[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11240-11248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PUBLIC LAND COMMUNITIES TRANSITION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3058) to amend chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, 
to provide full payments under such chapter to units of general local 
government in which entitlement land is located, to provide 
transitional payments during fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to those 
States and counties previously entitled to payments under the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3058

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Public 
     Land Communities Transition Act of 2008''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Transitional payments States and counties previously entitled 
              to payments under Secure Rural Schools and Community 
              Self-Determination Act of 2000.
Sec. 3. Special requirements regarding transition payments to certain 
              States.
Sec. 4. Conservation of resources fees.
Sec. 5. Sense of Congress on distribution of secure rural schools 
              transition payments to eligible counties.

     SEC. 2. TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS STATES AND COUNTIES PREVIOUSLY 
                   ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS UNDER SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS 
                   AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000.

       (a) Transitional Payments.--Chapter 69 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 6908. Secure rural schools transition payments

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Adjusted share.--The term `adjusted share' means the 
     number equal to the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(A) the number equal to the quotient obtained by 
     dividing--
       ``(i) the base share for the eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the income adjustment for the eligible county; by
       ``(B) the number equal to the sum of the quotients obtained 
     under subparagraph (A) and paragraph (8)(A) for all eligible 
     counties.
       ``(2) Base share.--The term `base share' means the number 
     equal to the average of--
       ``(A) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the number of acres of Federal land described in 
     paragraph (7)(A) in each eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the total number acres of Federal land in all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States; and
       ``(B) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the amount equal to the average of the 3 highest 25-
     percent payments and safety net payments made to each 
     eligible State for each eligible county during the 
     eligibility period; by
       ``(ii) the amount equal to the sum of the amounts 
     calculated under clause (i) and paragraph (9)(B)(i) for all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States during the 
     eligibility period.
       ``(3) County payment.--The term `county payment' means the 
     payment for an eligible county calculated under subsection 
     (c).
       ``(4) Eligible county.--The term `eligible county' means 
     any county that--
       ``(A) contains Federal land (as defined in paragraph (7)); 
     and
       ``(B) elects to receive a share of the State payment or the 
     county payment under subsection (f).
       ``(5) Eligibility period.--The term `eligibility period' 
     means fiscal year 1986 through fiscal year 1999.
       ``(6) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a 
     State or territory of the United States that received a 25-
     percent payment for 1 or more fiscal years of the eligibility 
     period.
       ``(7) Federal land.--The term `Federal land' means--
       ``(A) land 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 and land utilization projects designated 
     as National Grasslands administered pursuant to the Act of 
     July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and
       ``(B) such portions of the revested Oregon and California 
     Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant land as are 
     or may hereafter come under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of the Interior, which have heretofore or may 
     hereafter be classified as timberlands, and power-site land 
     valuable for timber, that shall be managed, except as 
     provided in the former section 3 of the Act of August 28, 
     1937 (50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181c), for permanent forest 
     production.
       ``(8) 50-percent adjusted share.--The term `50-percent 
     adjusted share' means the number equal to the quotient 
     obtained by dividing--
       ``(A) the number equal to the quotient obtained by 
     dividing--
       ``(i) the 50-percent base share for the eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the income adjustment for the eligible county; by
       ``(B) the number equal to the sum of the quotients obtained 
     under subparagraph (A) and paragraph (1)(A) for all eligible 
     counties.
       ``(9) 50-percent base share.--The term `50-percent base 
     share' means the number equal to the average of--
       ``(A) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the number of acres of Federal land described in 
     paragraph (7)(B) in each eligible county; by
       ``(ii) the total number acres of Federal land in all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States; and
       ``(B) the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(i) the amount equal to the average of the 3 highest 50-
     percent payments made to each eligible county during the 
     eligibility period; by
       ``(ii) the amount equal to the sum of the amounts 
     calculated under clause (i) and paragraph (2)(B)(i) for all 
     eligible counties in all eligible States during the 
     eligibility period.
       ``(10) 50-percent payment.--The term `50-percent payment' 
     means the payment that is 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.).
       ``(11) Full funding amount.--The term `full funding amount' 
     means--
       ``(A) $520,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(B) for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, the amount 
     that is equal to 90 percent of the full funding amount for 
     the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(12) Income adjustment.--The term `income adjustment' 
     means the square of the quotient obtained by dividing--
       ``(A) the per capita personal income for each eligible 
     county; by
       ``(B) the median per capita personal income of all eligible 
     counties.
       ``(13) Per capita personal income.--The term `per capita 
     personal income' means the most recent per capita personal 
     income data, as determined by the Bureau of Economic 
     Analysis.
       ``(14) Safety net payments.--The term `safety net payments' 
     means the special payment amounts paid 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).
       ``(15) Secretary concerned.--The term `Secretary concerned' 
     means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture or the designee of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the Federal land 
     described in paragraph (7)(A); and
       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior or the designee of the 
     Secretary of the Interior with respect to the Federal land 
     described in paragraph (7)(B).
       ``(16) State payment.--The term `State payment' means the 
     payment for an eligible State calculated under subsection (b)
       ``(17) 25-percent payment.--The term `25-percent payment' 
     means the payment 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).
       ``(b) Calculation of State Payment Amount.--For each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2011, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall calculate for each eligible State an amount equal to 
     the sum of the products obtained by multiplying--
       ``(1) the adjusted share for each eligible county within 
     the eligible State; by
       ``(2) the full funding amount for the fiscal year.
       ``(c) Calculation of County Payment Amount.--For each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2011, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall calculate for each eligible county that received a 50-
     percent payment during the eligibility period an amount equal 
     to the product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(1) the 50-percent adjusted share for the eligible 
     county; by
       ``(2) the full funding amount for the fiscal year.
       ``(d) Payment Amounts for Eligible States.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall pay to each eligible State an amount 
     equal to the sum of the amounts elected under subsection (f) 
     by each county within the eligible State for--

[[Page 11241]]

