Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. As transmitted by the administration, the joint resolution approving the amended compacts would have eliminated FEMA and replaced it with the U.S. AID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA. However, during consideration of this joint resolution by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee recommended reinstatement of FEMA's availability.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, legislation that will extend and strengthen our Nation's special relationship with two young Pacific Island nations, the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI. The special ties between these islands and the United States have a long history, from the 19th Century New England whaling industry, through the terrible years of World War II, to the period of United States administration under the United Nations Trusteeship system. From 1947 to 1986, the U.S. governed these islands on behalf of the U.N. and was responsible for promoting the political, economic, and social development of the inhabitants. In 1986, the U.S. fulfilled its obligations to the U.N. with implementation of the Compact of Free Association, approved by Public Law 99-239. The Compact formally ended U.S. administration and allowed the FSM and RMI to achieve self- government and international recognition. The Compact also allowed the U.S. to continue the special security relationship forged during the Trusteeship. Now 17 years later, the Compact continues to provide for mutual defense and for political and economic stability in a region of significant interest to the U.S. Prompt enactment of H.J. Res. 63 is needed to update and extend provisions of the Compact, particularly those economic assistance provisions which expired on September 30, 2003, but which have been temporarily extended. I would like to remind my colleagues of the scope and importance of his security relationship because it provides one of the compelling reasons to support this resolution. Our mutual security includes the obligation of the U.S. to defend these nations as if they are a part of the U.S., and it is based on a simple geographic reality--the FSM and RMI lie between the state of Hawaii, and our Territories of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. During World War II, the islands of the FSM and RMI served as hard-fought stepping-stones in the Allied defeat of Imperial Japan. To help assure that such a struggle will never need to be repeated, the Compact grants the U.S. the right to deny access to the islands by the military forces of other nations, as well as the right to veto local actions that the U.S. determines are incompatible with its defense responsibilities. The Compact also provides that the FSM and RMI will sympathetically consider U.S. requests for military basing rights. In the past, U.S. nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands played a central role in the development of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. Today, the missile test range at Kwajalein continues to play a vital role in maintaining the nation's ballistic missile capability and in developing missile defense systems. Enactment of this legislation could secure U.S. access to the missile test and space surveillance facilities at Kwajalein beyond 2016. A second major element in the special relationship established by the Compact is the mutual interest in promoting economic development. This goal has been approached by providing a combination of financial and program assistance. Significant economic development occurred from 1986 to 2003, but the remote and resource-poor island economies continue to be based on the government-sector, and they are heavily dependent on U.S. assistance. Development has also been hindered by the Compact's weak accountability mechanisms and by the island governments' poor planning and management capabilities. A third element in this special relationship is the Compact's provision granting FSM and RMI citizens the opportunity to live, work, and study in the U.S. as resident aliens. This privilege provides an outlet for the islands' population growth, but it has also resulted in significant migration to Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI. Due to relatively poor health and education conditions in the FSM and RMI, these migrants pose a disproportionately high impact on social services in the jurisdictions to which they migrate. Finally, the Compact included a full and final settlement of all claims resulting from the U.S. nuclear weapons testing program that was conducted in the RMI from 1947 to 1958 and which significantly contaminated the islands of four atolls. I commend the representatives of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the United States for their work over the past 4 years to extend and strengthen the Compact. The two new Compact agreements they concluded are nested within this joint resolution and will provide the assistance needed to assure continued economic development and mutual security in partnership with the United States. The administration transmitted the legislation on June 27, it was introduced as S.J. Res. 16 on July 14, 2003, and ordered reported by the committee, with amendments, on September 17. It would provide about $4 billion in funding over the 20-year period from fiscal year 2004 to 2023 for grants, contributions to trust funds, payments to extend the lease at Kwajalein, the cost of certain domestic services and programs, and $30 million annually to be allocated among Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa to mitigate the impact of migration from the FSM and RMI. The package would also continue program assistance to the FSM and RMI through a range of domestic programs To improve the effectiveness of U.S. assistance in the future, the amended Compacts have enhanced accountability mechanisms. For example, instead of providing financial assistance in the form of direct cash payments, funds will be disbursed through sector grants targeted to priority areas such as health and education. A new ``Fiscal Procedures Agreement,'' will establish new planning and reporting requirements, including the establishment of a joint economic management committee with each nation. These committees will have a U.S. majority membership, and the power to impose grant conditions and withhold funds. Finally, the Compacts anticipate the end of annual U.S. financial assistance after 2023 and provide fro contributions to two trust funds that will become an alternate source of funding after that year. The U.S. currently has access to military sites at Kwajalein Atoll until 2016, but this legislation provides an opportunity to extend U.S. access until 