[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17949-17961]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased my colleague from Oregon has 
joined with me on the floor as we now consider, by unanimous consent, a 
key piece of legislation on which he, Senator Wyden, and I have been 
working.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration 
of Calendar No. 520, S. 1608.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause 
and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Secure 
     Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

  TITLE I--SECURE PAYMENTS FOR STATES AND COUNTIES CONTAINING FEDERAL 
                                 LANDS

Sec. 101. Determination of full payment amount for eligible States and 
              counties.
Sec. 102. Payments to States from Forest Service lands for use by 
              counties to benefit public education and transportation.
Sec. 103. Payments to counties from Bureau of Land Management lands for 
              use to benefit public safety, law enforcement, education, 
              and other public purposes.

              TITLE II--SPECIAL PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LANDS

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. General limitation on use of project funds.
Sec. 203. Submission of project proposals.
Sec. 204. Evaluation and approval of projects by Secretary concerned.
Sec. 205. Resource advisory committees.
Sec. 206. Use of project funds.
Sec. 207. Availability of project funds.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 302. Treatment of funds and revenues.
Sec. 303. Regulations.
Sec. 304. Conforming amendments.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The National Forest System, which is managed by the 
     United States Forest Service, was established in 1907 and has 
     grown to include approximately 192,000,000 acres of Federal 
     lands.
       (2) The public domain lands known as revested Oregon and 
     California Railroad grant lands and the reconveyed Coos Bay 
     Wagon Road grant lands, which are managed predominately by 
     the Bureau of Land Management were returned to Federal 
     ownership in 1916 and 1919 and now comprise approximately 
     2,600,000 acres of Federal lands.
       (3) Congress recognized that, by its decision to secure 
     these lands in Federal ownership, the counties in which these 
     lands are situated would be deprived of revenues they would 
     otherwise receive if the lands were held in private 
     ownership.
       (4) These same counties have expended public funds year 
     after year to provide services, such as education, road 
     construction and maintenance, search and rescue, law 
     enforcement, waste removal, and fire protection, that 
     directly benefit these Federal lands and people who use these 
     lands.
       (5) To accord a measure of compensation to the affected 
     counties for the critical services they provide to both 
     county residents and visitors to these Federal lands, 
     Congress determined that the Federal Government should share 
     with these counties a portion of the revenues the United 
     States receives from these Federal lands.
       (6) Congress enacted in 1908 and subsequently amended a law 
     that requires that 25 percent of the revenues derived from 
     National Forest System lands be paid to States for use by the 
     counties in which the lands are situated for the benefit of 
     public schools and roads.
       (7) Congress enacted in 1937 and subsequently amended a law 
     that requires that 75 percent of the revenues derived from 
     the revested and reconveyed grant lands be paid to the 
     counties in which those lands are situated to be used as are 
     other county funds, of which 50 percent is to be used as 
     other county funds.
       (8) For several decades primarily due to the growth of the 
     Federal timber sale program, counties dependent on and 
     supportive of these Federal lands received and relied on 
     increasing shares of these revenues to provide funding for 
     schools and road maintenance.
       (9) In recent years, the principal source of these 
     revenues, Federal timber sales, has been sharply curtailed 
     and, as the volume of timber sold annually from most of the 
     Federal lands has decreased precipitously, so too have the 
     revenues shared with the affected counties.
       (10) This decline in shared revenues has affected 
     educational funding and road maintenance for many counties.
       (11) In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, 
     Congress recognized this trend and ameliorated its adverse 
     consequences by providing an alternative annual safety net 
     payment to 72 counties in Oregon, Washington, and northern 
     California in which Federal timber sales had been restricted 
     or prohibited by administrative and judicial decisions to 
     protect the northern spotted owl.
       (12) The authority for these particular safety net payments 
     is expiring and no comparable authority has been granted for 
     alternative payments to counties elsewhere in the United 
     States that have suffered similar losses in shared revenues 
     from the Federal lands and in the funding for schools and 
     roads those revenues provide.
       (13) There is a need to stabilize education and road 
     maintenance funding through predictable payments to the 
     affected counties, job creation in those counties, and other 
     opportunities associated with restoration, maintenance, and 
     stewardship of federal lands.
       (14) Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
     Management face significant backlogs in infrastructure 
     maintenance and ecosystem restoration that are difficult to 
     address through annual appropriations.
       (15) There is a need to build new, and strengthen existing, 
     relationships and to improve management of public lands and 
     waters.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to stabilize and make permanent payments to counties to 
     provide funding for schools and roads;
       (2) to make additional investments in, and create 
     additional employment opportunities through, projects that 
     improve the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement 
     stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems, and 
     restore and improve land health and water quality. Such 
     projects shall enjoy broad-based support with objectives that 
     may include, but are not limited to:
       (A) Road, trail, and infrastructure maintenance or 
     obliteration;
       (B) Soil productivity improvement;
       (C) Improvements in forest ecosystem health;
       (D) Watershed restoration and maintenance;
       (E) Restoration, maintenance and improvement of wildlife 
     and fish habitat;
       (F) Control of noxious and exotic weeds;
       (G) Reestablishment of native species; and
       (H) General resource stewardship.
       (3) to improve cooperative relationships among the people 
     that use and care for Federal lands and the agencies that 
     manage these lands.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
       (A) lands within the National Forest System, as defined in 
     section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
     Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)) exclusive of the 
     National Grasslands administered pursuant to the Act of July 
     22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1010-10912); and
       (B) the Oregon and California Railroad grant lands revested 
     in the United States by the Act of June 9, 1916 (chapter 137; 
     39 Stat. 218), Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands reconveyed to 
     the United States by the Act of February 26, 1919

[[Page 17950]]

     (chapter 47; 40 Stat. 1179), and subsequent additions to such 
     lands.
       (2) Eligibility period.--The term ``eligibility period'' 
     means fiscal year 1984 through fiscal year 1999.
       (3) Eligible county.--The term ``eligible county'' means a 
     county or borough that received 50-percent payments for one 
     or more fiscal years of the eligibility period or a county or 
     borough that received a portion of an eligible State's 25-
     percent payments for one or more fiscal years of the 
     eligibility period. The term includes a county or borough 
     established after the date of the enactment of this Act so 
     long as the county or borough includes all or a portion of a 
     county or borough described in the preceding sentence.
       (4) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means a 
     State that received 25-percent payments for one or more 
     fiscal years of the eligibility period.
       (5) Full payment amount.--The term ``full payment amount'' 
     means the amount calculated for each eligible State and 
     eligible county under section 101.
       (6) 25-percent payments.--The term ``25-percent payments'' 
     means the payments to States required by the sixth paragraph 
     under the heading of ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23, 
     1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), and section 13 of the Act 
     of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500).
       (7) 50-percent payments.--The term ``50-percent payments'' 
     means the payments that are the sum of the 50-percent share 
     otherwise paid to a county pursuant to title II of the Act of 
     August 28, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f), 
     and the payment made to a county pursuant to the Act of May 
     24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753; 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et 
     seq.).
       (8) Safety net payments.--The term ``safety net payments'' 
     means the payments to States and counties required by section 
     13982 or 13983 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f 
     note).

  TITLE I--SECURE PAYMENTS FOR STATES AND COUNTIES CONTAINING FEDERAL 
                                 LANDS

     SEC. 101. DETERMINATION OF FULL PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR ELIGIBLE 
                   STATES AND COUNTIES.

       (a) Calculation Required.--
       (1) Eligible states.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     calculate for each eligible State an amount equal to the 
     average of the three highest 25-percent payments and safety 
     net payments made to the eligible counties in that State for 
     fiscal years of the eligibility period,
       (2) BLM counties.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     calculate for each eligible county that received a 50-percent 
     payment during the eligibility period an amount equal to the 
     average of the three highest 50-percent payments and safety 
     net payments made to that eligible county for fiscal years of 
     the eligibility period.
       (b) Annual Adjustment.--For each fiscal year in which 
     payments are required to be made to eligible States and 
     eligible counties under this title, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall adjust the full payment amount for the 
     previous fiscal year for each eligible State and eligible 
     county to reflect changes in the consumer price index for 
     rural areas (as published in the Bureau of Labor Statistics) 
     that occur after publication of that index for fiscal year 
     2000.

     SEC. 102. PAYMENTS TO STATES FROM NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 
                   LANDS FOR USE BY COUNTIES TO BENEFIT PUBLIC 
                   EDUCATION AND TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Requirement for Payments to Eligible States.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall make to each eligible State a 
     payment in accordance with subsection (b) for each fiscal 
     year beginning in fiscal year 2000. The payment for a fiscal 
     year shall be made as soon as practicable after the end of 
     that fiscal year.
       (b) Payment Amounts.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     the payment to an eligible State for a fiscal year shall 
     consist of the 25-percent payment applicable to that State 
     for that fiscal year as described in section 3(6).
       (c) Election To Receive Full Payment Amount.--
       (1) An eligible State may elect to receive the full payment 
     amount as described in sections 101(a)(1) and 101(b), in lieu 
     of the payment described in subsection (b). The election 
     shall be made at the discretion of each affected county and 
     transmitted to the Secretary by the Governor of a State. Each 
     such county election shall be effective for two fiscal years.
       (2) Except that, when a county elects to receive the full 
     payment amount, such election shall be effective for all the 
     subsequent fiscal years.
       (3) The payment to an eligible State under this subsection 
     for a fiscal year shall be derived first from any revenues, 
     fees, penalties, or miscellaneous receipts, exclusive of 
     deposits to any relevant trust fund, or special accounts, 
     received by the Federal Government from activities by the 
     Forest Service on the Federal lands described in subsection 
     3(1)(A) and/or secondly, as determined by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, from any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated.
       (d) Distribution and Expenditure of Payments.--
       (1) Distribution method.--An eligible State that elects to 
     receive a payment under subsection (c) shall distribute the 
     payment among all eligible counties in the State, with each 
     eligible county receiving the amount calculated for that 
     county in Section 101(a).
       (2) Expenditure purposes.--Subject to subsection (e), 
     payments received by eligible States under subsection (a) and 
     distributed to eligible counties shall be expended in the 
     same manner in which 25-percent payments are required to be 
     expended.
       (e) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds to be distributed to an 
     eligible county pursuant to subsection (d)--
       (A) not less than 80 percent but not more than 85 percent 
     of the funds shall be expended in the same manner in which 
     the 25-percent payments are required to be expended; and
       (B) at the election of an eligible county, the balance of 
     the funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 
     either be reserved for projects in accordance with title II, 
     or remitted to the fund created by section 302(b).
       (2) Deposit of funds in special account.--Funds reserved by 
     an eligible county under paragraph (1) shall be deposited in 
     a special account in the Treasury of the United States and 
     shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, without further appropriation, and shall remain 
     available until expended in accordance with title II.
       (3) Election.--
       (A) General.--An eligible county shall notify the Secretary 
     of Agriculture of its election under this subsection not 
     later than September 30 of each fiscal year. If the eligible 
     county fails to make an election by that date, the county is 
     deemed to have elected to expend 85 percent of the funds to 
     be received under subsection (c) in the same manner in which 
     the 25-percent payments are required to be expended, and 
     remitted the balance to the fund created by Section 302(b).
       (B) Counties with minor distributions.--Notwithstanding the 
     expenditure rules in this subsection, in the case of each 
     eligible county to which less than $100,000 is distributed 
     for any fiscal year pursuant to subsection (c), the eligible 
     county may elect to expend all such funds in accordance with 
     subsection (d).