       ``(1) if the county is eligible for the 25-percent payment, 
     the share of the 25-percent payment; or
       ``(2) the share of the State payment of the eligible 
     county.
       ``(e) Payment Amounts for Eligible Counties.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall pay to each eligible county an amount 
     equal to the amount elected under subsection (f) by the 
     county for--
       ``(1) if the county is eligible for the 50-percent payment, 
     the 50-percent payment; or
       ``(2) the county payment for the eligible county.
       ``(f) Election To Receive Payment Amount.--
       ``(1) Election; submission of results.--
       ``(A) In general.--The election to receive a share of the 
     State payment, the county payment, a share of the State 
     payment and the county payment, a share of the 25-percent 
     payment, the 50-percent payment, or a share of the 25-percent 
     payment and the 50-percent payment, as applicable, shall be 
     made at the discretion of each affected county by August 1, 
     2008, and thereafter in accordance with paragraph (2)(A), and 
     transmitted to the Secretary concerned by the Governor of 
     each eligible State.
       ``(B) Failure to transmit.--If an election for an affected 
     county is not transmitted to the Secretary concerned by the 
     date specified under subparagraph (A), the affected county 
     shall be considered to have elected to receive a share of the 
     State payment, the county payment, or a share of the State 
     payment and the county payment, as applicable.
       ``(2) Duration of election.--
       ``(A) In general.--A county election to receive a share of 
     the 25-percent payment or 50-percent payment, as applicable, 
     shall be effective for 2 fiscal years.
       ``(B) Full funding amount.--If a county elects to receive a 
     share of the State payment or the county payment, the 
     election shall be effective for all subsequent fiscal years 
     through fiscal year 2011.
       ``(g) Source of Payment Amounts.--The payment to an 
     eligible State or eligible county under this section for a 
     fiscal year shall be derived from--
       ``(1) any revenues, fees, penalties, or miscellaneous 
     receipts, exclusive of deposits to any relevant trust fund, 
     special account, or permanent operating funds, received by 
     the Federal Government from activities by the Bureau of Land 
     Management or the Forest Service on the applicable Federal 
     land;
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2008, any funds appropriated to carry 
     out this section; and
       ``(3) to the extent of any shortfall, out of any amounts in 
     the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.
       ``(h) Distribution and Expenditure of Payments.--
       ``(1) Distribution method.--A State that receives a payment 
     under this section shall distribute the appropriate payment 
     amount among the appropriate counties in the State in 
     accordance with--
       ``(A) the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500); and
       ``(B) section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 
     16 U.S.C. 500).
       ``(2) Expenditure purposes.--Subject to paragraph (3), 
     payments received by a State under this section and 
     distributed to counties in accordance with paragraph (1), and 
     payments received directly by an eligible county under this 
     section, shall be expended in the same manner in which 25-
     percent payments or 50-percent payments, as applicable, are 
     required to be expended.
       ``(3) Reservation of portion of payments.--Each eligible 
     county receiving a payment under this section or a portion of 
     a State's payment under this section shall reserve not less 
     than 15 percent of the amount received for expenditure in 
     accordance with titles II and III of the Secure Rural Schools 
     and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 
     note; Public Law 106-393).
       ``(i) Time for Payment.--The payments required under this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be made as soon as 
     practicable after the end of that fiscal year.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``6908. Secure rural schools transition payments.''.

       (c) Extension of Titles II and III of Secure Rural Schools 
     and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.--
       (1) Extension.--The Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public 
     Law 106-393) is amended--
       (A) in sections 203(a), 204(e)(3)(B)(vi), 207(a), 208, and 
     303 by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2011'';
       (B) in sections 208 and 303, by striking ``2008'' and 
     inserting ``2012''.
       (2) Definition of participating county.--The Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 201(1), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``or that is required to reserve funds under 
     section 6908(h)(3) of title 31, United States Code, or 
     section 3(e) of the Public Land Communities Transition Act of 
     2008''; and
       (B) in section 301(1), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``or that is required to reserve funds under 
     section 6908(h)(3) of title 31, United States Code, or 
     section 3(e) of the Public Land Communities Transition Act of 
     2008''.
       (3) Definition of project funds.--The Secure Rural Schools 
     and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 is amended--
       (A) in section 201(2), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``or reserves under section 6908(h)(3) of title 
     31, United States Code, or section 3(e) of the Public Land 
     Communities Transition Act of 2008 for expenditure in 
     accordance with this title''; and
       (B) in section 301(2), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``or reserves under section 6908(h)(3) of title 
     31, United States Code, or section 3(e) of the Public Land 
     Communities Transition Act of 2008 for expenditure in 
     accordance with this title''.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING TRANSITION PAYMENTS TO 
                   CERTAIN STATES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Adjusted amount.--The term ``adjusted amount'' means, 
     with respect to a covered State--
       (A) for fiscal year 2008--
       (i) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     section 102(a)(2) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public 
     Law 106-393), as in effect on September 29, 2006, for the 
     eligible counties in the covered State that have elected 
     under section 6908 of title 31, United States Code, as added 
     by section 2 of this Act, to receive a share of the State 
     payment for fiscal year 2008; and
       (ii) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     section 103(a)(2) Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 
     106-393), as in effect on September 29, 2006, for the 
     eligible counties in the State of Oregon that have elected 
     under section 6908 of title 31, United States Code, as added 
     by section 2 of this Act, to receive the county payment for 
     fiscal year 2008;
       (B) for fiscal year 2009, 90 percent of--
       (i) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     such section 102(a)(2) for the eligible counties in the 
     covered State that have elected under such section 6908 to 
     receive a share of the State payment for fiscal year 2009; 
     and
       (ii) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     such section 103(a)(2) for the eligible counties in the State 
     of Oregon that have elected under such section 6908 to 
     receive the county payment for fiscal year 2009;
       (C) for fiscal year 2010, 81 percent of--
       (i) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     section such 102(a)(2) for the eligible counties in the 
     covered State that have elected under such section 6908 to 
     receive a share of the State payment for fiscal year 2010; 
     and
       (ii) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     such section 103(a)(2) for the eligible counties in the State 
     of Oregon that have elected under such section 6908 to 
     receive the county payment for fiscal year 2010; and
       (D) for fiscal year 2011, 73 percent of--
       (i) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     such section 102(a)(2) for the eligible counties in the 
     covered State that have elected under such section 6908 to 
     receive a share of the State payment for fiscal year 2011; 
     and
       (ii) the sum of the amounts paid for fiscal year 2006 under 
     such section 103(a)(2) for the eligible counties in the State 
     of Oregon that have elected under such section 6908 to 
     receive the county payment for fiscal year 2011.
       (2) Covered state.--The term ``covered State'' means each 
     of the States of California, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
     South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington.
       (3) Eligible county.--The term ``eligible county'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 6908 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as added by section 2 of this Act.
       (b) Transition Payments.--For each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2011, in lieu of the payment amounts that otherwise 
     would have been made under section 6908 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as added by section 2 of this Act, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall pay the adjusted amount to each covered 
     State and the eligible counties within the covered State, as 
     applicable.
       (c) Distribution of Adjusted Amount.--It is the intent of 
     Congress that the method of distributing the payments under 
     subsection (b) among the counties in a covered State (other 
     than California) for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011 
     be in the same proportion that the payments were distributed 
     to the eligible counties in that State in fiscal year 2006.
       (d) Distribution of Payments in California.--The following 
     payments shall be distributed among the eligible counties in 
     the State of California in the same proportion that payments 
     under section 102(a)(2) of the Secure Rural Schools and 
     Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; 
     Public Law 106-393), as in effect on September 29, 2006, were 
     distributed to the eligible counties for fiscal year 2006:
       (1) Payments to the State of California under subsection 
     (b).
       (2) The shares of the eligible counties of the State 
     payment for California under section 6908 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as

[[Page 11242]]

     added by section 2 of this Act, for fiscal year 2011.
       (e) Treatment of Payments.--Any payment made under 
     subsection (b) shall be considered to be a payment made under 
     section 6908 of title 31, United States Code, as added by 
     section 2 of this Act, except that each eligible county 
     receiving a payment under such subsection or a portion of 
     such payment under subsection (c) or (d) shall reserve not 
     less than 15 percent of the amount received for expenditure 
     in accordance with titles II and III of the Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393), as required by 
     subsection (h)(3) of such section 6908.