2086. The new arrangement regarding Kwajalein was negotiated with the Marshall Islands national government which has not yet reached agreement with all of the landowners involved. Accordingly, a new land use agreement will need to be concluded between the landowners and the Government of the RMI in order to give effect to the new access agreement. Until that time, this legislation requires that the increased payments be held in an interest-bearing escrow account. Two issues that were not resolved during the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's consideration of this resolution are education and disaster assistance. As pointed out earlier, U.S. assistance under the Compact is provided through a combination of financial assistance and program assistance. In the case of education, U.S. domestic programs account for roughly 40 percent of education funding, with local and U.S. financial contributions making-up the balance. These U.S. programs were first made available to the FSM and the RMI as an initiative of President Kennedy during the Trusteeship period and were continued under the Compact as negotiated and approved under President Reagan. The administration testified on this resolution in July before the Energy Committee that continuation of these programs was assumed when it renegotiated the Compact. Unfortunately, as the legislation moved forward, the House and Senate HELP Committees opposed continuation. It was clear during the committee's consideration that the Compact's goal of promoting economic self-sufficiency would fail without maintaining current levels of support for education. This could be done by either continuing these programs, as assumed by the administration, or by providing an alternative source of funding. The Energy Committee recommended continuation of critical programs and the ``cash-out'' of the remainder. Three domestic education programs that would be very hard, if not impossible, for the island governments to duplicate would continue: Pell Grants, programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and Job Corps. Pell grants to students attending the two community colleges in the FSM and RMI rate vital to the survival of these two institutions and there is consensus to support their continuation. IDEA serves a special population in the islands that, without the extension of the U.S. program, is unlikely to be adequately served. Finally, an exception is made for Job Corps because of the role it plays in preparing young people to enter the workforce. This is particularly true at Kwajalein Atoll where the U.S. Army vigorously supports the continuation of Job Corps because it helps maximize local employment at the U.S. Army base there. For the remaining Federal formula-grant programs administered by the Departments of Education and Labor, and for the Head Start Program, the committee recommended termination of the islands' eligibility and providing the islands with mandatory funding to replace, or ``cash- out'', the actual programs. However, the compromise agreed to with the House would provide an authorization for a discretionary, not mandatory ``cash-out'' of the programs to be terminated. The replacement funding under this proposal would continue to be provided by the appropriations subcommittee for Labor, HHS, and Education, but instead of being allocated from the appropriation for each of the national programs, there would be a new, separate appropriation of equal value to supplement the education sector grants provided by the Secretary of the Interior under section 211(a) of the two Compacts. The initial authorization levels for these two new discretionary grants are based on estimates obtained from the Congressional Research Service and the Department of the Interior's Federal Program Coordinator, $12,230,000 for the FSM, and $6,100,000 for the RMI, and the authorization includes an inflation adjustment. Once appropriated, this supplemental funding would be used in accordance with an agreement between the appropriate cabinet officer and the Secretary of the Interior, and would be disbursed and monitored in accordance with the Compact's Fiscal Procedures Agreements with the FSM and RMI, respectively. I support this compromise reluctantly because I am uneasy with discretionary funding for such a critical element of the Compacts. Nevertheless, it appears to be the best that can be worked out under the circumstances and I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to make sure that the funding is shifted smoothly from the allocation for each of these national programs to a new FSM-RMI supplemental appropriation of the same amount. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their cooperation in resolving these difficult education issues, and Stephanie Monroe and Jane Oates of the HELP staff for their time and effort in working out this compromise. I particularly want to thank Senator Akaka for his hard work and commitment to this legislation, and to recognize Noe Kalipi and Melissa Hampe of his staff for their contributions. A second item that was not resolved during the Energy Committee's deliberations was disaster assistance. The administration proposed that the current eligibility of the islands to participate in the disaster assistance programs of FEMA be terminated and replaced with eligibility for assistance from the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA. This approach was clearly flawed because OFDA is not required to rebuild essential infrastructure following disasters. In response to this need, the administration transmitted a new proposal last week that would provide for assistance from both OFDA and FEMA. However, the details for implementing this new joint-program approach were not set forth in a subsidiary agreement, as has been done with other programs to be extended to the islands. Accordingly, a compromise has been developed that would continue FEMA assistance, as recommended by the Energy Committee, while the administration undertakes negotiations with the islands and FEMA on the new approach in which all parties seek to conclude subsidiary agreements that would clarify implementation of the new approach. To help assure that all parties will negotiate in good faith, the compromise further provides that the statutory language for the new approach, as submitted by the administration, would go into effect 5 years after the date of enactment of this joint resolution. It is my expectation that subsidiary agreements and any negotiated changes to the statutory language would be agreed to between the island governments and representatives of FEMA, OFDA, the State Department and the Interior Department long before that deadline. I thank Senators Inhofe and Jeffords for their help in resolving this matter and I look forward to working with them next year to assuring that the islands have the disaster assistance that is essential to the success of their economies, and to the success of the Compacts. I believe that we have taken two excellent agreements, as negotiated between the U.S. and the FSM, and between the U.S. and the RMI, and we have improved them so that they will serve as a solid foundation for future relations. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, for his leadership on this legislation and for his commitment to continuing the bipartisan approach that has characterized the committee's work on insular affairs. Finally, I wish to recognize the work of Al Stayman and Kellie Donnelly of the Energy Committee staff for their dedication and hard work in guiding this legislation through the process. In 1986, the United States fulfilled its obligations under the Trusteeship and established a successful partnership under the Compact of Free Association to advance the interests of the United States, the FSM, and RMI in mutual security, and to economic development. Today, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.J. Res. 63 and to affirm our Nation's commitment to mutual security, economic development and to the continuing special relationship with the islands, and the people, of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Certainly.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Of course.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes. We hope and expect that an agreement will be concluded and transmitted by next June 30 and do not believe it should take the full 5 years.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I do object at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I was hoping to get a resolution of my amendment before we switch to another amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. It would provide $5 million in additional funding to the nutrition education and training section of the School Lunch Program. The funds would serve to develop new programs and to implement existing programs in the Department of Agriculture Team Nutrition Program. Nutrition education programs are being chronically underfunded and have been for a great many years. We have authorized in current law--the law about to expire, as I understand it--50 cents to be spent for every public school student to be served in this country. That is 50 cents per year. This is not 50 cents per day; this is 50 cents per year. I was speaking to Senator Byrd from West Virginia and he said for nutrition education we ought to at least give them as much money as it costs to buy a candy bar. That is not an unreasonable goal to set for this great country. Last year, we did not begin to reach the 50 cents per student per year. Last year, we provided $10 million. This chart shows the funding level beginning in 1996. In 1996, we provided $23.5 million. This is for the combined funding of the nutrition education training and the team nutrition. As I understand, this nutrition education training is essentially money that goes as grants to the States to help them provide some kind of nutrition instruction in their schools. We provided $23.5 million in 1996, $14.25 million in 1997, $11.75 million in 1998, and down to $10 million in 1999. We are again, in the current fiscal year, being presented with an appropriations bill that calls for $10 million. My amendment would increase that by another $5 million. This team nutrition component in this Department of Agriculture effort is an integrated behavior-based comprehensive plan for promoting nutritional health among our Nation's schoolchildren. We have over 47 million children in school in this country--that is kindergarten through 12th grade--47 million in the public school system. There are three behavior-oriented strategies the Department of Agriculture has tried to pursue. One is to provide trading and technical assistance for child nutrition food service professionals; that is, the people who provide lunches and breakfasts and serve meals so that the meals being served meet certain nutritional standards. The second strategy is to provide multifaceted, integrated nutritional education for children and their parents. This tries to build some kind of motivation on the part of young people to remain healthy, to be healthy, to maintain some type of healthy lifestyle. The third strategy is to provide support for healthy eating and physical activity by involving school administrators and other school and community partners. The Agriculture appropriations bill proposes $10 million for this year's funding. In my view, that is woefully inadequate. It is inadequate because without additional funds, many States are not able to provide any nutrition instruction. Why is it important at this point in our Nation's history to concern ourselves with nutrition instruction? It is important because over the last two decades obesity rates have more than doubled among children and they have more than tripled among adolescent children in our society. Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in this country. The major risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. Those are the main causes that lead to the problem of obesity that leads to the other problems I have recounted. Today, one in seven young people are considered obese; one in three are overweight. This is a crisis. It is a crisis for the future and a crisis for our health system. The Surgeon General estimates that at the minimum we spend each year $100 billion dealing in our health care system--this is taxpayer dollars--$100 billion in our health care system, through Medicare and Medicaid, and other health programs, on diseases that are directly attributable to obesity. That is a rough figure, obviously. But they think that is a modest or conservative figure. You compare that $100 billion to $10 million and you have a very interesting comparison: $10 million is not 1 percent of $100 billion, it is not one-tenth of 1 percent of $100 billion; it is one one- hundredth of 1 percent of $100 billion. We have all heard, all our lives, the expression an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We are not asking for anything like that ratio. If we were doing that, we would say we should provide one-sixteenth as much. Instead, we are providing one one-hundredth of 1 percent as much on nutrition education as we are spending to deal with the problems that could be avoided. Obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children to become obese adults. The overweight problem results in all sorts of physical diseases: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self- esteem, and discrimination. They face