U. S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007--Continued
Floor Speech
U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007--Continued -- (Senate - March 27, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will offer a bipartisan amendment to address the great needs of rural communities across this country. It is an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself, the distinguished Senate majority leader, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee; my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith; Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Domenici, and a large additional group of Senators of both political parties who wish to see reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act which is also known as the County Payments Program.
Mr. President and colleagues, without this amendment, there is a very real prospect small counties in the rural West are going to fall into the Pacific Ocean. These small counties are now standing on the abyss because without county payments funding, they simply are not going to be able to pay for critical services such as law enforcement and rural education.
In Oregon, the sheriff of Grants Pass told me without county payments funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public safety. The county commissioners of Curry County report that without county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their county altogether. Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect of losing county payments funds, have already released prisoners from their jails. Local communities in many other States face similar hardships.
Some Senators may not yet be fully aware of what the county payments law is about, so I am going to give a brief explanation of how the program has come to be.
County payments are not welfare, but they are a more than 100-year-old Federal obligation that goes back to the creation of the Federal forest system. The deal was if Federal policy prevented local communities from maximizing their revenues from their forests, the Federal Government would provide a partial payment to these local communities so they could pay for essential services such as law enforcement and schools.
As environmental values changed in the 1990s, and these payments grew even smaller, Senator Craig of Idaho and I wrote the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That law compensated these rural communities for part of what they needed to pay for essential services. The act has worked extraordinarily well and expired at the end of last year.
In this amendment, our large bipartisan coalition--and I read only a number of the Senators from both political parties who are sponsoring this amendment--our large group seeks to put in place a new updated lifeline to small rural counties. County payments would be extended for 5 years and a new formula put in place to provide greater funding to more than 80 percent of the counties in our country. The formula is based on the current funding formula for county payments and the acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with a mechanism to focus support on those communities where there is greatest economic need.
In addition to the County Payments Program, this amendment also assists States with a similar program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. This is a program which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from
Federal lands in their State. For the first time in modern history, this program will receive full funding, and it will result in additional support for each county with Federal land.
I note at this time, particularly, the exceptional work done by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, with Senator Bingaman and so many of our colleagues of both political parties, has been involved in these efforts. As a result of those combined efforts, this amendment is paid for with all funding beyond 2007 paid for by closing tax loopholes that have been identified by Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
This bipartisan amendment is supported by a diverse coalition, including the National Association of Counties, many labor organizations, and education advocates across the country. I urge the Senate this afternoon to recognize the exceptional urgency of this situation and to support the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the County Payments Program and to strengthen the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.
Rural communities across this country have been hit with a wrecking ball. With the change in environmental values, we have seen many of them, as they look to diversify their economies, reach out and find new industries, yet they have still had great difficulty in paying for essential services.
As they try to meet these challenges--and I am committed, as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, to work on finding new economic opportunities for these rural communities--the country should not turn its back on rural America as it looks to come up with vibrant, new economic prospects for the future.
These laws--the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and the law that puts in place the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program--provide essential funding and will be a lifeline as these communities work to transition into additional areas that make sense for resource-based economies.
Today, these small communities are asking the Senate to help them from falling into the abyss. The blow to rural communities, if they lose county payments, will be a crippling blow that, in my view, some rural counties simply will not be able to recover from.
Mr. President and colleagues, let us remember rural America as we consider this legislation. I hope Senators of both political parties will join the very large block of Democratic and Republican Senators who offer this amendment today.
Mr. President, we are waiting for a manager on the other side. A number of colleagues, particularly the Senator from Illinois, has been very gracious and very patient. I think what I wish to do is yield at this time. When a manager comes, we will resume deliberations.
I thank the Senator from Illinois for his patience.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a great many Senators of both political parties have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation: the distinguished Senate majority leader; the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus; chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman; Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Stevens, Bennett, Cantwell, Boxer, Murray, Crapo, Tester, and Murkowski. A great many Senators have agreed to be cosponsors.
My understanding is that, perhaps, in a few minutes the Senate is going to be given a choice of two approaches on how to deal with this issue: the approach that I and a large bipartisan group of Senators are offering this afternoon or an approach that will be offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, our colleague, Senator Burr, which, in my view, is very restrictive and, unfortunately, it is not in line with what Senator Craig and I sought to do on a bipartisan basis back in 2000.
Our law that was enacted at that time was called the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina would, for example, make it very difficult for local law enforcement to get some of these essential dollars that have been absolutely critical to public safety for all these years.
My view is that, under our bipartisan proposal, local law enforcement would have at least a fair measure of the resources they need to fight methamphetamine in local communities across the country. Our colleague from North Carolina, in his approach, would not make that possible.
So I hope that, as colleagues consider this debate, they will vote in favor of the amendment I offer this afternoon, on behalf of the large group of Senators of both political parties who have been intimately involved in this program for many years.
Our amendment is fully paid for through the good work of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope our colleagues will vote for our amendment and will reject the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, which is much more restrictive and, unfortunately, forgets the second part of the legislation that is so vital to rural communities and that is law enforcement and roads and other essential services.