     SEC. 4. CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES FEES.

       (a) Establishment of Fees.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior by 
     regulation shall establish--
       (A) a conservation of resources fee for producing Federal 
     oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and
       (B) a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing 
     Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
       (2) Producing lease fee terms.--The fee under paragraph 
     (1)(A)--
       (A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to covered 
     leases that are producing leases;
       (B) shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per 
     million Btu for gas, respectively, in 2005 dollars; and
       (C) shall apply only to production of oil or gas 
     occurring--
       (i) in any calendar year in which the arithmetic average of 
     the daily closing prices for light sweet crude oil on the New 
     York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) exceeds $34.73 per barrel 
     for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas in 2005 dollars; 
     and
       (ii) on or after October 1, 2006.
       (3) Nonproducing lease fee terms.--The fee under paragraph 
     (1)(B)--
       (A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to leases that 
     are nonproducing leases;
       (B) shall be set at $3.75 per acre per year in 2005 
     dollars; and
       (C) shall apply on and after October 1, 2006.
       (4) Treatment of receipts.--Amounts received by the United 
     States as fees under this subsection shall be treated as 
     offsetting receipts.
       (b) Covered Lease Defined.--In this section the term 
     ``covered lease'' means a lease for oil or gas production in 
     the Gulf of Mexico that is--
       (1) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) issued by the Department of the Interior under section 
     304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
       (3) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on 
     market price that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (c) Royalty Suspension Provisions.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall agree to a request by any lessee to amend any 
     lease issued for Central and Western Gulf of Mexico tracts 
     during the period of January 1, 1998, through December 31, 
     1999, to incorporate price thresholds applicable to royalty 
     suspension provisions, or amend existing price thresholds, in 
     the amount of $34.73 per barrel (2005 dollars) for oil and 
     for natural gas of $4.34 per million Btu (2005 dollars).

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DISTRIBUTION OF SECURE RURAL 
                   SCHOOLS TRANSITION PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE 
                   COUNTIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that amounts made available by 
     a State to an eligible county under section 6908 of title 31, 
     United States Code, as added by section 2 of this Act, or 
     under section 3 of this Act to support public schools in that 
     county should be in addition to, and not in lieu of, general 
     funds of the State made available to support public schools 
     in that county, and that the State should not adjust 
     education funding allocations to reflect the receipt of 
     amounts under such section 6908 or section 3.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is incredibly important legislation, and I hope it doesn't 
devolve into the partisan debate that's been going on earlier today to 
point the fingers of blame on the current high cost of gasoline at the 
pump.
  This is about another crisis the American people are experiencing, 
not as widespread as the cost of fuel, but the impact will be even 
heavier on more than 600 counties in 42 States and hundreds of school 
districts across America. This is the issue of whether or not we should 
continue to compensate these counties for the fact that they have very 
high ownership of Federal lands and Federal forests. Federal forest 
policy has changed, and their revenues have diminished dramatically, 
and many of them have no alternative, under their State constitution or 
other laws, to go out and replace those funds, particularly in the 
short term.
  It's expensive. It would cost $1.9 billion over 4 years. But being 
sensitive to the fact that many of us on this side of the aisle feel 
that the policies of recent years have put the country on the verge of 
bankruptcy, we pay for it. In fact, with the value of what we have in 
here as a so-called offset in Washington speak, the way we pay for it, 
with fees on offshore oil leases that were inadvertently omitted by the 
Clinton administration, would raise $3.3 billion. That means we pay for 
rural schools and counties. That's 7,000 teachers. That's hundreds of 
deputy sheriffs, hundreds of corrections officers, many roadworkers, 
other critical public safety folks, public health, all across 42 States 
in America and 600 counties. We pay for that with this bill. In fact, 
we would help reduce the deficit, which is something we're handing off 
to our kids and we do need to deal with, by $1.4 billion.
  Now, some will object to the offset, that the oil companies shouldn't 
be required to pay a fee even though they got this royalty relief 
without a cap inadvertently, by mistake, by a previous administration. 
I really hope that they don't take the debate down that path. That does 
not do the counties, the schools, the teachers, the police, the 
deputies, and the others justice.
  Let's focus on the issue at hand. They have an alternative to fund 
this. I have been trying desperately for more than a year. It's been 
quite some time since this bill came out of committee, and Mr. Walden 
and I joined in a bipartisan way earlier this year in a letter on 
January 18 to the majority asking that this bill be brought up. And 
then Mr. Walden on May 1 came to the floor with Mr. Blunt and asked 
that the bill be brought up. In fact, he sent out a press release 
saying it's been 44 legislative days and over 3 months, that it's a 
strongly bipartisan bill. I hope it stays bipartisan. To extend county 
payments has been ready for a vote on the House floor. I simply do not 
understand why the Democratic leadership has not scheduled a vote.
  Well, the Democratic leadership has now scheduled a vote. And I hope 
that we can get back to the bipartisanness. I hope we can get back to 
the focus of this debate. Let's pass this bill and move it over to the 
Senate. If you don't like the way it's paid for, if you want to protect 
the royalty relief for the oil and gas industry, then vote ``present,'' 
send the bill to the Senate, and see if they can come up with, as they 
claim, a better way to pay for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is, to be honest, a very sad day on this bill today on the 
floor. As an educator, I simply understand the need for secure rural 
schools funding. As a westerner and someone who served for a long time 
in the State legislature, I understand what payment in lieu of taxes, 
or PILT, means to western counties.
  Unfortunately, though, this bill that is before us today did not get 
here through regular order. This is not the same bill we discussed in 
committee nor is it the same bill that I and some others cosponsored. 
It appears almost as if political games are now being played in an 
effort to pass this particular bill, which breaks new ground. The 
precedent has always been, in dealing with secure rural schools and 
PILT, that we have dealt in a bipartisan manner in an effort to find 
legal and politically feasible solutions to pay for secure rural 
schools and payment in lieu of taxes. We have always addressed these 
two issues in a bipartisan manner, always, until now. H.R. 3058, this 
version of it, has broken that covenant.
  When a version of this numbered bill was passed in the Resources 
Committee, two promises were made to the Republicans who cosponsored 
it, Mr.