discrimination throughout their lives as a result of this problem. There are only 2 percent of children who currently consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet the U.S. Department of Agriculture food guide calls for, so the Department of Agriculture is in the business of trying to give young people and adults throughout our society advice. They do issue a food guide, the food guide pyramid, they call it. But, unfortunately, there is no followthrough instruction in our schools to try to really assist in getting this information to young people at a time when it can dramatically affect their habits for the rest of their lives. I believe nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of healthy adults in this country. This amendment would be a very modest step toward getting some additional funds for this purpose. It would provide funding at the State level for implementation and administration of nutrition education training. This is a program that has existed on the statutes for years. Unfortunately, it has not been funded. It is time to begin getting these figures up to a more reasonable level. As I say, Senator Byrd from West Virginia made a suggestion which I think would be a good goal for us to set. He said we should at least provide as much funding per student per year as it would cost each of them to buy a candy bar. That is not unreasonable. I hope we can take this modest step and move ahead. Let me cite a little bit more information because there was a good hearing on this subject that occurred earlier this year. I want to cite the testimony of the Department of Agriculture on the very issue I am talking about. This was a hearing on the reauthorization of the authorizing legislation here, and the Department of Agriculture representative at that hearing testified about their position. This is testimony from Eric Bost, who is the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, testifying before the Agriculture Committee in the Senate. He said in that testimony that the administration supports: healthy school environments to address the epidemic of overweight and obesity among our children by providing financial incentives to schools that meet the dietary guidelines. . . . He said: The immediate reasons for overweight among our children are clear and uncomplicated. . . . Then he goes through a list, of which one of the items in the list is: the lack of strong program of nutrition education and physical education in many schools. . . . That is exactly what I am talking about. We have no strong program. You cannot have a strong program when you are spending $10 million in a nation of 280 million people, with 47 million young people in our elementary schools and our high schools. He goes on, in that same testimony, to state, unequivocally: We support expanded funding to support the delivery of education messages and materials in schools. When you look at this chart, it is obvious we have not been expanding the funding. Funding has been stagnant for most of a decade. In fact, it has dropped from where it was in 1996, very substantially. The reasons for my amendment are very clear. The justification for it is overwhelming. In a wealthy nation like this, we can do better. We cannot afford to do as little in this area as we have traditionally done. The new crisis we face with obesity among children is a strong wake-up call to all of us that we need to begin doing something significant in nutrition education. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I defer to the manager of the bill. If he would like time to review the amendment that I have given him, I have no problem with that course of action.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniela Ligiero, who is a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of consideration of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last Thursday the Senate passed H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I voted for the bill because I believe we need to take action to bring our forests back to good health, and there are some good provisions in the Senate-passed version of the bill. For example, the Senate version allows communities to provide recommendations on reducing the threat of unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire in community wildfire protection plans. In addition, two amendments that I offered were adopted by the Senate. The first amendment requires collaborative monitoring of the social and ecological effects of projects. Without this requirement, we will never be able to rebuild trust between rural communities and the agencies. The second amendment encourages the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to hire local contractors for forest thinning projects in order to create jobs in forest-dependent communities. Even so, I continue to believe there are serious problems with this legislation. Most significantly, the bill fails to tackle the main obstacle constraining the Forest Service from improving forest health which is the agency's harmful policy of borrowing from proactive forest restoration accounts to pay for firefighting. Some of the other major issues raised by the Senate language include a lack of any new funding to reduce hazardous fuels; curtailing public participation in the management of public lands, including the establishment of a new so- called ``pre-decisional'' review process; and lack of protection for National Monuments, roadless areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. I tried to fix these problems by offering and cosponsoring amendments, including one to give the Forest Service new authority to borrow funds directly from the Treasury when firefighting costs exceed available funds. Unfortunately, this amendment did not prevail. However, Senator Burns, Senator Nickles, and others offered to work with me to seek solutions to the ``fire borrowing'' problem. I accept their gracious offer and look forward to addressing this issue in the future with their cooperation and assistance. Other amendments that were offered by myself and others to improve the bill were defeated. Nonetheless, I voted for final passage of H.R. 1904 because the Senate version was an improvement as compared to the one passed by the House earlier this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the good intent of my friend from Idaho in saying that this is something on which we ought to start working or on which we ought to work. The reality is, this is our best chance. This legislation is likely to go to the President, likely to be signed into law in some form. If we don't take the opportunity this legislation presents to fix this problem, it will remain unfixed. We can have all of the assurances we want from