I had a chance to speak on this earlier, so I will be brief. Other colleagues would like to speak as well. The reality in rural America and the rural West is that communities are about to fall off a financial cliff.
They are going to lose these essential funds that have been part of a Federal obligation for more than a hundred years. It is not a welfare program. It is not some kind of a handout that goes to rural communities in the West. These are communities where the Federal Government owns most of the land. The local community is not allowed to maximize its revenues on those lands because the Federal Government has essentially said we are not going to treat them as private property, where you generate a sale and revenue and you pay for essential services.
So the Federal Government entered into an agreement more than a hundred years ago to provide compensation to those local communities where the Federal Government owned most of the land. What our bipartisan group wants to do is update and modernize that obligation that was incurred more than a hundred years ago when the Federal forest system was established.
Our amendment would resolve the budget crisis that is confronting rural communities by fully funding the County Payments Program for 2007, and then we set in place a formula that was negotiated for many months through a large group of Senators.
I have the chart indicating the new formula that has been put into place. It makes it very clear that Senators understand this program, because of the
will of this body, ought to be modernized. That is what we have done. But in addition to that effort, we have made sure the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in that State, would receive support as well. And every county in our country with Federal land would benefit from this particular program. The emergency funding is what gets us over the first year of the program; it is a 5-year program. Senator Baucus has been willing because he feels strongly about making sure when the Federal Government steps in and goes to bat for rural communities, that it will be fully paid for. On the Senate Finance Committee, because of Chairman Baucus's leadership, we are going to raise those funds by closing tax loopholes.
I know my friend from North Carolina is going so speak in a moment. I wish to note, again, a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this: Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Crapo, Stevens, Bennett, and Murkowski. They have all said that this amendment is the way to go if you want to stand up for rural comunities. But if you want to make a break with 100 years' worth of history and not even give rural communities the opportunity to get support, as they historically have, for local law enforcement, then Senators can vote for the amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr. I hope my colleagues will not do that.
We are going to have two votes. One will be on the amendment I offered with that large bipartisan group of Senators I listed. I hope Senators will vote in favor of that amendment.
There will be another amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. For the reasons I have described this afternoon, I hope Senators will vote against that. Keep in mind that under the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, if you have people who are concerned about local law enforcement they are not, under the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, going to be able to get support as it relates to law enforcement--the needed support to fight meth and to be able to protect public safety in their communities. That is why the large coalition I have described this afternoon is in favor of what I am proposing.
The Senator from North Carolina has come to the floor. I have enormous respect for him. He is going to be the ranking member on the subcommittee. We don't happen to see eye to eye on this issue. I point out that the predecessor of the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Craig, is a cosponsor of this amendment. He remembers the history from back in 2000, when we came together. It is my intent to allow the Senator from North Carolina time to offer his amendment as well, and then at that time I would like to respond to what the distinguished Senator from North Carolina said about his amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona is here, but I wish to briefly respond to the comments of Senator Burr.
When we do vote, again I would highlight that I hope Senators, on a bipartisan basis, for the amendment I am offering on behalf of the large group that includes Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, and a great many Senators on the other side, virtually every Democrat, will reject the Burr amendment. Here is the difference, and it is striking.
The Burr amendment, offered by our distinguished colleague from North Carolina, sets in place a Federal mandate. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that somehow we ought to decide here in Washington, DC what happens in these local communities. What I have decided, with our bipartisan coalition, is we ought to have an approach that gives local communities a lot of flexibility and a lot of freedom to design approaches that are tailor made to their area.
I have mentioned law enforcement, for example, as one critical area a local community might want to support under the approach I offer with our bipartisan group but which cannot be offered under the approach of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and there would be other examples as well.
For example, if a community was concerned about its roads and was troubled about the prospect that their roads were dangerous, so that, for example, in the snowy seasons it would be treacherous for kids to get to school, under our amendment local communities would have the flexibility to support some of that upkeep for local roads. I have been told in communities such as Fossil, in my home State, they don't think they even have a roads program without the county payments legislation. So there are stark differences between the approach offered by the Senator from North Carolina and the bipartisan approach I am offering today with many of our colleagues.
At the end of the day, the difference is the Senator from North Carolina is offering a Federal mandate which ties the hands of local communities and local school districts, and I gather is one of the reasons some educational advocates have already come out against the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.
I hope our colleagues will support the approach we are advocating today which gives local communities real flexibility, ensures that the Federal Government is keeping its obligation--its more than 100-year obligation--to these rural communities, but updates it, as we have sought to do with this payment in lieu of taxes provision in our amendment and with the new formula--a formula, as the distinguished Senator from Washington, the manager of the legislation, mentioned was arrived at only through some very difficult negotiations with many Senators involved.
So when Senators vote in a few minutes, I hope they will support the amendment I am offering today, with the large group of bipartisan sponsors, and reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which, in my view, is a Federal mandate that greatly limits the ability to make the best use of these county payments dollars.
Source