[[Page 11243]]

Walden and me and others. The first promise was that PILT would not be 
decoupled from secure rural schools. I cannot stress enough the 
importance of PILT funding being coupled with secure rural schools, as 
was promised. Even the majority leader in the Senate has said this is 
the key to the success of this piece of legislation. And yet this 
promise was broken.
  Second, the offset using the 1998/1999 lease moneys was supposed to 
be taken out by the time this came to the floor. This set of money, 
which has already been spent three times on three different bills, not 
the same pot of money, the exact same dollars which have been spent, is 
not going to be a solution to this. The gentleman from Oregon suggested 
last night that there might be constitutional concerns and we should 
not listen to those. I have some sympathy for that approach, but the 
fact of the matter is his speech last night was to the wrong audience. 
It should be to the lower courts, who have already ruled that this pot 
of money is not accessible to us.
  In 2006 we passed the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. Using these 
fees for that was justifiable. Using it in this bill is not 
justifiable. Those fees for the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act was to 
fund programs and projects related to conservation of OCS-related 
resources. It was to increase America's energy supply and encourage 
domestic energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Because we 
are no longer using that and have now taken them to a different level, 
it will be a breach of the oil and gas leases and designed to punish 
energy companies and discourage much-needed domestic oil and gas 
production. This bill sends now a message to every energy company in 
America that Congress will not respect lease contracts and will result 
in less oil, less gas production, which I certainly hope is not the 
objective of the Democratic Party.
  We need to have a different way of paying for this bill that does not 
include an energy price-increasing bankrupt offset. We need a genuine 
offset that will pay for both PILT and secure rural schools without 
making America's energy more expensive, less available. And to be 
honest, if the court upholds their ruling that they already had, if the 
other courts do, there won't be any money for secure rural schools in 
this project anyway.
  Now, I know there will be people who will tell us this is merely a 
bogus placeholder. We don't really mean to use this money as the bill 
progresses through, which simply shows that perhaps PAYGO is nothing 
more than an accounting game or scam as we're looking at it, and that 
all we need to do is give a blank check over to the Senate, pass it 
along, and they will fill in some reasonable way of funding this 
particular bill. We will abdicate our responsibility of coming up with 
legal, legitimate, responsible legislation because somewhere down the 
line, someone else will do it.
  If the Senate, indeed, has a secret magical formula for funding this 
bill, why wasn't it in the farm bill? Why wasn't it in the extension of 
the Rural Schools Act? Why did the Senate not put it in a bill and send 
it over here? Or why did the sponsor not negotiate with the Senate to 
insert it in this bill so we could discuss it in the House?
  The promise was before this bill to the floor there would be a 
legitimate source for an offset. It is not there. Instead, we seem to 
be playing a game of political gotcha, which is so sad because there 
was a compromise that could have funded this bill and done it in a 
legally effective way. It was presented by the National Education 
Association on behalf of schools. It was supported by the consortium of 
counties. It was supported by energy producers that would have fully 
funded PILT, fully funded the secure rural schools, expanded energy 
options. It would have given States control over sand and gravel for 
beach replenishment, over the viewshed, States control over their 
offshore renewable energies, would have funded energy and minerals 
higher education program, and be done with real money, not the funny 
money in this particular bill. It is language that is similar to a 
bipartisan bill passed in the 109th Congress which was supported by Mr. 
DeFazio and 39 other Democrats in a bipartisan way.
  The question that we have to ask ourselves today is why are we 
confronted on suspension with a bill that has a phony PAYGO offset, 
money that we know is not there? Why are we presented with a suspension 
bill that has already been rejected by the Senate, that has already 
been rejected by the administration? Why instead did we not agree to go 
with the compromise approach, which would have had real offsets and 
provided real solutions to fully fund our schools, to fully fund PILT, 
and not to have to take it out of the hide of anyone who stops at a gas 
pump this weekend? Now, that's what we should have done, and we didn't 
do it. And that's why this is a very, very sad day on a bill that was 
not discussed in committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. DeFAZIO. It's not phony, it's just painful. Schools, teachers, 
cops, Big Oil. It's a tough choice for some people. Not for me. I'd be 
happy to stick with this, all the way through sending it to the 
President. But some on that side of the aisle, particularly in the 
Senate, don't want to do that. If the money has not been spent because 
the Republicans in the Senate have rejected it to pay for other 
valuable things, this is a valuable thing to pay for.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
also thank you for your great work on this bill, Mr. DeFazio, and thank 
you especially for paying for the bill.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, county governments don't receive property 
tax for lands owned and controlled by the Federal Government. However, 
they are obligated to provide services in those areas. The Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act was created to compensate 
local governments for the tax exempt status of the public lands within 
their county. If we fail to reauthorize this important program, 
teachers will be laid off, kids will be short-changed on their 
education, and county roads will go unmaintained.
  In my district, over 1.2 million acres are controlled by the Federal 
Government. The National Forest Service land in my district is twice 
the size of the State of Rhode Island, and every acre, every acre is 
exempt from property tax. In one of my counties, 40 percent of the 
roads are within the National Forest. So that county is responsible for 
maintaining the roads that run through the very property that is exempt 
from the taxes that pay for our roads.
  It's unconscionable for the Federal Government to walk away from this 
obligation to rural local governments. Rural counties have no other 
options. We have made a commitment on this issue. Now let's live up to 
our word.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As we now talk about a bill that a commitment was 
made but does not exist anymore, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, counties and schools in my district need a 
lifeline. They don't need partisanship. They don't need a talking 
point. They need leadership, which will result in an actual law being 
passed to help them.
  Secure rural schools has rested on hard work by grassroots supporters 
and bipartisan efforts in Congress. So why are we moving a bill that 
divides our coalition by removing PILT and tying secure rural schools 
to a controversial offset that we know will fail in the Senate?
  This bill does nothing to help our counties and schools because it 
has no chance of becoming law. Yesterday, there was an effort to rescue 
this legislation with a compromise that would extend a lifeline to 
rural counties and every American through new domestic oil production 
and lower gas prices. That proposal was rejected because we were told 
the majority will not allow consideration of any bill that increases 
domestic oil supplies.