the administration, but the reality is, the administration is under very severe budgetary restraints as it goes into this next year. We in Congress are under very severe budgetary restraints. Everyone around this place is going to be looking for ways to save money. That means that when it comes to actually providing the resources to fight fires, the course of least resistance is to do what we have always been doing, what President Bush has done in the last several years: Ask for way too little money for firefighting. And then, when it turns out that you need an extra billion dollars, tell the Forest Service to take it out of their other accounts. That is exactly what we have done in the last several years. We are getting ready to do that again. I, for one, am not persuaded that the concern the Senator from Idaho has expressed here is shared by all in the administration. I am confident he believes the issue is one that should be addressed. But each of us, as we know, has different priorities for what needs to be addressed. I would say this is a fairly low priority for the people putting the administration's budget proposal together, which we are going to receive this next January. I very much think this issue needs to be addressed as part of this bill. Again, as I said a couple of times in my earlier statement, if we pass this bill without addressing the resource problem and the borrowing problem I am trying to get at in my amendment, we can give all the speeches we want, issue all the press releases, have all the press conferences we want saying what a great thing we have done for the American people, but 77 percent of the areas at highest risk are not going to have any Federal resources available to them. In addition to that, the thinning activity, much of the forest restoration activity we all say we favor, is not going to be funded. So we need to deal with this as part of this bill. Frankly, I am sorry to see the decision has been made to try to deal with this as a procedural vote. I think this is an important enough issue that we ought to have an up-or-down vote on it and let people express their point of view. When you raise a Budget Act point of order, basically what you are saying is this is not a big enough priority to justify changing the way the budget now sits. If that is the conclusion of most Members of the Senate, then I think shame on us. If we have the fires going in California, we have all the other problems we all talk about, and we are not willing to put that to the front of the priority list, then I think shame on us. I very much prefer to see us have an up-or-down vote on this amendment. Obviously, that is not possible now with the Budget Act point of order and the motion to waive the Budget Act. I will yield the floor, but I urge my colleagues to support the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me briefly respond. I know the point of order has been made. A motion has been made to waive the Budget Act. First, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cantwell as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, just to summarize the point, I am in favor of the Millennium Challenge Account. I am proposing that we go ahead and provide the full $800 million that the administration asks to be obligated in 2004. That is exactly what the House of Representatives did. That is exactly what we ought to do. My only point is that we should not be giving them $200 million that they themselves--that is, the administration itself--say they cannot spend in 2004. They do not plan to spend it in 2004. That money should be made available to fight AIDS. We can do that. It does not bust the budget. It does not bust the limitations that we have on this spending bill. It is a better use of that money, and I urge my colleagues to support that amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in the bill before us, we have $200 million for the Millennium Challenge Account that the administration says they cannot spend in 2004. They do not plan to spend it. They did not request it. The House gave the administration $800 million for the Millennium Challenge Account. We are giving them $1 billion. My amendment would say let's give them the same amount the House is proposing to give them, the $800 million, and let's take that extra $200 million and use that in the fight against HIV/AIDS. It is a much better use of the funds than just putting it in an account for possible use in 2005. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I call up amendment No. 2048.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, I would be glad to speak for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment simply gives the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management the authority to consider benefit to local communities when determining which company or individual is going to receive a contract to conduct a hazardous fuels reduction effort on the national forests and the public lands. Currently, the authority the agencies have limits them to accepting only the high bid for a timber sale contract or the low bid for a service contract. Unfortunately, numerous forest-dependent rural communities have discovered this practice means the contracts are often awarded to large companies from urban areas, and in many cases from States other than where those communities are located. In my State of New Mexico, many rural communities are trying desperately to find ways in which they can create and maintain decent jobs. Because these communities are often surrounded by national forests and public lands, I believe that, where possible, we should provide tools to create jobs in these communities by restoring the health of the forests. Best-value contracting is one such tool. This amendment, as currently drafted--and this is a change from the earlier draft--says that ``to conduct a project under this act, the Secretaries''--that is the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior--``may use best- value contracting criteria in awarding contracts and agreements.'' It goes on to define what best-value contracting criteria include. I think it is important to realize here that this best-value contracting criterion does include consideration of the benefits to local communities such as ensuring that the byproducts are processed locally. Congress enacted a very similar requirement when authorizing the Stewardship Contracting Program. In addition, last year Senator Craig and I sponsored the Community- Based Forest and Public Lands Restoration Act. That bill, which was passed by the Senate unanimously, also authorized best-value contracting. I believe this is a simple amendment. It should be noncontroversial. I hope it can be accepted by all Senators.