     SEC. 103. PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES FROM BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
                   LANDS FOR USE TO BENEFIT PUBLIC SAFETY, LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, AND OTHER PUBLIC 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) Requirement for Payments to Eligible Counties.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall make to each eligible county 
     that received a 50-percent payment during the eligibility 
     period a payment in accordance with subsection (b) for each 
     of fiscal year in fiscal year 2000. The payment for a fiscal 
     year shall be made as soon as practicable after the end of 
     that fiscal year.
       (b) Payment Amounts.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     the payments to an eligible county for a fiscal year shall 
     consist of the 50-percent payment applicable to that county 
     for that fiscal year as described in section 3(7).
       (c) Election To Receive Full Payment Amount.--
       (1) An eligible county may elect to receive the full 
     payment amount, as described in sections 101(a)(2) and 101(b) 
     in lieu of the payment described in subsection (b). The 
     election shall be made at the discretion of the county. Once 
     the election is made, it shall be effective for the fiscal 
     year in which the election is made and all subsequent fiscal 
     years.
       (2) The payment to an eligible county under this subsection 
     for a fiscal year shall be derived first from any revenues, 
     fees, penalties, or miscellaneous receipts, exclusive of 
     deposits to any relevant trust fund, or special accounts, 
     received by the Federal Government from activities by the 
     Bureau of Land Management on the Federal Lands described in 
     subsection 3(1)(B) and/or secondly, as determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, from any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated.
       (d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds to be distributed to an 
     eligible county pursuant to subsection (d)--
       (A) Not less than 80 percent but not more than 85 percent 
     of the funds distributed to the eligible county shall be 
     expended in the same manner in which the 50-percent payments 
     are required to be expended; and
       (B) At the election of an eligible county, the balance of 
     the funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 
     either be reserved for projects in accordance with title II, 
     or remitted to the fund created by section 302(b).
       (2) Deposit of funds in special account.--Funds reserved by 
     an eligible county under paragraph (1) shall be deposited in 
     a special account in the Treasury of the United States and 
     shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, without further appropriation, and shall remain 
     available until expended in accordance with title II.
       (3) Election.--An eligible county shall notify the 
     Secretary of the Interior of its election under this 
     subsection not later than September 30 of each fiscal year 
     under subsection (d). If the eligible county fails to make an 
     election by that date, the county is deemed to have elected 
     to expend 85 percent on the funds received under subsection 
     (c) in the same manner in which the 50-percent payments are 
     required to be expended and remitted the balance to the fund 
     created by section 302(b).

              TITLE II--SPECIAL PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LANDS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Participating county.--The term ``participating 
     county'' means an eligible county that--

[[Page 17951]]

       (A) receives Federal funds pursuant to section 102 or 103; 
     and
       (B) elects under sections 102(e)(3) or 103(d)(3) to expend 
     a portion of those funds in accordance with sections 
     102(e)(1)(B) or 103(d)(3).
       (2) Project funds.--The term ``project funds'' means all 
     funds an eligible county elects under sections 102(e)(3) and 
     103(d)(3) to reserve for expenditure under sections 
     102(e)(1)(B) or 103(d)(2) for expenditure in accordance with 
     this title.
       (3) Resource advisory committee.--The term ``resource 
     advisory committee'' means an advisory committee established 
     by the Secretary concerned under section 205, or determined 
     by the Secretary concerned to meet the requirements of 
     section 205.
       (4) Resource management plan.--The term ``resource 
     management plan'' means a land use plan prepared by the 
     Bureau of Land Management for units of the Federal lands 
     described in section 3(1)(B) pursuant to section 202 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1712) and a land and resource management plan prepared by the 
     Forest Service for units of the National Forest System 
     pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
       (5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means the Secretary of the Interior or his designee with 
     respect to the Federal lands described in section 3(1)(B) and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture or his designee with respect to 
     the Federal lands described in section 3(1)(A).

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

       Project funds shall be expended solely on projects that 
     meet the requirements of this title. Project funds may be 
     used by the Secretary concerned for the purpose of entering 
     into and implementing cooperative agreements with willing 
     Federal agencies, State and local governments, private and 
     nonprofit entities, and landowners for protection, 
     restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and 
     other resource objectives consistent with the purposes of 
     this title on public or private land or both that benefit 
     these resources within the watershed.

     SEC. 203. SUBMISSION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS.

       (a) Submission of Project Proposals to Secretary 
     Concerned.--
       (1) Projects funded using project funds.--Not later than 
     September 30 for fiscal year 2001, and each September 30 
     thereafter for each succeeding fiscal year, each resource 
     advisory committee established under section 205 shall submit 
     to the Secretary concerned a description of any projects that 
     the resource advisory committee proposes the Secretary 
     undertake using any project funds reserved.
       (2) Projects funded using other funds.--A resource advisory 
     committee may submit to the Secretary concerned a description 
     of any projects that the committee proposes the Secretary 
     undertake using funds from State or local governments, from 
     the private sector, or funds held by the Secretary concerned 
     pursuant to section 302(b), other than project funds and 
     funds appropriated and otherwise available to do similar 
     work.
       (3) Joint projects.--Participating counties or other 
     persons may propose to pool project funds or other funds, 
     described in paragraph (2), and jointly propose a project or 
     group of projects to a resource advisory committee 
     established under section 205.
       (b) Required Description of Projects.--In submitting 
     proposed projects to the Secretary concerned under subsection 
     (a), a resource advisory committee shall include in the 
     description of each proposed project the following 
     information:
       (1) The purpose of the project and a description of how the 
     project will meet the purposes of this Act.
       (2) The anticipated duration of the project.
       (3) The anticipated cost of the project.
       (4) The proposed source of funding for the project, whether 
     project funds or other funds.
       (5) Expected outcomes, including how the project will meet 
     or exceed desired ecological conditions, maintenance 
     objectives, or stewardship objectives, as well as an 
     estimation of the amount of any timber, forage, and other 
     commodities and other economic activity, including jobs 
     generated, if any, anticipated as part of the project.
       (6) A detailed monitoring plan, including funding needs and 
     sources, that tracks project effectiveness, implementation, 
     and provides for validation monitoring. The monitoring plan 
     shall include an assessment of the following: whether or not 
     the project created local employment or training 
     opportunities, including summer youth jobs programs such as 
     the Youth Conservation Corps where appropriate; and whether 
     the project improved the use of, or added value to, any 
     products removed from lands consistent with the purposes of 
     this Act.
       (7) An assessment that the project is to be in the public 
     interest.
       (c) Authorized Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Projects proposed under subsection (a) 
     shall be consistent with section 2(b).
       (2) Search, rescue, and emergency services.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a resource advisory committee 
     may submit as a proposed project under subsection (a) a 
     proposal that the participating county or sheriff's 
     department receive reimbursement for search and rescue and 
     other emergency services performed on Federal lands and paid 
     for by the county. The source of funding for an approved 
     project of this type must be the fund created by section 
     302(b).
       (3) Community service work camps.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), a resource advisory committee may submit as a 
     proposed project under subsection (a) a proposal that the 
     participating county receive reimbursement for all or part of 
     the costs incurred by the county to pay the salaries and 
     benefits of county employees who supervise adults or 
     juveniles performing mandatory community service on Federal 
     lands.

     SEC. 204. EVALUATION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS BY SECRETARY 
                   CONCERNED.

       (a) Conditions for Approval of Proposed Project.--The 
     Secretary concerned may make a decision to approve a project 
     submitted by a resource advisory committee under section 203 
     only if the proposed project satisfies each of the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The project complies with all applicable Federal laws 
     and regulations.
       (2) The project is consistent with the applicable resource 
     management plan and with any watershed or subsequent plan 
     developed pursuant to the resource management plan and 
     approved by the Secretary concerned.
       (3) The project has been approved by the resource advisory 
     committee in accordance with section 205, including the 
     procedures issued under subsection (e) of such section.
       (4) A project description has been submitted by the 
     resource advisory committee to the Secretary concerned in 
     accordance with section 203.
       (b) Environmental Reviews.--
       (1) Payment of review costs.--
       (A) Request for payment by county.--The Secretary concerned 
     may request the resource advisory committee submitting a 
     proposed project to agree to the use of project funds to pay 
     for any environmental review, consultation, or compliance 
     with applicable environmental laws required in connection 
     with the project. When such a payment is requested and the 
     resource advisory committee agrees to the expenditure of 
     funds for this purpose, the Secretary concerned shall conduct 
     environmental review, consultation, or other compliance 
     responsibilities in accordance with Federal law and 
     regulations.
       (B) Effect of refusal to pay.--If a resource advisory 
     committee does not agree to the expenditure of funds under 
     subparagraph (A), the project shall be deemed withdrawn from 
     further consideration by the Secretary concerned pursuant to 
     this title. Such a withdrawal shall be deemed to be a 
     rejection of the project for purposes of section 207(c).
       (c) Decisions of Secretary Concerned.--
       (1) Rejection of projects.--A decision by the Secretary 
     concerned to reject a proposed project shall be at the 
     Secretary's sole discretion. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a decision by the Secretary concerned to 
     reject a proposed project shall not be subject to 
     administrative appeal or judicial review. Within 30 days 
     after making the rejection decision, the Secretary concerned 
     shall notify in writing the resource advisory committee that 
     submitted the proposed project of the rejection and the 
     reasons for rejection.
       (2) Notice of project approval.--The Secretary concerned 
     shall publish in the Federal Register notice of each project 
     approved under subsection (a) if such notice would be 
     required had the project originated with the Secretary.
       (d) Source and Conduct of Project.--Once the Secretary 
     concerned accepts a project for review under section 204, it 
     shall be deemed a Federal action for all purposes.
       (e) Implementation of Approved Projects.--
       (1) Cooperation.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Secretary concerned may enter into 
     contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with States and 
     local governments, private and nonprofit entities, and 
     landowners and other persons to assist the Secretary in 
     carrying out an approved project.
       (2) Best value contracting.--For any project involving a 
     contract authorized by paragraph (1) the Secretary concerned 
     may elect a source for performance of the contract on a best 
     value basis. The Secretary concerned shall determine best 
     value based on such factors as:
       (A) The technical demands and complexity of the work to be 
     done.
       (B) The ecological objectives of the project and the 
     sensitivity of the resources being treated.
       (C) The past experience by the contractor with the type of 
     work being done, using the type of equipment proposed for the 
     project, and meeting or exceeding desired ecological 
     conditions.
       (D) The commitment of the contractor to hiring highly 
     qualified workers and local residents.
       (3) Merchantable materials sales contracting pilot 
     projects.--Until September 30, 2004, for a portion of the 
     contracts issued under this paragraph, the Secretary 
     concerned shall provide for the disposal of the forest 
     products under a separate contract. Within one year of the 
     completion of the contracts authorized under this paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall report to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the 
     Committee of Resources of the United States House of 
     Representatives on the environmental and fiscal results of 
     these projects.