[[Page 11244]]

  America and our counties and schools deserve better. I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3058, and I want to thank my 
good friend and colleague, Mr. DeFazio, for his hard work and tireless 
work on this issue.
  Almost exactly 100 years ago, Congress passed a law creating a 
partnership with rural counties with a high percentage of Federal land, 
and Congress realized that because the Federal lands were off-limits to 
the counties for development and they would never contribute to the tax 
base, that these counties should be compensated for permanent loss of 
any tax revenues. The law allowed a percentage of the revenue produced 
from Federal land resources to be returned to the county. Counties were 
then able to use these funds for public safety, public schools, and 
public roads.
  Over the years, because of changes in Federal forest policy, the 
revenue for Federal lands has decreased and Federal lands are still off 
limits for development, and this leads many counties in the American 
West with dramatic decreases in the tax base.
  In 2000, we passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act in order to provide a stable base of funding to the 
affected counties. But that act has not been reauthorized and the 
Federal payments are scheduled to end June 30. This is a very, very 
serious issue in Oregon and across the American West, where counties 
have already, in preparation for this date, in preparation for future 
budgets, begun to issue pink slips. They have issued pink slips to 
police, firefighters, teachers, and other essential personnel. It is 
not an exaggeration to say that Oregonians may have their lives 
endangered because of these cuts, if they take place.
  The bill that my good friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
has submitted would provide an extension of payments through fiscal 
2011 to counties that previously received these payments. And to 
maintain fiscal responsibility, the bill is fully paid for with 
offsets, and it reduces payments to counties by 15 percent each year, 
asking all to make sacrifices.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Can I inquire as to the time remaining, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Oregon has 12 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, this program needs to be reauthorized. I 
represent northeastern California, which is one of the top recipients 
of money under this Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, which expired a couple of years ago. Just to give 
you an example, Plumas County School District in my district receives 
roughly 20 percent of their annual operating budget from these funds. 
Without this money, the county is prepared to lay off 9 out of the 16 
administrators; 47 teachers out of a total of 150; close all school 
libraries; possibly close some or all cafeterias; and cut 
transportation services. Another county adjoining Plumas that I 
represent is Sierra. They would need to lay off nearly 40 percent of 
their teachers and administrators.
  Today's bill will not become law and therefore does nothing to 
support our rural counties. We cannot continue to go from year to year 
without this being resolved. In California, if you don't have the 
funding assured, layoff notices are sent off by March 15 of the year. 
For the second year in a row, those layoff notices have already gone 
out. We lose valuable teachers that do not come back once the funding 
has been restored.
  This debate should be about schools and public infrastructure, not 
used as fodder to drive an anti-oil agenda. This process that we are 
using is deplorable. We were told that PILT would be included, but it 
was stripped out of the bill on its way to the floor. We were told 
there would be an acceptable offset, not one that has been rejected on 
three previous occasions by the U.S. Senate. But there is none.
  We are also considering this bill under suspension of the bills, 
denying the minority a right to offer an alternative and preventing any 
Member from offering alternative offsets. A compromise has been offered 
and rejected.
  For this reason, I would urge defeat of the bill.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. With that, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington State (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3058, the Public Land 
Communities Transition Act, and I commend my dear friend, Peter 
DeFazio. I have rarely seen a Member of Congress work so diligently on 
behalf of his constituents. He also works on behalf of my constituents 
because in southwest Washington, we are one of the 10 most forested 
districts in the entire country. So much of the land in my district is 
under control of the Forest Service. Counties like Lewis, Skamania, and 
Cowlitz rely on Secure Rural Schools money to keep public safety 
working.
  My friends, we have to work to pass this bill. It is urgent, as many 
speakers have said. It is a bit ironic, however, to criticize the bill 
and say the criticism is because this bill will not become law, and 
then vote against it. Things don't become law around here when people 
vote against them. Things become law when people vote for them.
  Because of that, I would encourage my colleagues to vote for this 
bill. Without this bill, 600 counties across the country that are home 
to millions of Americans would be left behind. Without this program, 
millions of rural communities would face steep job losses, breakdowns 
in services and infrastructure, and deep cuts to school budgets. 
Without this funding, almost 7,000 teachers and other educational staff 
will be laid off across the country. They are facing termination as we 
speak.
  Delay should not be an option. Passage should be our remedy. I urge 
passage of this fine bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the ranking 
member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3058, the 
Public Land Communities Transition Act of 2008. Mr. Speaker, this bill 
had the opportunity to provide rural schools with the much-needed 
funding that allows them to keep their doors open and serve sparsely-
populated areas. Unfortunately, the majority decided to offset this 
bill with provisions that will increase the cost of gas to the American 
public. Already paying $4 a gallon at the pumps, Americans should not 
be forced to bear further increases, especially those living in rural 
areas that, on average, already drive greater distances.
  The fee increases on oil and gas leases would place further confines 
on domestic energy production at a time when we need to be expanding 
production and building our Nation's energy independence.
  This provision was included in the farm bill that was brought to the 
House floor a year ago, and was one of several tax increasing 
provisions that drew criticism from House Members, as well as the 
Senate and the White House. It would be disingenuous to sing praises of 
this bill when the cost of providing support to rural schools would be 
borne by the very rural constituents we are trying to help.
  There is a proposed compromise that was introduced in the 109th 
Congress and enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It would solve the 
problems created by the oil and gas lease provisions in H.R. 3058 by 
increasing domestic energy exploration and production, thereby helping 
to reduce the gas prices for the American consumer. At the same time,

[[Page 11245]]

this alternative would provide the necessary funding for rural school 
districts. That alternative would be something I could stand behind 
but, unfortunately, that is not the bill we are considering today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I urge them to vote against the 
policy that will raise gas prices for Americans when they have the 
opportunity to do it right and create increased domestic energy 
production and solve this problem for our rural schools.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. At this point I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) whose district is impacted.
  Ms. HOOLEY. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. DeFazio, for all 
of the work that he has done on this bill. Look, I grew up in a family 
where if you made a promise, you kept that promise. A deal is a deal.
  County payments available for 100 years are payment for the Federal 
Government owning 57 percent of the forested land in Oregon. If the 
Federal Government did not make these payments, these counties would 
have very little in the way of infrastructure funding.
  This money will cut the following services if we don't have it, and 
it will impact our most vulnerable citizens: Loss of sheriffs; loss of 
DAs; loss of economic development services and juvenile services; loss 
of mental health services, public health, and in general, loss of 
veterans services and senior services. The loss of county payments 
means the loss of sheriffs. In just one county, Curry County alone, 
three sheriffs will have to patrol an area the same size as 
Connecticut, which has a police force of 2,000.
  This bill is a 4-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools. This 
program will not continue unless we give this an appropriation. It 
needs to pass to provide that critical funding for our counties. I 
cannot over-emphasize the need for this legislation for Oregon and for 
the Nation to maintain its 100-year-old bargain with the National 
Forest States. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage today.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I inquire how much time is left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 9.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the ranking 
member of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young).

