[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1755-1756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           LAPSE OF SAFE AND SECURE COUNTY RURAL SCHOOLS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, as I speak here on the floor of the House 
today, layoff notices are being prepared for teachers, for county 
sheriff deputies, and other workers in counties in the Pacific 
Northwest and indeed, across America. This is a result of the lapse of 
something called the Safe and Secure County Rural Schools Act, 
legislation that was enacted in a bipartisan way when Bill Clinton was 
President of the United States and the Republicans controlled the House 
and the Senate. And this legislation was adopted in recognition that 
many counties across America are substantially owned by the Federal 
Government. And the Federal Government is obviously exempt from taxes. 
And because of major changes in Federal environmental laws, timber 
harvest in those counties has dropped dramatically, in some cases to 
near zero. Therefore, the shared revenues, under a compact with the 
Federal Government, of these counties and schools have shared in the 
revenues with the Federal Government. And now, for many counties, these 
revenues would be near zero without the guarantees that were enacted in 
the last year of the Clinton presidency. I argued at the time that they 
should be made permanent. Unfortunately, lobbying by the timber 
industry and some county commissioners who hadn't thought this through, 
who thought they could drive a crisis and maybe get a change in forest 
policy, they were made temporary. They have expired as of the 1st of 
October and that is why the layoff notices are being prepared now.
  Congress must act to renew this legislation. Congress needs to hold 
up its end of the bargain with these counties and these schools across 
America. The formula is based on historic timber harvest, and historic 
timber harvest has dropped dramatically, as I said earlier. Some 
criticize Oregon saying, well, you get a lot of the money. Well, we 
have the highest Federal ownership of forest lands and the highest 
timber harvest on Federal lands, and we also have something that is 
very unique called the ONC lands, which are a vestige of a failed 
railroad and revestiture of Federal lands and the agreement between the 
counties and the Federal Government. Quite complicated.
  But the bottom line is, we are just asking the Federal Government to 
make good on its commitment, its partnership. Otherwise, we are going 
to see, essentially, counties in southwest Oregon who have very little 
other opportunity to raise revenues, and none regarding the Federal 
lands. They don't get PILT payments or anything else. We are going to 
see them laying off vital service providers. There are large parts of 
southwest Oregon that could become virtually lawless with our State 
cutbacks in State police and the question of whether or not we will be 
able to have county sheriff patrols in large areas. In my home county, 
the size of the State of Connecticut, you know, once when this happened 
previously, because of a depression in the timber industry, we had no 
deputies in an area the size of the State of Connecticut, outside of 
the cities. With the meth epidemic in rural areas in the West and other 
things, this would be very bad, not only for Oregon and those counties, 
but for the entire western United States. It is in the public interest.
  We are hopeful, we have asked the President to put it in his budget. 
Last year he sort of haphazardly put it in his budget after ignoring 
the issue for a number of years. Unfortunately, the financing mechanism 
that the President chose was immediately criticized by Republican 
Senators, and declared to be a nonstarter. There are indications it may 
be in the President's budget this year. We are hoping that the 
President has found a more suitable offset, something that we can bring 
to the Congress and begin to move this legislation through.
  We need to look at the emergency supplemental for the possibility of 
a 1-year extension, and then I am committed to moving a permanent 
extension through a committee on which I serve, the Resources 
Committee. Greg Walden and I did that 2 years ago very quickly. But the 
bill stalled out in Agriculture. Hopefully, this time after we get it 
out of the Resources Committee, that it will move more expeditiously

[[Page 1756]]

through the Agriculture Committee for the deliberation of the entire 
Congress. It is not just the Pacific Northwest at risk. It is hundreds 
of counties and school districts, from Florida to Maine, all across 
America, who are at risk. And this Congress and this President need to 
act to fulfill this commitment and this promise.

                          ____________________