     SEC. 205. RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Establishment and Purpose of Resource Advisory 
     Committees.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary concerned shall establish 
     and maintain a resource advisory committee to perform the 
     duties in subsection (b), except as provided in paragraphs 
     (3) and (4).
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of a resource advisory committee 
     shall be to improve collaborative

[[Page 17952]]

     relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to 
     the land management agencies consistent with the purposes of 
     this Act.
       (3) Access to resource advisory committees.--To ensure that 
     each unit of Federal land has access to a resource advisory 
     committee, and that there is sufficient interest in 
     participation on a committee to ensure that membership can be 
     balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the 
     functions to be performed, the Secretary concerned may, 
     establish resource advisory committees for part of, or one or 
     more, units of Federal lands.
       (4) Existing advisory committees.--Existing advisory 
     committees meeting the requirements of this section may be 
     deemed by the Secretary concerned, as a resource advisory 
     committee for the purposes of the title. The Secretary of the 
     Interior may deem a resource advisory committee meeting the 
     requirements of part 1780, subpart 1784 of title 43, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as a resource advisory committee for the 
     purposes of this title.
       (b) Duties.--A resource advisory committee shall--
       (1) review projects proposed by participating counties and 
     other persons;
       (2) propose projects and funding to the Secretary concerned 
     under section 203;
       (3) provide early and continuous coordination with 
     appropriate land management agency officials in recommending 
     projects consistent with purposes of this Act; and
       (4) provide frequent opportunities for citizens, 
     organizations, Tribes, land management agencies, and other 
     interested parties to participate openly and meaningfully, 
     beginning at the early stages of the project development 
     processs.
       (c) Appointment by the Secretary.--
       (1) Appointment and term.--The Secretary concerned, shall 
     appoint the members of resource advisory committees for a 
     term of 3 years beginning on the date of appointment. The 
     Secretary concerned may reappoint members to subsequent 3-
     year terms.
       (2) Basic requirements.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     ensure that each resource advisory committee established 
     meets the requirements of subsection (d).
       (3) Initial appointment.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     make initial appointments to the resource advisory committees 
     not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (4) Vacancies.--The Secretary concerned shall make 
     appointments to fill vacancies on any resource advisory 
     committee as soon as practicable after the vacancy has 
     occurred.
       (5) Compensation.--Members of the resource advisory 
     committees shall not receive any compensation.
       (d) Composition of Advisory Committee.--
       (1) Number.--Each resource advisory committee shall be 
     comprised of 15 members.
       (2) Community interests represented.--Committee members 
     shall be representative of the interests of the following 
     categories:
       (A) 5 persons who--
       (i) represent organized labor;
       (ii) represent developed outdoor recreation, off highway 
     vehicle users, or commercial recreation activities;
       (iii) represent energy and mineral development interests;
       (iv) represent the commercial timber industry; or
       (v) hold Federal grazing permits, or other land use permits 
     within the area for which the committee is organized.
       (B) 5 persons representing--
       (i) nationally recognized environmental organizations;
       (ii) regionally or locally recognized environmental 
     organizations;
       (iii) dispersed recreational activities;
       (iv) archeological and historical interests; or
       (v) nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and 
     burro interest groups.
       (C) 5 persons who--
       (i) hold state elected office or their designee;
       (ii) hold county or local elected office;
       (iii) represent American Indian tribes within or adjacent 
     to the area for which the committee is organized;
       (iv) are school officials or teachers; or
       (v) represent the affected public at large.
       (3) Balanced representation.--In appointing committee 
     members from the three categories in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary concerned shall provide for balanced and broad 
     representation from within each category.
       (4) Geographic distribution.--The members of a resource 
     advisory committee shall reside within the State in which the 
     committee has geographic jurisdiction.
       (5) Chairperson.--A majority on each resource advisory 
     committee shall select the chairperson of the committee.
       (e) Approval Procedures.--
       (1) Subject to paragraph (2), each resource advisory 
     committee shall establish procedures for defining a quorum 
     and proposing projects to the Secretary concerned. A quorum 
     must be present to constitute an official meeting of the 
     committee.
       (2) A project may be proposed by a resource advisory 
     committee to the Secretary concerned under section 203(a) if 
     it has been approved by a majority of members of the 
     committee from each of the three categories in subsection 
     (c)(2).
       (f) Other Committee Authorities and Requirements.--
       (1) Staff assistance.--A resource advisory committee may 
     submit to the Secretary concerned a request for periodic 
     staff assistance from Federal employees under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       (2) Meetings.--All meetings of a resource advisory 
     committee shall be announced at least one week in advance in 
     a local newspaper of record and shall be open to the public.
       (3) Records.--A resource advisory committee shall maintain 
     records of the meetings of the committee and make the records 
     available for public inspection.

     SEC. 206. USE OF PROJECT FUNDS.

       (a) Agreement Regarding Schedule and Cost of Project.--
       (1) Agreement between parties.--The Secretary concerned may 
     carry out a project submitted by a resource advisory 
     committee under section 203(a) using project funds or other 
     funds described in section 203(a)(2), if, as soon as 
     practicable after the issuance of a decision document for the 
     project and the exhaustion of all administrative appeals and 
     judicial review of the project decision, the Secretary 
     concerned and the resource advisory committee enter into an 
     agreement addressing, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) The schedule for completing the project.
       (B) The total cost of the project, including the level of 
     agency overhead to be assessed against the project.
       (C) For a multi-year project, the estimated cost of the 
     project for each of the fiscal years in which it will be 
     carried out.
       (D) The remedies for failure of the Secretary concerned to 
     comply with the terms of the agreement consistent with 
     current Federal law.
       (2) Limited use of federal funds.--The Secretary concerned 
     may decide, at the Secretary's sole discretion, to cover the 
     costs of a portion of an approved project using Federal funds 
     appropriated or otherwise available to the Secretary for the 
     same purposes as the project.
       (b) Transfer of Project Funds.--
       (1) Initial transfer required.--As soon as practicable 
     after the agreement is reached under subsection (a) with 
     regard to a project to be funded in whole or in part using 
     projects funds, or other funds described in section 
     203(a)(2), the Secretary concerned shall transfer to the 
     applicable unit of National Forest Systems lands or BLM 
     District an amount of project funds equal to--
       (A) in the case of a project to be completed in a single 
     fiscal year, the total amount specified in the agreement to 
     be paid using project funds, or other funds described in 
     section 203(a)(2); or
       (B) in the case of a multi-year project, the amount 
     specified in the agreement to be paid using project funds, or 
     other funds described in section 203(a)(2) for the first 
     fiscal year.
       (2) Condition on project commencement.--The unit of 
     National Forest System lands or BLM District concerned, shall 
     not commence a project until the project funds, or other 
     funds described in section 203(a)(2) required to be 
     transferred under paragraph (1) for the project, have been 
     made available by the Secretary concerned.
       (3) Subsequent transfers for multi-year projects.--For the 
     second and subsequent fiscal years of a multi-year project to 
     be funded in whole or in part using project funds, the unit 
     of National Forest System lands or BLM District concerned 
     shall use the amount of project funds required to continue 
     the project in that fiscal year according to the agreement 
     entered into under subsection (a). The Secretary concerned 
     shall suspend work on the project if the project funds 
     required by the agreement in the second and subsequent years 
     fiscal years are not available.

     SEC. 207. AVAILABILITY OF PROJECT FUNDS.

       (a) Submission of Proposed Projects To Obligate Funds.--By 
     the end of each fiscal year, a resource advisory committee 
     shall submit to the Secretary concerned pursuant to section 
     203(a)(1) a sufficient number of project proposals that, if 
     approved, would result in the obligation of at least the full 
     amount of the project funds reserved by the participating 
     county in the preceding fiscal year.
       (b) Use or Transfer of Unobligated Funds.--
       (1) If a resource advisory committee fails to comply with 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year, any project funds reserved 
     by the participating county in the preceding fiscal year and 
     remaining unobligated shall be available for use as part of 
     the project submissions in the next fiscal year.
       (2) Any funds not used because a county fails to elect 
     under section 102(e)(3) or section 103(d)(3) to expend monies 
     for local projects shall be remitted to the fund created by 
     section 302(b).
       (c) Effect of Rejection of Projects.--Any project funds 
     reserved by a participating county in the preceding fiscal 
     year that are unobligated at the end of a fiscal year because 
     the Secretary concerned has rejected one or more proposed 
     projects shall be available for use as part of the project 
     submissions in the next fiscal year.
       (d) Effect of Court Orders.--If an approved project is 
     enjoined or prohibited by a Federal court under this Act, the 
     Secretary concerned shall use unobligated project funds 
     related to that project in the participating county or 
     counties that reserved the funds. The returned funds shall be 
     available for the county to expend in the same manner as the 
     funds reserved by the county under section 102(e)(1)(B) or 
     103(d)(1)(B), whichever applies to the funds involved.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     are necessary to carry out this Act for fiscal years 2001 
     through 2007.

[[Page 17953]]



     SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF FUNDS AND REVENUES.

       (a) Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in section 301 and funds made available to a 
     Secretary concerned under section 206 shall be in addition to 
     any other annual appropriations for the Forest Service and 
     the Bureau of Land Management.
       (b) Any and all revenues generated from projects pursuant 
     to title II, any funds remitted by counties pursuant to 
     section 102(e)(1)(B) or section 103(d)(1)(B), and any 
     interest accrued from any such funds shall be deposited and 
     retained without further appropriation in a national fund and 
     available to the Secretary concerned to fund projects 
     authorized pursuant to section 203. The Secretary concerned 
     shall prioritize expenditures from this fund and shall 
     identify, in an annual report to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the 
     Committee on Resources of the United States House of 
     Representatives, all projects receiving funds pursuant to 
     this subsection.