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, when this bill came out of the 
committee, I thought we had an agreement where there would be an offset 
and a payment of the bill. Unfortunately, that did not occur, so 
consequently I will be voting against this legislation because it 
doesn't do what it says it is going to do. Very frankly, this is funny 
money, and the schools won't be, as we want them to be, funded, and 
that is unfortunate.
  But I am also going to talk about a lot of the statements on the 
floor, and my good friend from Oregon has to understand that I do watch 
the debate. There were some statements made that I think were 
incorrect, in fact I know, not think, about ANWR and about PET4 and 
about independence.
  There has been no oil shipped overseas from Alaska. It all goes to 
the West Coast, at one time through the Panama Canal, through a 
pipeline, for American consumption, all 17 billion barrels of oil. And 
if we were to open ANWR or the Chukchi Sea it would go to the United 
States. It wouldn't go overseas to China or Japan. We could make sure 
of that as we vote for it on this House floor, as we did when we had 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
  I think it is important that the American public recognize that we do 
have a supply problem. And anybody who denies that, I have heard these 
arguments for 25 years, well, we only do have one month or 6 months or 
whatever it is oil supply, so we shouldn't do it. If we have that 1 
million barrels a day, Chavez would not have the ability to blackmail 
us, or if Nigeria had an upheaval, there wouldn't be the spike in oil 
prices.
  A lot of people are pointing their fingers at all the problems, the 
big oil, the speculators, and I do think there is some merit in the 
speculators because they know we haven't acted on the supply side ever 
since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Not one time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Let's follow this train a little bit further. If 
we don't increase our supply, Mr. and Mrs. America, instead of $4 a 
gallon, it is going to be $10 a gallon by January 1.
  We must act in this Congress, and if you do not, may the wrath come 
down on you and may you be punished for what you have not done. We must 
address this issue in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to consider 
the supply side. Consider it. And this legislation itself has its weak 
points, too.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3058, the Public 
Land Communities Transition Assistance Act. As the chairman of the 
Committee on Natural Resources, I do want to express my deep 
appreciation to the gentleman from Oregon, Peter DeFazio, for his 
strongly tenacious efforts and determined determination on behalf of 
this legislation. He has more than adequately explained the bill. My 
purpose is to stress the urgency of this body acting on the 
legislation.
  This legislation, commonly referred to as the ``county payments 
bill,'' was enacted in 2000 to provide stability in revenue sharing 
payments made to the States and counties containing Federal forest 
lands. This funding has been extremely important, critically so in many 
cases, in assisting schools and communities in rural counties across 
the country, including my home State of West Virginia. Yet the Congress 
has failed to reauthorize the program.
  This Congress, with a Democratic majority, is attempting to pick up 
the pieces of a program that was looking at being eliminated square in 
the eye. Last year we managed to pass a 1-year extension of county 
payments, but that is due to expire at the end of this month. So I 
cannot stress enough the urgency of today's vote.
  Critical funding for schools and county services across the country 
will evaporate if we do not act today. Indeed, the National Forest 
Counties and Schools Coalition estimates that about 7,000 teachers and 
other educational staff will be laid off as of June 30th when their 
contracts expire if this body does not act. That is something worth 
thinking about. Students in rural forest counties across this Nation 
will be deprived of almost 7,000 teachers and the other educational 
staff.
  Now, some have taken issue with the pay-for, the offset being used 
for this bill, which is a conservation of resources fee on a class of 
Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico that are unduly 
enjoying royalty relief by virtue of not having price thresholds.
  This is not a new proposal. This body has considered it before, and 
rightly so. My colleagues, to date the American people have been 
deprived of over $1 billion in Federal royalties as a result of this 
situation. That is over 1 billion with a ``B'' dollars, something worth 
thinking about.
  We now learn that in the future if this situation is not corrected, 
the American people will be fleeced to the tune of $4 billion and to a 
high of $14 billion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia 
has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. RAHALL. That figure could go as high as $14 billion, depending on 
the price of oil and natural gas and the amount produced from these 
leases.
  So it is very important that we recognize this bill does have funding 
sources and that is what we are trying to do here, at the same time 
generating funds to pay for teachers and the education of our school 
children.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady).

[[Page 11246]]


  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons this Congress has 
the lowest approval ratings in poll history is it keeps playing 
political games instead of solving real problems like energy prices or 
supporting our troops in Iraq.
  Today we are doing the same, playing games with our rural schools, 
with our rural counties, with our rural firefighters and police forces. 
Unfortunately, this bill is deader than a doornail, only because some 
political genius decided they would like to pit those of us who support 
rural schools against our energy companies. Well, guess what? Everyone 
loses, especially our rural communities who fought for this. This bill 
is a shame.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. It's teachers or 
cops or Big Oil.
  With that, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin).
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3058, the Public Land Communities 
Transition Assistance Act, and I too thank the gentleman from Oregon, 
Mr. DeFazio, for his tireless efforts to reauthorize the Secure Rural 
Schools program. I also thank the House Committee on Natural Resources 
and the House leadership for their work on this legislation.
  H.R. 3058 would reauthorize the secure rural schools program for 4 
years. Annual payments to counties impacted by National Forest lands 
are an important part of many school districts' budgets, and failure to 
reauthorize the Secure Rural schools would force very difficult 
decisions in counties and school districts in over 40 States.
  In the State of South Dakota, the Black Hills National Forest is a 
special place and a highly valued resource. Yet the national ownership 
of this land has clear impacts on finances of counties in western South 
Dakota. For example, under the Secure Rural Schools program, Custer 
County schools receive approximately $310,000 for the 2007-2008 school 
year. If this program isn't reauthorized, Custer schools would receive 
about $90,000. The loss of $210,000 would likely lead to eliminating 
numerous teaching positions and increasing class sizes to as many as 40 
students per class.
  Custer County isn't alone. If we fail to reauthorize the secure rural 
schools program, almost 7,000 teachers and other educational staff will 
be laid off across the country as of June 30, 2008, when their 
contracts expire. H.R. 3058 provides a new distribution formula and 
transition payments as counties adjust.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. On the offset, by my count, 48 of my Republican 
colleagues have in the past voted for legislation that included this 
offset. That was all in 2007, before oil went over $100 a barrel. So I 
would think that even those of us that do support expanded exploration 
and drilling for energy sources on public lands would agree that it 
should be equitable and Federal royalty payments should be paid when we 
are extracting oil resources from public lands.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this fair, bipartisan bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I suggest the gentleman use some of his time, because I 
only have one more speaker and then I will be closing.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who has worked tirelessly on 
this issue in a bipartisan way in the past.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have 
arrived here today like an out-of-control car skidding to a stop. Let's 
not forget why we are here. We are here because of a changed Federal 
timber policy that has bankrupted the people that live in my district 
and many of yours, and as a result we now have fires at costs that are 
unbelievable. They are historic. We are burning more acres of our 
Federal forests than at any time in our Nation's history, and we are 
paying more for it. Forty-seven percent of the Federal budget for the 
Forest Service now goes to put out fires.
  Yet we have shut down the Federal forests from active management. 
That is why we are here today, because the revenues that used to flow 
to our communities to pay for basic services, to be the good partner 
that Teddy Roosevelt envisioned the great forest reserves more than 100 
years ago, to be a partnership with the local community, that 
partnership, that bond, that pledge has been broken. People are put out 
of work. Services are lost.
  The tragedy that brings us here today is another broken promise, and 
that is when this bill was considered by the House Natural Resources 
Committee there was a consistent and common pledge that this bill would 
be brought to the floor with a different offset.
  I have a quote here from the spokesperson from the committee that 
makes that very clear. It says very clearly, it is definitely our 
intention for the money not to come from increased fees on oil and gas 
companies.
  It is definitely not our intention for the money to come from 
increased fees on oil and gas companies. That is what the committee 
said. I just couldn't read it. It is too far in front of me. I 
apologize.
  That clearly is not the case. It is clearly not the case. So we have 
before us a bill with a broken promise, first of all, and it didn't 
have to be that way.
  Yes, I have come to this floor repeatedly and called for this bill to 
come to this floor for consideration. I don't know why it was held 
hostage for 130 or so days. But I came here calling for this bill to 
come to the floor with the clear understanding, the promise and pledge 
of that committee that it would come here with a different offset, one 
that was palatable. That promise and pledge was broken.
  Meanwhile, I know the Speaker was out in Oregon a while back and said 
where we go from here is we ought to phase out that system. That 
doesn't sound like the Speaker is very supportive to me.
  So what we have here today is an offset of questionable legality. And 
I say that not because I am a lawyer, I am not, but because of court 
cases that have occurred that said when it comes to levying a fee on 
conservation of resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, that leases 
that exist today prohibit the application of future laws and 
regulations except future regulations related to conservation of the 
resources of the Outer Continental Shelf.
  What does that mean in real people talk? It means if you are going to 
levy the fee that you plan to levy, you have to spend it in a legal 
way, which is on conservation efforts on the Outer Continental Shelf, 
or else the courts will say you are not following the decisions we 
already gave you, Mobil v. U.S., among others. So this is of 
questionable legal status.
  So, I asked my colleague from Oregon, we talked, we have worked 
really closely on this issue over the years in a bipartisan manner, and 
I said I think we are going to have a lot of problems on our side with 
this and I don't think it is legal. And indeed that is where we are 
today.
  So we have exchanged letters. My colleague wrote me on May 30. Mr. 
DeFazio said if you have other suggestions for offsets that won't raise 
the ire of oil patch or mineral-dependent Members, I would welcome the 
input. So we talked on Monday and I said give me a day. This is rushed 
on the suspension of the rules. Give me a day to come up with an 
alternative, and we did.
  We spent all day yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office, 
technical experts, legal experts, and we came up with a proposal that 
legally funds county payments, legally and fully funds PILT, legally 
and fully accesses energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. It 
is very similar to a proposal that my colleague from the

