 
because the people 10 years ago decided they would take everything they 
could get and they would rip and run. Now these communities are left 
without the resources to educate the children.
  We happen to believe, I think most people, that those communities can 
be made whole still, and the administration proposed that. But the 
timber industry said that is not good enough. That is not good enough. 
We have got to have the means to try to come in the back door and see 
whether or not we can, again, drive the timber harvest.
  So, therefore, one has a mandatory 20 percent set-aside, a 20 percent 
set-aside against the best interest of the community if the community 
decides that its roads and its school children are important.
  Plus in some cases, as I tried to point out earlier, the amount of 
money is so small that it is hard to believe that one can efficiently 
use it. But we will set up these committees, we will have 150 of them 
on every unit of the Forest, and they can decide what to do with $8,000 
or $10,000.
  But if the community said we want to buy 10 computers or we want to 
buy software or we want to buy books or we want to contribute to the 
payment of one of the 100,000 teachers the President is trying to get 
passed, they will not be able to do that, because they will have to 
spend this 20 percent in a mandated set-aside to try to come up with 
some project on the Forest that the community, in fact, may not agree 
with.
  That is the wisdom of the Udall amendment. It is about understand 
what this 20 percent set-aside does.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, it is about 
understanding the need for communities to be able to make the full 
range of decisions that affect them. Because apparently from the debate 
and from the remarks of most of my colleagues in the affected areas, it 
becomes very clear that the money for schools today is insufficient. 
The money for schools in 1984 was insufficient.
  So now, out of an insufficient amount of money, the Federal 
Government is going to mandate that one has got to set aside 20 
percent, so the schools cannot have it, the county roads cannot have 
it, even if the community decides that is what is important.
  I suggest what we do is make a bad bill better, we vote for the Udall 
amendment, and we give these local communities the controls that they 
need and they desire and that are most beneficial for their local 
communities and for the school children in those areas.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) on some of his comments. He 
mentioned that the forests were being over cut back some years ago, and 
that is true. But as the gentleman knows, we have laws now, Federal 
laws, and certainly those in California that do not allow this anymore.
  Our predicament now is just the opposite of what it was 15 and 20 
years ago. Today we have forests that are two and three and four times 
denser than they have ever been. We have fire hazards now where we are 
having catastrophic wildfires, and we need to go in and actually thin 
out our forests, of which we are unable to do.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I would just like to 
raise the issue that I think we have been asked today to trust the 
Federal Government to take care of these 800 communities just like we 
have had in the past.
  When we look at the history of Congress and previous administrations, 
we have about a billion acres in this country in public land owned by 
the Federal Government plus local governments more. But now that 
billion acres we have a payment in lieu of tax program. If one looks at 
it, can one say we should trust Congress to take care of communities 
who have huge mounts of their acreage owned by the Federal Government?
  This year, we will appropriate $125 million for a billion acres. That 
is 12 cents an acre. In Pennsylvania where we own a lot of land, the 
State I come from, we pay $1.20 for every acre that the State owns to 
help local schools, to help local roads. That does not break the State. 
Congress has paid 12 cents an acre, and they are saying trust us, 
Congress will take care of these school districts, these law 
enforcement agencies, and these local governments who have the bulk of 
the land in their communities.
  I want to tell my colleagues, when I look at that record, I am not 
going to trust Congress. I am not going to trust future 
administrations. Everything we can do to help rural America have a base 
of government, the great amount of ownership of this Congress, of this 
country, and our closed and calloused attitude towards it, our 
unwillingness to be sensitive to the needs out there as we change 
Federal policy is historic.
  So I say today let us defeat the amendment that is before us, and let 
us pass this bill. It is a major step. It does not fix the problem, but 
it is a major step of help to rural America. It shows rural America 
that we care about their educational building in small rural 
communities that are surrounded with public land. It shows we care a 
little bit.
  I urge a defeat of this amendment and passage of the bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado. I would like to thank my good 
friend for bringing this important amendment to the floor. I believe 
that this amendment will improve H.R. 2389.
  The Udall amendment helps bring decision making closer to home. Under 
the proposed

[[Page 28230]]

bill, any county, which receives over $100,000 in safety net payments, 
will be required to use 20 percent for ``projects on federal lands.'' 
Those counties, which receive less than $100,000 in safety net 
payments, have the choice to use the entire payment for schools and 
roads or elect to use 20 percent for ``projects on federal lands.'' The 
federal government will in effect be mandating to counties, which 
receive over $100,000, how to spend 20 percent of the assistance.
  Madam Chairman, by mandating that 20 percent of the revenue be used 
for purposes other than education and transportation, we, the U.S. 
Congress, are tying the hands of local decision-makers about local 
priorities.
  The Udall amendment allows the affected county to make the decision. 
The Udall amendment allows local officials to decide if smaller class 
size is more important than a new Search and Rescue unit, whether new 
books for third graders are needed more than forest management. These 
are the difficult choices that need to be left in the hands of the 
people who are most affected by them, local communities.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 241, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 559]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--241

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bereuter
     Hulshof
     Kilpatrick
     Scarborough
     Souder
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1609

  Messrs. NORWOOD, ISAKSON, McCOLLUM, KOLBE, FRELINGHUYSEN, REYES, HALL 
of Texas, and Mrs. FOWLER, and Ms. LOFGREN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. OBEY, HORN, McHUGH, HOLDEN, DOYLE, LEACH, SCOTT, LAZIO, and 
CAMPBELL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 559, I inadvertently 
voted ``no.'' I meant to vote ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any other amendments?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having resumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2389) to 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, pursuant to House Resolution 352, she reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

[[Page 28231]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 274, 
noes 153, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 560]

                               AYES--274

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vento
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bereuter
     Hulshof
     Kilpatrick
     Ryan (WI)
     Scarborough
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1627

  Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 560, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have noted ``yes.''

                          ____________________