     SEC. 303. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretaries concerned may jointly issue regulations to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 304. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 13982 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993 (116 U.S.C. 500 note) is repealed. Sections 13982 and 
     13983 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
     (Public Law 103-66; 16 U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note) 
     is repealed.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act of 1999, solves a severe crisis in 
America's rural, forest counties driven by the precipitous decline in 
federal timber receipts over the last decade. The bill provides vital 
payments to schools and counties, while providing option to direct a 
portion of the payments to the development of local projects to address 
the needs of our families and forests.
  S. 1608 provides equity and increased educational opportunities for 
rural school children. States that are dominated by federally owned 
lands are facing a dual economic and educational crisis.
  Our nation contains almost 800 forest counties; 2,000 forest school 
districts; 600,000 rural families, and more than 4 million school 
children who depend upon rural public schools for their education. 
These children deserve the same educational opportunities as their 
counterparts in urban areas.
  Mosr urban areas across America witnessed unprecedented prosperity 
throughout the 1990s. However, in our rural forest counties, the decade 
has been a one-way slide toward poverty, unemployment, and a lower 
standard of living for communities, families and children.
  And it is our children who have borne the brunt of the harm. Rural 
children have been faced with:
  School closings; school days and weeks shortened; class sizes 
increased due to teacher layoffs; classroom aides eliminated; 
counseling, nursing, and psychological services cut or eliminated; 
music, art, athletic, and academic enrichment programs eliminated; and 
student transportation services and winter road maintenance scaled back 
or eliminated.
  The bill's guaranteed payments will provide critical resources for 
our children. It will allow our teachers to once again provide them 
with a quality education.
  In crafting S. 1608, Senator Wyden and I were assisted by local 
community representatives who work, live, and represent thousands of 
rural citizens. The bill is supported by a unique coalition of more 
than 1000 organizations across 50 states including county officials, 
educators, teachers unions, labor unions, and local businesses. This 
bill is truly a community-based solution to a national crisis. It is 
very, very rare indeed, to bring a bill to the Senate floor that enjoys 
the breadth of support represented by the groups in favor of S. 1608.
  S. 1608 also provides funds to invest in collaborative improvement 
projects to address high priority forest management needs such as: 
infrastructure improvement, fuel and fire reduction, ecosystem 
restoration, stewardship projects and watershed protection and 
restoration. In addition, these cooperative county projects will 
contribute to local community economic self-sufficiency and family 
social stability. As reported, S. 1608 is a win-win solution for all of 
rural America; our school children, our educators, our working 
families, our counties, and our forestlands.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many folks in rural Oregon and other parts 
of rural America believe the Federal Government has abandoned them. 
They think Washington, D.C. has reneged on a decades-long commitment to 
support their schools and roads with revenue from timber harvested on 
Federal lands. People in timber-dependent rural America think they are 
being left behind to live in economic sacrifice zones.
  Policy changes in Washington, DC., affecting logging on national 
forest across this country have caused timber receipts to fall an 
average of 70 percent over the last 15 years, and by as much as 90 
percent in some areas. As timber receipts disappeared, roads fell 
deeper into disrepair, school programs were cut to the bone, and some 
schools even had to close their doors at least 1 day a week. Our fellow 
citizens who live in rural America should not be just an afterthought 
in our warp-speed world. The legislation before us, the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, will renew the compact 
with timber-dependent communities without compromising our commitment 
to environmentally sound stewardship of our forests. It will give 
people in rural counties the financial predictability they need to step 
into the 21st century.
  Since 1908, people in rural counties across this country have lived 
by a compact with the Federal Government. As compensation for paying no 
property taxes, the Federal Government would give the counties a 
quarter of the timber revenue. For decades, this arrangement provide 
adequate funds to sustain schools, roads and other basic county 
services, like emergency rescue. But when timber harvests began to drop 
off and timber jobs were lost, little effort was made to help offset 
the shortfall, and citizens in rural counties felt betrayed by the 
government in Washington, DC. We are not talking about a few isolated 
communities in remote areas of America. Timber-dependent communities 
are found in 709 counties in 42 states. Some 800,000 school children 
and millions of people live in these counties. Thirty-one of 36 
counties in my State of Oregon receive timber payments. Counties in the 
western part of Oregon have been able to survive because of Spotted Owl 
safety net payments, but no such safety net exists for those in eastern 
Oregon. There, Grant County, has lost 90 percent of its timber 
receipts, from more than $12 million down to $1 million, and the county 
has turned to such cost-cutting measures as a 4-day school week.
  Under this legislation, Oregon counties will get a total of $261 
million a year--an increase of $115 million, or 79 percent. Of the $261 
million, $222 million would be available for schools and roads and $39 
million will remain for the counties either to invest in their backyard 
national forests or in forest-related county services.
  The purpose of S. 1608 is to help rural communities adapt to changing 
national forest management policies by creating a funding formula 
alternative to timber receipts. The legislation will ensure that the 
future relationship between the people living in the 709 affected rural 
counties and the Federal Government does not depend on how many trees 
are cut. Rural communities will be connected to Federal lands through 
stewardship projects, maintenance of existing forest infrastructure, 
ecosystem restoration and improvement of land and water quality. 
Counties will choose how to spend the Federal payment, and projects 
will be developed by broad-based groups of local citizens. 
Collaboration with Federal land managers will help ensure projects 
comply with all existing environmental laws and regulations. The 
legislation would restore stability to the 25 percent payments compact 
by ensuring a predictable payment level to forest communities for six 
years. The amount going toward schools and roads would represent 80-85 
percent of the three-year average of the highest payment years from 
1985 to the present. Unlike today's system, a county will receive its 
payment from the general Treasury, regardless of whether a single tree 
is cut from national forests.

[[Page 17954]]

  Counties will decide for themselves how to invest the remaining 15-
to-20 percent of the average amount described above for projects 
recommended by local community advisory committees if those projects 
are approved by the appropriate Federal land management agency. 
Although locally-conceived, every project must comply with all 
environmental laws and regulations, as well as all applicable forest 
plans. Counties might also opt to pursue projects related to the 
forest--rather than in the forest--through Title III. These projects 
might include fire prevention, the purchase of easements or forest-
related after-school programs. In addition, each project must--and I 
quote from the bill here--``improve the maintenance of existing 
infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest 
ecosystems, and restore and improve land health and water quality'' on 
the national forests.
  County choice is critical to the bill. Counties that opt not to join 
the program--such as those anticipating higher timber receipts in the 
immediate future--will continue to receive payments based on the 
existing formula, and they also have the option of joining the program 
two years down the road. Counties that opt to join the program will get 
stable payments based on a new formula.
  There is no doubt about it. This legislation will change the 
traditional dynamic between logging and Federal payments to schools and 
counties. But altering the link between timber harvest and county 
payments does not mean we seek to sever the ties between people and 
land. S. 1608 will strengthen the bond between communities and 
neighboring Federal forests. The projects that would be authorized by 
S. 1608 are a way for the Federal government to recognize--without 
relaxing or compromising our environmental commitments--that timber 
towns grow not just trees, but people, too.
  When this debate began, the issues were highly polarized. On the one 
side were those who would punish the Forest Service for not cutting 
enough trees; on the other were those who, unintentionally, would 
punish our rural communities and school children by not providing them 
the funding they so desperately need. After listening to both sides and 
after many long discussions, Senator Craig and I rejected the extremes 
and sought out a middle path that would break the gridlock. The 
legislation we bring to the Senate will establish a foundation to move 
rural communities beyond this time of crisis, and, with the forest 
ecosystem restoration projects, put them on a path toward 
sustainability in this new century.
  One of my goals for this legislation was to assure the counties have 
as much choice as possible, and I believe this goal has been met. As I 
said earlier, first, counties can choose whether they would like to be 
part of this program and receive a stable payment. If they choose not 
to be part of the program, they may revisit this decision every 2 
years. Second, a county that chooses to be part of the program and 
receive stable payments must decide the type of projects they want to 
invest in: projects in the forest, like stream and watershed 
restoration; or projects related to the forests, such as wildfire 
prevention or afterschool programs for their children. Also, a county 
can opt simply to have the money sent back to the U.S. Treasury without 
pursuing projects. Finally, these choices may be revisited every year.
  The ecological health of the forests is a key to survival for many of 
these communities, making forest restoration a cornerstone of the bill. 
Counties have choices as to how and how much they receive so they are 
able to determine the best allocation of funds: whether to support 
forest health, job creation, ecosystem restoration or a combination of 
these. Whatever the choice, it is an investment in both the future of 
the forest and the community. This legislation is the product of many 
months of painstaking work. Since the beginning, it has been a 
bipartisan effort. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported 
the legislation by voice vote last April, and through negotiations with 
many other interested Senators, we have a managers' amendment that 
represents a further refinement of the bill.
  I particularly want to thank Senators Craig  and Bingaman,  the Chair 
and ranking member of the Energy Committee. Without their dedication 
and willingness to put long hours into this effort, we would not have 
such a solid piece of legislation. I would also like to make special 
note of the help of Senator Baucus in crafting Title III and bringing a 
strong focus on wildfire prevention. I would also like to acknowledge 
the work of the staff on S. 1608. In particular, Jose Kardon, my chief 
of staff, and Sarah Bittleman, my Natural Resources counsel, have done 
yeoman's work on this legislation. Carole Grunberg, my legislative 
director, and Jeff Gagne, my Education advisor, also contributed to the 
effort. Special thanks also goes to Mark Rey of the Energy Committee 
staff, whose steady hand and creativity helped resolve so many problems 
successfully; to Bob Simon and Kira Finkler, of the Energy Committee 
Democratic staff; and to Brian Kuehl with Senator Baucus and Sara Barth 
with Senator Boxer.
  S. 1608 is supported by thousands of groups, hundreds of counties, 
labor organizations and school groups including the National Education 
Association, National Association of Counties, the American Federation 
of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the AFL-CIO.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.


                           Amendment No. 4139

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is a substitute amendment at the 
desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself and Mr. 
     Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 4139.