[[Page 11247]]

Fourth District voted for that was passed by this house less than 2 
years ago that would generate revenue legally. By the way, for those 
98-99 leases, we do levy a fee so that they do pay, but we do it in a 
constitutional legal way so it is applied for conservation, coastal 
line improvements.

                              {time}  1445

  So we get at the 98-99 lease issue in a legal way under this 
proposal. The Coalition of County Roads and Schools, we presented this 
to them yesterday afternoon, they embraced it wholeheartedly. But it 
was rejected.
  Under suspension of the rules, I am not allowed to offer it as an 
alternative. If this bill goes down today on a vote on the suspension 
calendar, it can be brought up. The placeholder that this represents is 
a seat on a bus going into a cliff. It is going off the cliff and into 
a chasm. Fortunately, there is a cable attached to that bus. If this 
goes down today, counties aren't lost. They can come back, bring it up 
under a rule and we can have a real and substantive debate about a way 
to fully fund it.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 30, 2008.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Greg: As you know, I worked with the administration to 
     come up with several other potential offsets to pay for a 
     multi-year extension of the county payments program. 
     Unfortunately, those offsets were strongly objected to on a 
     bi-partisan basis. If you have other suggestions for offsets 
     that won't raise the ire of oil patch or mineral-dependent 
     members, I would welcome the input.
       I look forward to talking to you this afternoon or on 
     Monday.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A. DeFazio,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Just in response, the gentleman asked three times to 
bring this bill to the floor with these offsets, and the gentleman from 
Utah actually said in committee: I am specifically looking at offshore 
drilling fees, which is a concept of a new fee that is there. I am more 
than happy to go in that direction.
  But today they're not.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership and tireless effort to help keep this alive.
  I understand the frustration of my friend from Oregon that just 
spoke. He should be frustrated, because his Republican Party was in 
total control for 6 years with the Presidency, with both Houses of 
Congress, and there is a situation that he doesn't like. I understand 
it. I understand his frustration. If I were in his position, I would 
be, too. It was the Republican Congress that did not extend this 
program and allowed it to expire.
  There is a simple choice before us today where we have an opportunity 
to deal with the needs of hundreds of thousands of rural Americans, not 
just in Oregon, but from 40 States around the country, or the interests 
of a few oil companies who are making money hand over fist, and they 
are making some money that they shouldn't because they are not paying 
what they should under the leases.
  We have already dealt with this canard that somehow the answer is to 
give the oil industy access to more land to drill. Oil companies have 
been granted 42 million acres of which they are only using 12 million 
currently, so they have 30 million acres of area that they could 
potentially drill and they are not drilling now. Somehow we should come 
up with something more to give to them, allow them to have more money, 
ignores the issue here today.
  I would suggest that we ought to respect the work of Mr. DeFazio in 
bringing this forward. Frankly, I was frustrated at the negative 
comment about Speaker Pelosi who said that, instead of pushing these 
people off a cliff, that she would work to cushion the blow, to help 
phase it down. She was trying to help instead of cutting them off. She 
has been helpful in moving this forward, and taking a shot at the 
Speaker is unfair and if you are trying to solve the problem, it is 
unwise.
  It is the Republicans for 6 years that had the control, who didn't 
exercise it. This is a constructive alternative. I suggest that we 
recognize the need of these hundreds of thousands of Americans, not a 
few oil companies.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself the balance of our 
time.
  I appreciate Chairman Rahall from the committee coming down here 
earlier to speak on the bill. When this bill was under his control, he 
treated us with kindness and consideration.
  In the tornado of words that we have heard here today, there is one 
thought that still comes through: We need a permanent solution. This 
bill is half a bill without a permanent solution and without an offset 
that is legitimate. The counties, the education community, and the 
energy companies presented a real solution that would really pay, not a 
phony placeholder, but real money that would pay for full tilt, full 
secure rural schools, a real solution to real problems. This bill is 
the wrong bill, the wrong process, at the wrong time, and should be 
defeated.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  This is a difficult choice. It is always difficult to choose between 
your constituents and your patrons. The patrons heavily to that side of 
that aisle have been Big Oil. This would hurt Big Oil. They would 
actually have to pay a fee for leases that were written improperly 
where they don't pay any royalties to the American taxpayers at a time 
of record prices. That hurts.
  Yes, it is true. So far, a bare minority of Senators have rejected 
it, previously. Maybe they won't this time. Maybe with oil at $125 a 
barrel they will go along with it and say we can get some good out of 
this for a change. We can help kids get an education. We can keep 
teachers employed. We can provide money to police our counties and to 
keep people in jail who need to be there, and for other public services 
and public works. We can do those things. But we have got to have some 
guts. Every once in a while you have got to stand up.
  We hear all this stuff, all we need is more leases. Their staff 
boycotted a meeting last week. They sprung a proposal last night, which 
is a Republican bill, not a single Democrat on it, and would open up 
offshore oil drilling, which is not acceptable to the Republican 
Governor of California, to the Republican Governor of Florida, and many 
others. It is a nonstarter. Come on, guys, let's get real. This is your 
choice. This is it.
  There are 6,312 nonproducing leases on the OCS. This bill would make 
those companies begin to produce, or pay a fee for not producing. If 
you want to help provide more supply, which is what a lot of the debate 
has been about today, let's impose a fee on those 6,312 wells. And, in 
the meantime, let's get some good of that money for the American 
people. Help 7,000 teachers, help the kids in rural schools, help our 
deputy sheriffs, help our people who do corrections, help the people 
who have a backlog of road and bridge projects all across rural 
America. Help 42 States. Help 600 counties.
  This is your only vote. This is your time. Sometimes you have to make 
tough choices. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 
3058, represents a thinly veiled attempt to create a partisan fight 
over a nonpartisan issue. For several years now, Members from both 
sides of the aisle have struggled to find a way to pay for the 
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools program. We have found such 
a compromise in Congressman Walden's substitute to H.R. 3058. But that 
is not what we are voting on today.
  The Walden compromise that has been approved by the stakeholder 
organizations contains reauthorization of both Payments in Lieu of 
Taxes and the Secure Rural Schools program which are so vital for 
people whose counties are majority owned by the Federal Government, and 
thus don't have the property tax base to support education. But that is 
not the bill we are voting on today.
  The proposed Walden compromise addresses our growing energy crisis by 
expanding state control and protection of the outer continental shelf, 
and by producing new energy in the deep ocean. It provides funding for 
front-end engineering and design grants for coal-to-

