Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today the House considers H.R. 2389, a bill that has been under consideration in my subcommittee for several months, but whose time has been long in coming. Nearly 100 years ago the Federal Government, as a condition of managing our national forest lands, established a compact with forest-dependent communities in rural America. Under the terms of this compact, the government would own and manage the forests, not only for the long-term environmental benefit of the resource, but also for the long-term social and economic benefit of rural communities in and adjacent to the forest. Recently, revenue-sharing payments with rural communities guaranteed under the compact have dropped in some communities by as much as 90 percent. Local administrator after local administrator told my subcommittee about the drastic and tragic measures their school systems have taken just to fight foreclosure. The compact is not working, and our rural schools cannot wait any longer. A coalition of local school systems developed a set of principles which attempts to breath new life into their compact with the Federal Government. Their idea has been well received across the country. Their supporters top 800 grass roots organizations in 36 States, that range from school districts and administrators to the National Education Association, the National Association of Counties, the United States Chamber of Commerce, organized labor, and other groups. Their principles are embodied in H.R. 2389, the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-determination Act of 1999. As we consider this legislation today, we, as Members of this House, are faced with one overriding question: Who knows better what needs to be done to help forest-dependent communities in rural America, rural America, or Washington? This bill is representative government at its best. Local leaders recognize that the compacts of 1908 and 1937 need to be strengthened for the short term to immediately arrest the decline in and stabilize the revenues derived from Federal forest lands until permanent improvements to existing law can be made. They crafted their solution, garnered support from all regions of the country, and entrusted us to do the right thing. The challenges facing forest counties are so dramatic and so widespread that soon after the House Committee on Agriculture unanimously approved H.R. 2389, several Members expressed a strong interest in the bill. The legislation was introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), and I commend them for their initiative. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) became actively engaged, and spent countless hours working with us to ensure the compacts between the Federal government and the forest counties are honored. The bill we consider today is the product of the locally-crafted solution and our intense interest to promote the interests of forest counties. H.R. 2389 establishes a temporary national safety net which ensures a stable payment to forest communities for the short term, while giving local communities and educators a direct stake in crafting a long-term policy that will put schoolchildren in forest communities on equal footing with their peers in other parts of the country. Despite the overwhelming support for this bill, we do expect a poison pill amendment to be offered. The expected amendment will be dressed up to appear as a county-friendly amendment. We have talked it through with the counties, and they oppose this and all amendments, and support H.R. 2389 as it is finally crafted. Time is of the essence. Forest counties cannot wait any longer. Key Senators have agreed to take this bill and use it as their vehicle in the Senate. We must oppose this and any other amendment, for quick passage in both the House and Senate. H.R. 2389 is strongly supported by the National Education Association and the National Association of Counties, two longtime advocates of rural education. They also oppose any amendments. I hope that we will be fully committed to helping all the proponents of H.R. 2389, the most important being the families and communities of rural America. This bill helps rural America achieve what they have set out to achieve. It revitalizes their compact with the Federal government in a way that will truly benefit their children and maintain the ecological, social, and economic integrity of our forests and forest-dependent rural communities in both the short and long term. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the chief sponsor of the legislation on our side of the aisle.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and to thank him for his hard work in fashioning the compromise that we have here today. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, I first want to refute the statement made by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) a little while ago that 13 States were going to lose funding or have reduced funding as a result of this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forty-six States and Puerto Rico will receive increases in funding under this legislation, including the State of Georgia, from which the gentlewoman hails, which will receive an 87 percent increase. No States will receive a reduction. Four States will be level-funded under this legislation. Some of the increases, to give my colleagues an example, Alaska will receive a 204 percent increase, Arizona a 264 percent increase, California a 93 percent increase, Florida a 125 percent increase, Georgia an 87 percent increase, Indiana an 185 percent increase, Missouri a 103 percent increase, New Mexico a 173 percent increase, New York a 212 percent increase, Ohio 1,203 percent increase, South Carolina 226 percent increase. The list goes on and on. Many, many States will receive substantial increases. No State will be cut as a result of this legislation. Secondly, it is important to note that the amendment that is about to be offered is a poison pill amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I would call to their attention the organizations that are a part of the National Forest, Counties, and Schools Coalition that opposes this legislation and want to see more funds get into rural schools. The Alliance for America, the American Association of Educational Service Agencies, and the American Association of School Administrators support this legislation and oppose the poison pill amendment. The Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee; the Independent Forest Products Association; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the National Association of Counties; the National Association of County Engineers; the National Education Association; Organizations Concerned About Rural Education; the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers International; People for the U.S.A.; the Southern Forest Products Association; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; the United Mine Workers of America; the United States Chamber of Commerce; and the Western Council of Industrial Workers, just to name a few of the more than 800 organizations in 39 States which support this legislation and oppose any amendments thereto. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, this we view as a technical amendment. We think the bill's language is clear on its face, that it includes all Federal laws, which would include the Davis-Bacon Act. But since it is, in our view, simply surplusage and that the language in the bill is not changed by the Miller amendment and it does nothing to affect the provisions related to the Davis-Bacon Act and it is not the intent of the language to exclude the Davis-Bacon Act, we do not object to the adoption of this amendment, which is technical in nature.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is the poison pill that many of the folks who have spoken on the floor here thus far have talked about. This legislation, the substitute that I offered that was made the underlying text as a part of the rule, is a very carefully crafted compromise involving Members of the House, Members of the Senate. It involves Members of the Republican side of the aisle, Members of the Democratic side of the aisle. It involves Members representing environmental interests; it involves Members representing local government interests, and they are joined by the 800-member coalition that constitutes hundreds and hundreds of local county governments and local school boards that are opposed to this amendment and which support the underlying legislation because they want to see something done on this issue. This amendment is a deal-breaker. This amendment will cause this entire process to collapse. We will not get this bill through the Senate; we will not get it signed into law unless we keep this carefully crafted compromise together. This is a compromise that I worked on very extensively with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal). It is an agreement that is a crafted compromise, drafted in conjunction with Senators Craig and Wyden in the Senate to assure swift action in the Senate. This amendment would undermine this compromise, pushing the effort to stabilize payments to the States and counties back months and perhaps for good. Local education, county, labor and business interests have studied both the Goodlatte compromise and the Udall-Vento amendment and have determined that the Goodlatte compromise is a better idea. The National Education Association, the National Association of Counties, labor, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Forest Counties and Schools Coalition representing 800 counties, 5,000 school districts, 1.2 million school children in rural America have all supported the Goodlatte compromise and oppose the Udall-Vento amendment. I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Counties want to have the connection between not only the people that live in that county but the land in that county, and the connection that exists now and as a part of this compromise continues with the 20 percent that will be dealt with by members of the community. Local government, environmental organizations, business organizations, and the Forest Service will sit down together and using those funds, plan how they can best promote the environmental health of their county and the economic health of their county. We are determined to continue that connection between the federally owned land and those people who live in those counties and who want to, knowing that their livelihood comes from that, want to make sure that that connection persists.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, let me just say to the gentleman that it is a 100-year-old connection that we are talking about here that is being preserved. A substantial change has been made to assure that those counties will get, and will get quickly, the kind of support that they need. But if this decoupling that the gentleman is advocating takes place in the legislation, it will go asunder in the United States Senate and nothing will happen and we will be at the current levels of support that currently exist. So I have to strongly oppose the amendment and support the strong nationwide coalition of Members from 39 States who want to make sure that that connection between the land and the counties continues and that we not get into this business of each year having the decision made in each county whether or not that is going to go forward.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I was in a county in the gentleman's State earlier this year in which on one timber sale, $2 million was going to go to the county, which would require that in this instance 20 percent of that, or $400,000.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, under $100,000 they can opt out. Under $100,000, that is $20,000, to use the gentleman's example.

Mr. GOODLATTE. When the total receipts by the county are under $100,000, they do have the option to opt out.

Mr. GOODLATTE. If it is over $100,000, it is going to be $20,000 plus 20 percent of whatever the amount over $100,000 was, so I do not see where the gentleman's example would ever apply.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I point out during the debate on the rule the gentleman from Colorado indicated that even if this amendment were to pass, he would still oppose the bill. So clearly this is nothing more than a poison pill to derail this effort to help get some funds back to these local counties and to make sure that we still maintain this compact that has existed for 100 years between the Federal Government, the owner of in some instances 60, 70, 80 percent of the land in some of these counties, and the people who are trying to make a living in these counties.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?