  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in conjunction with the administration, and 
the members of the Budget Committee, we have made a series of technical 
changes to S. 1608 as it was reported by the committee. These changes 
are designed to: (1) respond to the concerns of some members with the 
bill as reported; (2) address some additional issues raised by the 
Administration; (3) rectify technical problems with the bill; as well 
as (4) bring the bill's costs in line with the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. Let me briefly describe the most 
important changes for the benefit of the Senate. We have modified the 
formula used to calculate the ``full payment amount'' to which states 
are entitled from the Forest Service under this bill. Rather than 
having this payment calculated on the average of the three highest 25 
percent payments for each eligible county within each state, the 
calculations will be based upon the average of the three highest 25 
percent payments for each state during the fiscal years of the eligible 
years period. We also reduced the annual adjustment for inflation. 
These changes will reduce the cost of the bill as estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office from $1.46 billion over a 5-year period to 
around $1.1 billion over the same period.
  In section 102(a) and section 103(a), we clarify that the duration of 
the bill will be fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2006. It is the 
manager's intent that this bill be sunsetted after six years. This 
language, and new language in section 209 and section 303 added by the 
manager's amendment emphasizes this for the purpose of clarity. We made 
a minor change to clarify that eligible counties that receive less than 
$100,000 in payments for fiscal year 2001 may elect to expend all of 
this money for schools and roads, whether or not the payment increases 
slightly in out-years as a result of the inflation adjustment. This 
change will assist counties with small revenue distributions.
  In section 202, we clarify that projects funded under this bill can 
be

[[Page 17955]]

conducted on public or private lands as long as there is a benefit to 
federally managed resources. The committee bill was not sufficiently 
precise in this regard. In section 203(b)(6), we added language to more 
fully describe the kind of monitoring plans that we would like to see 
associated with projects approved under the bill. In section 204(e)(3), 
we elected to put some quantitative targets on the pilot projects that 
the bill authorizes for merchantable materials, with an out-year 
adjustment based upon the results of a GAO audit. We are hopeful that 
the administration will move aggressively to implement this pilot 
project, and report on its progress promptly and thoroughly to 
Congress. In section 401, we clarified that the bill authorizes 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 through 2006. This is to emphasize 
that this is a six-year bill.
  In section 402(b), we specify that any revenues generated by 
projected funded by monies authorized under this bill should be 
returned to the Treasury, except in the single case where a project is 
jointly funded by both project and non-federal revenues. The portion of 
revenues associated with funds provided by this bill would be retained 
by the appropriate Secretary. The proportion of revenues associated 
with funds provided by non-federal sources would be shared with those 
sources. This change is designed to address the concern that allowing 
revenues generated by projects to be retained by federal agencies would 
create an unwelcome incentive to focus exclusively on revenue-
generating projects. Our amendment addresses this concern in an 
equitable fashion.
  With regard to the projects funded under this bill, we added language 
in section 204 to assure that projects will improve the maintenance of 
existing infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance 
forest ecosystems, or restore and improve land health and water 
quality. We also specify that fifty percent of the project money shall 
be used for projects that involve road maintenance or obliteration, or 
the restoration of streams and watersheds. These changes are designed 
to encourage the development of projects that foster resource 
stewardship. To provide the counties that elect to participate in 
projects a wider range of choices, we have added a title III to the 
bill. Under the provisions of title III, counties may choose to invest 
their project money in a list of authorized uses including: (1) search, 
rescue, and emergency services; (2) community service work camps; (3) 
easement purchases from willing sellers to provide access to public 
lands; 94) forest related educational programs; (5) local fire 
prevention and fire risk reduction planning activities; and (6) 
community forestry projects. These projects would still be developed 
and recommended through the local resource advisory committees 
established in title II of the bill. They will function much as they do 
in title II, except that the projects will not require the approval of 
the Secretary, as would title II projects. Also, under the specific 
terms of section 102(d)(1)(B) and section 102(c)(1)(B) counties could 
split their project funds between titles II and III as they choose.
  We have also added a new title V to the bill to remedy a serious 
problem caused by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
involving the sharing with the states of onshore mineral revenues and 
revenues from geothermal steam. Prior to the 1993 act the federal 
government and the states split these revenues on a fifty-fifty basis. 
The 1993 act requires that the federal government deduct its previous 
years expenses for administering these programs from the receipts 
before the fifty-fifty split is made. This requirement has proven very 
difficult to implement due to general sloppiness of federal accounting 
systems. The federal agencies and the states have become involved in 
numerous disputes over the federal government's calculation of its 
administrative expenses. In light of these problems, with the advice 
and the assistance of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, we propose to 
return to the pre-1993 system of calculating shared receipts.
  Finally, we have added a conforming amendment in section 4 of the 
bill. This amendment specifies that payments required by this bill 
would be included in the calculation of the payment in lieu of taxes 
(PILT) payments that each state receives. This change will result in 
payments under this act being treated in the same fashion as other 
natural resource payments to the states.
  I appreciate the cooperation of several of my colleagues in 
developing the changes that went into the manager's amendment. I 
particularly want to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and 
their staffs for their assistance in putting together the manager's 
amendment. The bill is a much better product because of their 
contribution.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of S. 
1608, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
2000.
  This bill will restore the financial and resource management links 
between the rural communities of America and our natural resource 
agencies.
  The precipitous drop in financial support for education and 
infrastructure needs of our rural counties will be restored by S. 1608.
  These payments will now be steady and reliable. This bill also 
reverses the inward turning, and belt-way centered, thinking of 
resource managers by creating collaborative processes for natural 
resources management in our rural communities.
  S. 1608 will provide rural communities and their public lands 
managers the opportunity to work together to improve the ecosystems by 
investing in the public lands.
  I would like to express my appreciation for the months of work that 
have been put in on this bill by my fellow members of the Energy 
Committee: Senator Craig and Senator Wyden.
  Bringing this bill to the floor today is the result of countless 
hours of briefings, dialog and negotiation with Senator Craig, Senator 
Wyden, their staff, the National Forest County & Schools Coalition, and 
all the other groups that have expended time and effort to assure that 
the educational needs of the kids in rural communities would not be 
neglected.
  I would also like to express my appreciation to the Forest Service, 
Department of Agriculture, and others in the Administration who have 
been helpful in coming to the final product we see here today.
  In closing I thank all those who have contributed to crafting S. 1608 
for their hard work.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  And finally I look forward to the federal government reestablishing 
its support to the rural communities of this country so that they can 
maintain their school systems and provide other needed county services.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak to the 
Senate today in strong support of S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-determination Act of 2000. As an original co-sponsor of 
this legislation, I commend Senator Craig and Senator Wyden for their 
leadership in crafting a bill which brings all sides of the issue 
together. I want to take a minute to salute Oregon's county 
commissioners, who kept this issue on top of their priority list, and 
who made frequent trips to meetings in Oregon and here in Washington, 
D.C. to make sure this legislation moved forward. Oregon is a 
remarkably diverse state, but as I have traveled throughout Oregon, I 
hear the same thing in each of our 36 counties--and that's the fact 
that passage of S. 1608 is their number one priority. I also want to 
thank President Clinton for his statement that he will sign this 
legislation when it reaches his desk.
  S. 1608 re-establishes the federal government's compact with rural 
communities--one that dates back to the early days of settlement in the 
West--while providing much needed funding for environmentally sound, 
locally developed projects to restore the health of federal watersheds 
and forests. Perhaps more importantly, this bill will ensure that the 
federal government provides fair compensation to local governments so 
that they in turn will

[[Page 17956]]

be able to meet their communities' needs for schools and roads. I want 
to make sure my colleagues understand why this legislation is needed, 
and how the counties in my State, as well as nearly 800 other rural 
counties in 41 other States, will suffer if we do not pass S. 1608 
today.
  Nearly a century ago, the ``forest reserves'', precursors of our 
national forests, were transferred from the Department of the Interior 
to the Department of Agriculture. At that time, the Congress understood 
that placing these forest reserves in the federal government's trust 
would have very negative effects on the property taxes local 
governments and local school systems could collect. To remedy this, 
Congress passed a law in 1908 to share 25 percent of the Forest 
Service's gross receipts with the counties to partially compensate the 
counties for the lost taxes. In addition, Congress designated these 
funds to be spent on schools and county roads. Having directed the 
Forest Service to pay very close attention to the needs of the local 
citizens and industries in the ``1905 Transfer Act,'' coupled with the 
passage of the ``1908 25 Percent Payment Act,'' Congress had developed 
a fair and workable compact with rural communities and counties. It was 
a compact that worked very well for nearly 90 years.
  Over the last ten years, however, as federal timber sales have 
declined by nearly 70 percent across the nation, rural counties in many 
states began to see serious short-falls in their annual 25 percent 
payments. In Oregon, where federal timber sales have declined by an 
even greater margin, these shortfalls have been truly devastating for 
local governments.
  As Federal lands have increasingly been declared ``off limits'' in 
recent years, rural communities have worked hard to diversify their 
economies. While tourism has flourished in certain pockets, to this 
point it has not been a substitute for the family wage jobs the timber 
industry once offered. Ultimately, there is only so much that local 
governments can do when 70 percent, 80 percent, or even more, of the 
land is tied up in federal holdings. The fact that local governments 
are no longer being adequately compensated for federal land ownership 
only adds to the burdens of rural communities trying to bring in new 
industries, provide education and health services, and bridge the 
digital divide. This is what we are trying to address with S. 1608.
  Lane County, Oregon, for example, has seen receipts from federal 
lands shrink by 65 percent over the last ten years. This has created a 
gaping $7 million hole in the resources the County uses to provide 
families with basic needs, including public health and safety services, 
strong education systems, and safe roads and highways. If S. 1608 is 
not passed, Lane County faces the prospect of slashing its public works 
engineering staff by 50 percent, leaving roads and bridges threatened 
with disrepair.
  Perhaps Grant County in eastern Oregon makes an even more compelling 
case for the passage of S. 1608. There, the local government has been 
forced to cut back to four day school weeks to make up for the 
shortfall in 25 percent payments. It is outrageous that the educational 
opportunities for children in rural areas of this country are being put 
in jeopardy by the decline of federal timber receipts.
  Throughout my state and in communities in many other states with 
forest counties, sports and extra curricular activities have been 
dropped, and special programs for gifted and talented students have 
been sharply cut back. These communities have been forced to make 
heart-breaking decisions over whether to cut back social service 
programs or school funding, or to sharply reduce sheriffs' patrols and 
close jails, or to cut out all extra curricular activities at their 
schools. We have an opportunity today to answer the call of rural 
America by passing this legislation and show our support for education 
and rural communities. The vote we cast today is not just a vote for or 
against legislation, it is a vote for or against the future of rural 
schools, roads, and children.
  Now let me turn briefly to the objections raised by some in the 
environmental community regarding the resource projects authorized by 
this bill. Apparently, the special interest groups that oppose S. 1608 
over this issue would prefer that the historic relationship between the 
local community and the management of their neighboring federal lands 
be severed completely. Of course, if we were to sever the longstanding 
relationship between federal lands and the communities that host them, 
these same special interest groups would merely have to hold sway over 
the land management bureaucracy in Washington or the federal courts, 
never having to face the people most affected by their policies.
  Some of these groups have gone so far as to run slick attack ads 
against my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, implying that the 
resource projects authorized by S. 1608 would open the door to 
clearcutting on our national forests. Colleagues, please don't be 
fooled by the Washington tactics being employed by the national 
environmental interest groups in opposition to S. 1608. This bill makes 
clear that these projects must be in compliance with federal 
environmental protection laws and that they must be formulated by a 
Resource Advisory Committee made up of interested stakeholders, 
including environmentalists.
  S. 1608 is supported by the National Forest Counties and Schools 
Coalition, a coalition of educators, county governmental officials, 
private companies, and many of the unions who represent people who 
live, work, and teach in or near our federal forests. It is a Coalition 
of over 1,000 organizations that represents over 25 million people. In 
supporting S. 1608, I am choosing to stand with those 25 million 
people, to stand with thousands of rural communities in States 
stretching across America.
  In closing, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to put themselves in 
the position of a local government official from a small town in a 
county dominated by federal forest lands. We have many of them in my 
state. Towns like John Day, Oakridge, and Riddle. Perhaps you have 
counties with towns like these in your state. Imagine that your major 
resource-based industries have largely been shut down by various 
federal actions over the last decade. Too many of the young people are 
having to move away to find jobs. As a local government leader you try 
and build up your community and yet you find--because your community is 
surrounded by federal lands--that you often can't expand the land under 
development to bring in new industry, you often can't build roads or 
recreation sites to bring in more tourism, nor can you tax federal 
forest lands to help pay for the kind of infrastructure or human 
resources you need to attract high tech companies to your area. What 
would you do? How would you try and turn around the local economy with 
the federal government turning a blind eye to the economic consequences 
of its actions? That is what we are trying to remedy today.
  Shutting down our public lands in the name of the public good comes 
with a price--and it should not be rural America alone that has to pay 
it. It is long past time the federal government lived up to its 
financial obligation to these rural communities. A vote for S. 1608 is 
a step toward that end. I thank my colleagues for joining us in this 
effort today.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate bill 1608, the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I 
would like to begin my comments today by drawing attention to the 
determined efforts of my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron 
Wyden, on behalf of rural counties. Senator Wyden has worked tirelessly 
to ensure that counties with federal lands get a fair deal. He has not 
been alone in his efforts. Senator Craig from Idaho has been a vocal 
champion of this legislation. And many other senators, notably Senator 
Boxer of California, have offered constructive input that has greatly 
improved the legislation now before us.
  As we all know, counties containing large amounts of public lands are 
not able to raise sufficient revenues from taxes since the federal 
government is