[[Page 11248]]

liquids, oil shale, tar sands, carbon sequestration, and enhanced oil 
recovery.
  Congressman Walden's compromise proposal contains provisions that 
have been previously debated on this floor, passed by this body, and 
approved by the administration. But that is not the bill we are voting 
on today.
  The bill we are voting on today breaks contracts that were negotiated 
in good faith between the previous administration and American energy 
providers. The bill we are voting on today has prompted a veto threat, 
and will probably not even make it through the House today. If the 
majority wants to make this a partisan vote, so be it. That is their 
prerogative. But let me make one thing clear; the superintendents of 
Groveton, Crockett, Latexo, Grapeland, Lovelady, and Kennard 
Independent School Districts do not care about partisanship. The 
reality of what we are doing today is that these, and thousands of 
other school administrators, are going to have to cut jobs and programs 
as they see their revenues shrink drastically. All for the sake of 
making a political statement.
  When Congress decided to take land out of the tax base of thousands 
of rural counties in order to create our National Forest System, we 
made a promise to help cover the cost of education. We have a chance to 
fulfill this promise by taking up the Walden compromise for Secure 
Rural Schools and PILT reauthorization. I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on the political stab before us today, and I urge majority to bring to 
the floor Congressman Walden's proposal as soon as possible. Our rural 
communities depend on it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 3058, 
the Public Lands Communities Transition Act. This legislation will 
provide crucial funding to school districts located in Federal forest 
counties. Without these funds, these school districts will have to make 
large cuts to their educational services and programs.
  It is imperative to address the fact that these counties have little 
to no local tax base to levy for their school districts. Therefore, any 
assistance from the Federal Government is essential.
  Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this bill, we will ensure that the 
education of our children will not fall victim to devastating cuts in 
these areas. Adequate education should be provided to all of our 
children, regardless of where they live. I urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this bill with bipartisan support.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this 
legislation and I rise in its support.
  The bill will reauthorize for four years the ``Secure Rural Schools'' 
program under which payments are made to certain counties in which 
national forest lands are located. Currently, the program is scheduled 
to expire at the end of this month.
  This program is important for Colorado as well as other Western 
States. Last year, payments under the program to Colorado counties 
amounted to more than $6.4 million, helping to offset the costs of 
public schools, roads, and other needs of Colorado residents.
  That amount may not be the same in the future, because the bill will 
revise the formula for distribution of payments so as to reflect the 
historical allocation of payments, the concentration of public land in 
a county, and the current economic condition of a recipient county. But 
Colorado will still benefit from the program.
  I do regret that as it comes before the House today the bill does not 
include provisions dealing with another program of importance to 
Colorado's counties--the payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT, program. 
Under PILT, counties in Colorado received more than 17 million dollars 
last year--but would have received more if the full authorized amount 
had been appropriated.
  As introduced, and as approved by the Natural Resources Committee, 
the bill would have provided for automatic payments under PILT at 80 
percent of the authorized level in 2008, 90 percent in 2009, and 100 
percent in 2010 and 2011. That would have meant that payments would not 
depend on annual appropriations.
  I have worked for years to make full PILT payments automatic, so that 
our counties would be assured that they would receive the full amounts 
authorized--and I will continue to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues have indicated they will oppose 
this bill because of the inclusion of provisions to reform the 
``royalty relief'' afforded to some companies engaged in development of 
energy resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
  I think those provisions are sound, and deserve support, just as they 
did when the House approved them last year. They would ensure that the 
companies pay their fair share of royalties on flawed leases granted in 
1998 and 1999. Specifically, companies not currently paying any 
royalties due to these flawed leases would have to pay new 
``Conservation of Resource Fees,'' in order to be eligible for new 
Federal leases for drilling.
  In 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department issued oil and gas leases 
for drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico that mistakenly failed to 
include ``price thresholds,'' which trigger a requirement for companies 
to pay royalties to the Federal Government when the price of oil and 
gas exceeds a certain level. As a result, the companies that got these 
leases are exempt from paying any royalties at all--and, according to a 
preliminary estimate by the Government Accountability Office, that 
could mean that the taxpayers will be shortchanged to the tune of some 
$15 billion over the duration of the leases. This bill, like 
legislation approved in the House last year, corrects that mistake. I 
urge the bill's approval.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3058, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________