[[Page 17957]]

not required to pay state or local taxes. Montana has one of the 
highest percentages of federally owned land of any state. This has a 
very significant impact on the tax base of our counties, and they have 
suffered because of it. As revenues from our national forests have 
decreased, so too have the payments to counties. Fortunately, Senator 
Wyden stepped in with a creative solution that ensures that counties 
have the option to receive much more steady funding. S. 1608 recognizes 
both the value of these public lands and the needs of the affected 
counties. It is a wise compromise which allows counties the freedom to 
choose the plan that best serves their needs.
  Mr. President, I would like to say just a few comments about title 
III of S. 1608. I felt that it was very important that counties have 
flexibility, not only in how their funding is determined but also in 
how it is spent. This is why I proposed title III of this bill, and I 
am very pleased that the sponsors of the bill have accepted it.
  Under this bill, each year counties may spend 15-20 percent of their 
funding on either title II projects or on title III projects. As 
originally drafted, S. 1608 focused primarily on activities occurring 
on federal lands. Title III was an effort to give counties the option 
to focus on activities that are not necessarily ``on'' federal lands, 
but that clearly relate to federal lands.
  First, under title III, counties may use the funds as reimbursement 
for search, rescue and emergency services, including fire fighting 
performed on federal lands and paid for by the county. Mr. President, 
after the ravages of the recent fires in Montana, many of which are 
still burning, it is abundantly clear that counties desperately need 
this funding for both fire prevention and fire fighting. Counties that 
are stretching to make ends meet for basic services, such as road 
building and funding schools, simply can't afford to suddenly incur the 
massive costs associated with fighting wildfires.
  I can't impress upon you enough the catastrophic impact that this 
summer's fires have had upon my state. The fires have raged out of 
control on our federal lands, such as the fire picture here (in the 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest which covered nearly 85,000 acres 
and has not yet been contained. Cities have spent weeks under a cloud 
of smoke, as you can see in this photo of Helena. People, houses, and 
wildlife have all been threatened, and it is thanks only to the heroic 
efforts of our firefighters that so few lives and structures have been 
lost. I was honored to spend some time with these courageous 
individuals, and I can tell you, you have never met a more hard-
working, determined crowd of folks. We owe them a heartfelt thank you, 
and I would like to express my personal gratitude for everything they 
have done.
  The process of rehabilitation and clean-up has only begun, and the 
work we do now will be critical to ensuring the full recovery of our 
lands and our communities. For all of these reasons, I am very pleased 
that we were able to change this bill to make sure that counties in 
Montana and across the West could get much-needed funds for 
firefighting and related efforts this year and in future years.
  It has also become clear that we need to do more to prevent danger 
from fires before they start. I've heard from many counties in Montana 
who have said that they could prevent loss of life and property if they 
had funding available to educate new homebuilders about where to build 
or not build their houses to reduce their exposure to wildfires and to 
make sure that emergency equipment can get to their homes. Homeowners 
need to know that a house built in the woods, especially if trees are 
not cleared away from the building, as shown, will be very difficult to 
save from fires. If the right materials are used in construction, 
however, homes can be made much less vulnerable. Under title III, 
counties will have the funding to do this kind of education. They will 
also be able to fund county planning efforts to increase the protection 
of people and property from wildfires.
  Some of you may be under the mistaken impression that the entire 
state of Montana was on fire this summer, but let me assure you--the 
fires have not destroyed the beauty and value of our public lands. 
Under title III, counties can use funds to acquire easements to provide 
for nonmotorized access to public lands for hunting, fishing and other 
recreational purposes and to acquire conservation easements. These 
options are very important in states like Montana where growth is 
gradually shutting off access to public lands and eliminating important 
fish and wildlife habitat. These provisions will give counties the 
tools to make sure that we are able to pass the West's outdoor heritage 
on to our children and grandchildren.
  This photo here is of Eric and Brittany Sharpe, children of Terry and 
Craig Sharpe of Helena. Eric and Brittany's dad is the head of the 
Montana Wildlife Federation, an organization that works non-stop to try 
to make sure that our children will be able to enjoy Montana's great 
fish and wildlife resource just as we do today.
  Mr. President, let us never lose sight of the real reason we do the 
work we do. Let us never lose sight of the children or ever forget for 
even a moment that we have a moral obligation to pass this place on to 
them in as good a shape or better than we found it.
  Finally, counties may also use funds to establish and conduct forest-
related after school programs. Mr. President, the Washington Post 
recently reported that 20 percent of all children in America are left 
unattended after school. In Montana, which has one of the highest 
incidents of parents having to work multiple jobs just to make ends 
meet, this number may be even higher. What is clear is that children 
are less likely to get into trouble, less likely to commit acts of 
violence, if they are involved in after school programs. In my mind, 
this provision gives us a tremendous opportunity to work with our most 
precious asset--the youth--and to give them opportunities to learn 
about our forests and to gain hands-on experience in working on matters 
relating to our forests.
  I was very pleased to be able to add these important options to a 
bill that is critically needed to ensure the fair treatment of our 
rural counties. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to acknowledge the 
vital importance of these efforts and to give this bill, and the rural 
counties of America, their full support.
  Mr. President, before I close, I want to take a moment to elaborate 
on two issues that were addressed in a colloquy between myself, Senator 
Wyden and Senator Boxer.
  First is the question of whether a county can choose to allocate 
funds to both title II and title III in the same year. As should be 
clear from that colloquy, the bill has been drafted so that counties 
may choose to send their funds to either title II or title III in any 
given year, but not to both.
   Mr. President, I submit for the Record a legal memorandum from Janet 
A. Poling, Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Forest Service, which 
reaches the same conclusion about the effect of the language in S. 1608 
as modified by the managers amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of this legal memorandum be printed in the Record following this 
statement.
  Second is the question of the role of the Resource Advisory 
Committees in administering funds that a county wishes to expend under 
title III. As should be abundantly clear from the language of S. 1608 
as amended and from the colloquy between myself, Senator Wyden and 
Senator Boxer, the Resource Advisory Committees are intended to have 
only an advisory role on projects under title III. In short, counties 
are to have full discretion to spend title III funds for the purposes 
enumerated under title III without any restrictions or limitations 
placed upon them by the Resource Advisory Committees.
  Mr. President, a second legal memorandum from the Associate General 
Counsel for the U.S. Forest Service reaches this conclusion based on 
the plain reading of S. 1608 as modified by the managers amendment. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that a

[[Page 17958]]

copy of this legal memorandum be printed in the Record following the 
first legal memorandum that I submitted for the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                Office of the General Counsel,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 2000.
     Informational Memorandum for Anne Keys, Deputy Under 
       Secretary for NRE
     From: Janet A. Poling, Associate General Counsel, Natural 
         Resources.
     Subject: Request for Legal Interpretation of Section 
         102(d)(1)(B) in the Manager's Amendment dated September 
         8, 2000, for S. 1608, the ``Secure Rural Schools and 
         Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.''
       Issue: This memorandum responds to your request for our 
     legal interpretation of section 102(d)(1)(B) in the manager's 
     amendment dated September 8, 2000, for S. 1608. You have 
     asked whether an eligible county can elect to use the balance 
     of its funds for a combination of the listed purposes or 
     whether an eligible county can use the funds for only one of 
     the listed purposes.
       Discussion: Section 102(d)(1)(B) of the subject manager's 
     amendment provides:
       ``(d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds to be distributed to an 
     eligible county pursuant to subsection (c)--
       (A) not less than 80 percent but not more than 85 percent 
     of the funds shall be expended in the same manner in which 
     the 25-percent payments are required to be expended; and
       (B) at the election of an eligible county, the balance of 
     the funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) be reserved for projects in accordance with title II;
       (ii) be spent in accordance with title III; or
       (iii) be returned to the General Treasury in accordance 
     with section 302(b).''
       We interpret subparagraph (B) as allowing an eligible 
     county to choose to use the balance of its funds for only one 
     of the three listed purposes. The provision would not allow 
     counties to use the funds for a combination of the purposes. 
     For example, an eligible county could elect to reserve the 
     funds for projects in accordance with title II or to spend 
     the funds in accordance with title III, but could not 
     allocate funds for both purposes.
       Summary: Section 102(d)(1)(B) would allow an eligible 
     county to choose to use the balance of its funds for only one 
     of the three listed purposes.
                                  ____

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                Office of the General Counsel,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2000.
     Informational Memorandum for Anne Keys, Deputy Under 
       Secretary for NRE,
     From: Janet A. Poling, Associate General Counsel, Natural 
         Resources.
     Subject: Request for Legal Interpretation of Section 302(a) 
         in the Manager's Amendment dated September 8, 2000, for 
         S. 1608, the ``Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
         Determination Act of 2000.''
       Issue: This memorandum responds to your request for our 
     legal interpretation of section 302(a) in the manager's 
     amendment dated September 8, 2000, for S. 1608. You have 
     asked whether a participating county may use county funds 
     under the Title III on projects that have not been 
     recommended by a resource advisory committee.
       Discussion: Section 302(a) provides:
       ``(a) Limitation of County Fund Use.--County funds shall be 
     expended solely on projects that meet the requirements of 
     this title and section 205 of this Act except that: the 
     projects shall be approved by the participating county rather 
     than the Secretary concerned.''
       Section 302(b) provides for the authorized uses of ``county 
     funds'' as that term is defined in section 301(2). Section 
     303 terminates the authority to initiate projects using 
     county funds at the end of fiscal year 2006.
       Section 302(a) also limits the use of county funds to 
     projects that meet the requirements of section 205. Although 
     the reference to section 205 is ambiguous, section 302(a) is 
     most reasonably interpreted as requiring participating 
     counties to submit their proposals for the use of county 
     funds to the appropriate resource advisory committee for 
     review in accordance with section 205(b)(1). We see nothing 
     in the bill that requires approval of a proposed project by a 
     resource advisory committee as a prerequisite for the use of 
     county funds by a participating county. Our interpretation is 
     based in part on the proviso in section 302(a) that places 
     the final decision making authority for the use of county 
     funds with the participating county. Additionally, Title III 
     does not contain procedures similar to those in Title II 
     regarding projects recommended by resource advisory 
     committees.
       Summary: We see nothing in the bill that requires approval 
     of a proposed project by a resource advisory committee as a 
     prerequisite for the use of county funds by a participating 
     county.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in closing, let me thank the bill's 
sponsors and all of the Senators who have exerted so much effort on the 
behalf of our rural counties. Especially, let me thank Senators Wyden 
and Craig who have worked so hard to answer concerns that were raised 
by me and by other Senators, and who should receive full credit for the 
passage of this fine legislation.
  Mr. President, I would like to draw attention to the determined 
efforts of my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, on 
behalf of rural counties. Senator Wyden has worked tirelessly to ensure 
that counties with federal lands get a fair deal. As we all know, 
counties containing large amounts of public lands are not able to raise 
sufficient revenues from taxes since the federal government is not 
required to pay state or local taxes. Recognizing that this is 
fundamentally unfair to these counties, Congress has tried for some 
time to rectify this situation by providing funding from revenue 
generated on our public lands from payments in lieu of taxes in an 
effort to make the counties financially whole.
  Unfortunately, as revenue from our national forests has decreased, so 
too have the payments to counties. This has been seriously disruptive 
to counties across the West. Fortunately, Senator Wyden stepped in with 
a creative solution that insures that counties have the option to 
receive much more steady funding. The bill now before us, S. 1608, 
recognizes both the value of these public lands and the needs of the 
affected counties. It is a wise compromise which allows counties the 
freedom to choose the plan that best serves their needs.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you for your very kind words, Senator Baucus. The 
compromise legislation before us would not have been achieved without 
the wise counsel and experience of the senior Senator from Montana, my 
good friend, Senator Baucus. He has made substantial contributions to 
this bill, particularly in developing title III and in championing the 
need for adequate funding for the prevention and fighting of wildfires, 
like those that have ravaged the West and his own State of Montana this 
summer.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Oregon. Mr. 
President, I would like to say just a few comments about title III of 
S. 1608. Senators Wyden and Craig agreed to include title III in this 
bill at my request. I felt that it was very important that counties 
have flexibility, not only in how their funding is determined but also 
in how it is spent. This is why I proposed title III of this bill, and 
I am very pleased that the sponsors of the bill have accepted it.
  As explained by my colleague Senator Wyden, under this bill, each 
year, counties may spend 15-20 percent of their funding either on title 
II projects or on title III projects. There has been some debate about 
whether counties should be able to ``mix'' funds in a given year 
between title II and title III. Regardless of whether it would be a 
better policy to allow such mixing to occur or to maintain the current 
separation between titles II and III, it is clear that, as drafted, S. 
1608 will not allow such mixing to occur. And while this may not be a 
perfect solution, rarely is any legislation passed by Congress that 
could be characterized as ``perfect.''
  Mr. WYDEN. Again, let me thank the senior Senator from Montana for 
his work on title III, and add that I agree with his interpretation of 
the separation between titles II and III. I would also express my 
willingness to continue to work with him to assure the effective 
implementation of this legislation, particularly of titles II and III.
  This is just one of countless issues that we have grappled with as we 
have strived to make this bill as fair and responsive as possible to 
the needs of our rural counties. We have made giant strides in 
improving this legislation, and I thank all the Members who have been 
willing to put aside their differences and work in a bipartisan effort 
to make this possible.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me talk for a moment about the 
purposes of title III. As originally drafted, S.

[[Page 17959]]

1608 focused primarily on activities occurring on federal lands. Title 
III was an effort to give counties the option to focus on activities 
that are not necessarily ``on'' federal lands, but that clearly relate 
to federal lands.
  First, under title III, counties may use the funds as reimbursement 
for search, rescue and emergency services, including firefighting 
performed on federal lands and paid for by the county. Mr. President, 
after the ravages of the recent fires in Montana, some of which are 
still burning, it is abundantly clear that counties desperately need 
this funding for both fire prevention and fire fighting. Counties that 
are stretching to make ends meet for basic services, such as road 
building and funding schools, simply can't afford to suddenly incur the 
massive costs associated with fighting wildfires. I am pleased that we 
were able to change this bill to make sure that counties in Montana and 
across the West could get much-needed funds for firefighting this year 
and in future years.
  For similar reasons, I drafted title III to allow counties to use the 
funds to reimburse their expenses for search and rescue operations 
performed on federal lands and for the salaries and benefits of county 
employees who supervise adults or juveniles performing mandatory 
community service on public lands.
  Second, under title III, counties may use the funds to acquire 
easements to provide for nonmotorized access to public lands for 
hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes and to acquire 
conservation easements. These options are very important in states like 
Montana where growth is gradually shutting off access to public lands 
and eliminating important fish and wildlife habitat. These provisions 
will give counties the tools to make sure that we are able to pass the 
West's outdoor heritage on to our children and grandchildren.
  Third, counties may use funds to establish and conduct forest-related 
after school programs. Mr. President, the Washington Post recently 
reported that 20 percent of all children in America are left unattended 
after school. In Montana, which has one of the highest incidents of 
parents having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, this 
number may be even higher. What is clear is that children are less 
likely to get into trouble, less likely to commit acts of violence, if 
they are involved in after school programs. In my mind, this provision 
gives us a tremendous opportunity to work with our most precious 
asset--the youth--and to give them opportunities to learn about our 
forests and to gain hands-on experience in working on matters relating 
to our forests.
  Finally, under title III, counties can use the funds for fire 
prevention and county planning.
  These activities are vitally important. I've heard from many counties 
in Montana who have said that they could prevent loss of life and 
property if they had funding available to educate new homebuilders 
about where to build or not build their houses to reduce their exposure 
to wildfires and to make sure that emergency equipment can get to their 
homes. And the same thing is true with respect to the materials that 
homes are built out of and the manner in which homes are landscaped. 
Homeowners need to know that a house built in the woods should have a 
roof made out of tin or some other material that won't burn. Seemingly 
aesthetic decisions can make the difference between a home and ashes 
during a year like this one, and counties need funding to expand this 
type of awareness.
  The same basic reasoning applies to county planning. Counties should 
have the funds available if they want to pass an ordinance requiring 
homeowners to clear brush away from their homes. this can help protect 
lives not only of homeowners, but also of the firefighters who will be 
called in to extinguish burning structure fires. This can allow 
counties to focus their emergency crews on problems that could not have 
been prevented. As written, this provision will also allow counties to 
fund other planning and zoning efforts to minimize the impact that 
unfettered development can have on our forests and streams. By 
providing local communities with the tools to address these types of 
problems, it is my sincere hope that this title will diminish the 
conflicts that occur around our public lands and will help ensure that 
our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy these lands and 
the fish and wildlife that they support well in to the future.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the senior Senator from Montana for his thorough 
explanation of the provisions he helped craft, which became title III 
of the bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before I conclude, I just want to say a 
brief comment about the relationship between title III and the Resource 
Advisory Committees formed under title II. Unlike the projects in title 
II, the projects in title III are essentially local concerns. While 
they relate to the lands that are held in trust for the American 
people, the title III projects are not in any sense ``federal'' 
projects. Items such as county planning and zoning have always been 
seen as local matters and it is not the intent of this legislation to 
change that framework.
  For that reason we have not given the Resource Advisory Committees 
the same role in title III as they have in title II. Under Section 
204(a) of the bill, the Secretary may make a decision to approve a 
project only if it is submitted to the Secretary by the Resource 
Advisory Committee. By contrast, under title III, the counties approve 
the projects and the Resource Advisory Committee serves in an advisory 
capacity.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Wyden, it is my understanding, along with our 
colleague from Montana, that under section 302(a), counties must meet 
the purposes of title III and section 205. You will note that section 
205 explicitly does not give the Resource Advisory Committees the power 
to either ``approve'' or ``disapprove'' projects. Rather, under section 
205, the Resource Advisory Committees are given the power to ``review'' 
and ``propose'' projects. This is critical distinction. Because, while 
we want the Resource Advisory Committees to be involved--as indeed we 
want all members of the interested public involved--we do not wish for 
the Resource Advisory Committees to in any sense ``drive'' or 
``control'' or ``limit'' the use of title III funds. These funds are 
set aside for the counties and the counties should use them in their 
best discretion.
  Mr. Wyden, would you agree that this is the intent of the bill?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the bill's 
language and intent. The purpose of S. 1608 is to increase both county 
funding and county choice. Unlike projects under title II, the role of 
the Resource Advisory Committees is much more limited under title III 
and is limited to an advisory role.
  Mrs. BOXER. Because the legislation does not specify the timing for 
Resource Advisory Committee review of projects, is it the intent of the 
Senator from Oregon that the Resource Advisory Committee review 
projects in a timely manner?
  Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. It is my intent that a Resource Advisory 
Committee would review projects in as expeditious a manner as possible, 
but that in any event, the failure of a Resource Advisory Committee to 
review a project in a timely manner would not under this bill be 
grounds for denying a county the ability to move forward with it.
  Mrs. BOXER. And is it also your intent, Senator Wyden, that projects 
under title III may be submitted by the Resource Advisory Committees, 
the public or the county itself?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes, that is correct. No one is excluded from submitting 
projects under this bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for those responses to the 
questions from the Senator from California.
  In closing I would like to reiterate my admiration for the valiant 
efforts of the senior Senator from Oregon on behalf of this bill and 
rural counties. He has spent countless hours working to create this 
legislation and to ensure that it passes through the Senate, and should 
be recognized as a true hero to rural America. I urge my colleagues in 
the Senate to acknowledge the critical

[[Page 17960]]

importance of this work and to give this bill, and the rural counties 
of America, their full support.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to begin my comments by 
commending the determined efforts of my friends from Oregon, Senator 
Ron Wyden, and my friend from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, on Behalf of 
rural counties. I would like to ask my colleague from Idaho a few 
questions about S. 1608. First, I am concerned about the composition of 
the resource advisory committees in section 205(d) of the bill. The 
bill identifies 3 groups of community interests that must be 
represented, and provides examples in each group. Is it the mangers' 
intent that the Secretary concerned will pick a representative from 
each example interest if that interest resides in the local area served 
by the advisory committee?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes it is our intent that the Secretary would select an 
individual from each example group in each of the three categories of 
community interests listed in section 205(d) when representatives of 
that group are interested in the management of the public lands 
overseen by a particular advisory committee.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me ask a second question. Is it your view that the 
language of section 102(d)(1)(B) and section 102(c)(1)(B) allows the 
counties to divide their project funds between title II and title III 
projects as they choose?
  Mr. CRAIG. The plain language of these sections provides such 
flexibility. I agree with some who have stated that would be the best 
policy, and the language would provide such an opportunity. I will 
leave it to the implementing agencies to decide how to best express the 
flexibility provided by these sections of statute.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you. Now I have a final question. Do the advisory 
committees function in much the same way in reviewing title II and 
title III projects?
  Mr. CRAIG. The bill language in titles II and III provides that they 
will function in much the same way, with a few differences. First, they 
are advisory to the Secretary in title II and to the relevant county in 
title III. In neither case do they actually approve projects, but their 
recommendation is required. If there is no recommendation under title 
II the money will ultimately be returned to Treasury under the terms of 
section 209. If there is no recommendation under title III, the 
counties can ultimately spend the money on title III projects under the 
terms of section 303. It is my expectation that the authority of 
neither of these sections will be required. I believe that the resource 
advisory committees will find consensus in developing and recommending 
title II and title III projects with the respective Secretaries or 
counties as the case may be.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for these clarifications, and hope that 
the affected agencies will implement this law accordingly.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is passing S. 1608, the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This 
legislation will provide counties dependent upon the federal timber 
program with critically-needed funding to support education, road-
building and other county programs.
  I want to commend Senator Wyden in particular for his leadership and 
hard work on this legislation. He tirelessly engaged in months of 
discussions with our Republican counterparts, the administration and 
fellow Democrats to develop a bipartisan, compromise piece of 
legislation that will provide stability to timber-dependent counties 
for years to come.
  Since early in the last century, counties with significant federal 
land-holdings have received 25 percent of the revenue earned from 
timber sales on those lands. Since federal lands cannot be taxed, these 
funds provide counties with a critical source of revenue to maintain 
schools and roads.
  Over the past decade, it has become clear that counties can no longer 
depend upon these funds. In many areas, the timber program has declined 
or ceased altogether, reducing revenue that counties depend up to make 
ends meet. As a result, many counties have had to cut educational 
programs for children significantly. While counties in the Black Hills 
of South Dakota continue to receive adequate funding under existing 
laws, recent challenges to the timber program in South Dakota and 
elsewhere have made it clear that we must have a safety net for all 
timber-dependent counties.
  No child's education should be dependent upon the federal timber 
program. S. 1608 severs that link by providing counties with the option 
of choosing a set payment based upon timber revenues they received in 
the past or continuing with the current formula. This choice will 
provide counties with the continuity and funding they need to provide a 
quality education for children in their schools.
  I'd like to take a few minutes to highlight some important provisions 
of this bill. Like any product of compromise, it is not perfect, and 
there are sections that I would like to see changed. Nonetheless, we 
cannot continue to sacrifice the education of schoolchildren while we 
debate this bill. We need to move forward.
  First, 85 percent of the funds made available by this bill go 
directly to counties to fund roads and schools. These funds are 
generally equivalent, or greater to, the amount of funding that 
counties receive today. Additionally, it gives counties a choice of how 
to spend the remaining 15 percent. Remaining funds can either be used 
by counties to fund projects on federal lands, as described in Title 
II, or to fund county projects described in Title III such as search 
and rescue programs. If neither of these two options is chosen, the 
fund are returned to the Treasury.
  While I am pleased that counties will have a choice of how to use the 
remaining 15 percent of funds, I have some reservations about the 
requirements on the use of Title III funds. Given the fact that these 
funds are used for programs normally carried out by counties, such as 
education and search and rescue operations, it would be preferable to 
leave these responsibilities in the hands of county commissioners who 
are elected to make these decisions. Therefore, if this issue is 
considered in the future, I hope that we can take another look at the 
process for approving Title III projects.
  Once again, I'd like to commend Senator Wyden, Senator Craig, Senator 
Baucus, Senator Bingaman, Senator Boxer and Senator Torricelli for 
their thoughtful consideration of this legislation.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today marks the passage of S. 1608, the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
  This bill is a promising example of bipartisanship and what can be 
accomplished when members of this body work together. Senator Wyden and 
Senator Craig have worked furiously over the past year to put together 
a bill that gives relief to communities in economic stress due to 
changes in management on our Federal lands. Our national forests need 
the involvement of Federal, State, and local interests to restore 
ecosystems, provide stewardship opportunities and maintain forest 
infrastructure. This bill attempts to bring people together to solve 
land management issues, working to create healthy forests and healthy 
communities.
  S. 1608 will create resource advisory committees with representatives 
from across the spectrum, to develop stewardship projects on their 
surrounding Federal lands. These projects, after approval from the 
Secretary, will create jobs for local people, and healthy forests for 
all.
  As we watch our forests go up in smoke all over the west, and parts 
of the south, we are reminded how important healthy forests are to all 
of us. S. 1608 provides resources for healthy communities and forests.
  By providing the mechanism, and the stable payments for counties to 
fund their local infrastructure, roads will be maintained, fire 
departments will be staffed and prepared, and rural communities will 
once again feel secure in knowing their families will be protected, 
because their community infrastructure is in place and has a stable 
source of funding.

[[Page 17961]]

  S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and community Self Determination 
Act is a critical step toward guaranteeing adequate educational funding 
for forest communities, while ensuring a stable, consistent source of 
general treasury funding for ecosystem restoration, forest 
infrastructure maintenance and stewardship projects on our national 
forest land. Parents will see a substantial increase in the amount of 
money directed toward education in public schools. We have counties in 
this country who have been forced to reduce the school week to 4 days, 
eliminate after-school activities like band and athletics, because of a 
lack of money to fund the schools. S. 1608 works to remedy this problem 
by sending more money to these counties for the education of their 
children. In my home state of Mississippi, the timber industry is the 
lifeblood of many of these small counties.
  We hear people say everyday that our children are our future. I will 
say it again today--our children are our future, and S. 1608 secures 
the education of our children in many of the communities in desperate 
need of help.
  I care deeply about the health of this country's communities, 
schools, and forests, and therefore, I commend the valiant efforts of 
Senator Craig and Senator Wyden for their work on S. 1608. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
agreed to, the committee substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be 
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and that any 
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4139) was agreed to.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 1608), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The title was amended so as to read:
  ``A bill to provide stability and predictability to the annual 
payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System 
lands and public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management 
for the benefit of public schools and roads and to enhance the health, 
diversity and productivity of federal lands.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank my 
colleagues, particularly Chairman Craig, Senator Gordon Smith, who was 
so extraordinarily helpful, Senator Bingaman, Senator Baucus, Senator 
Boxer, and many of our colleagues who put in a great many hours on this 
legislation.
  Frankly, 18 months ago, they said it could not be done. This 
legislation 18 months ago was an ideological magnet for those who 
wanted to debate natural resources policy. Senator Craig and I said 
this legislation, which funds basic services in rural America for 
schools, roads, and other essential services, was beyond that kind of 
discussion. It was too important to try to settle all of the divisive 
issues about natural resources on this legislation.
  I am very pleased this bipartisan legislation has been passed because 
this legislation sends a strong message that it is not right for 
Federal policies to turn rural communities into economic sacrifice 
zones. I believe this reinvents the relationship between local 
communities and the Federal lands that are so important to them. It 
will ensure that we can provide for the economic livelihood of folks in 
rural communities, but also it ensures that in the future we are going 
to focus on watershed restoration and conservation easements and a wide 
variety of measures that are going to protect ecosystems.
  I thank my colleague who is on the floor, Chairman Craig. As I said, 
18 months ago no one would have thought that we could be here tonight 
with this extraordinarily important legislation for rural America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for no 
more than 1 minute. I want to respond to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to my colleague from 
Oregon in relation to the legislation about which he has just spoken. I 
certainly agree with him. He and I, working together--I as chairman of 
the Forestry Subcommittee, he as the ranking member--saw and recognized 
a crisis in the rural communities of America that were once named 
timber dependent because they had derived a share of their revenue to 
fund their schools, roads, and bridge funds from the revenue of timber 
receipts which have faded dramatically. We began to work together on a 
resolution of the problem, and tonight we have brought that to the 
floor.
  I certainly agree with Senator Wyden. It was contentious at times, 
but we saw the need to respond to what literally had become a national 
crisis in rural resource-dependent communities across our country.
  Well over 4,000 school districts and nearly 50,000 children were 
victimized by actions or policies that failed to recognize that we had 
to adjust law and/or change policy or we were simply going to find 
these school districts beyond their capacities not only to fund but to 
educate. It was also true with counties' roads and bridge funds.
  The legislation that has just passed the Senate tonight sets us in a 
direction of resolving that problem and bringing about a resolution 
through a collaborative process at the local level between so many 
stakeholders who have legitimate concerns and interests as to how the 
natural resources of our public lands be managed.
  I am so pleased that we could work toward an end that we have arrived 
at tonight that is embodied in S. 1608. We still have work to do in 
adjusting our public policies to bring about the kind of balance we 
need.
  As the Presiding Officer well understands, rural America, be it 
agricultural policy or resource policy, finds itself with very real 
problems today. It is going to be incumbent upon some of us in this 
body to try to address those problems, both in the adjustment of policy 
and certainly in the recognition of the necessary resources to help 
these communities. Tonight, in part, we will have responded to that 
need.

                          ____________________