Date: 1999-11-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. Let me just say that I rise in strong support of the Udall amendment because I think it is an important amendment. There will be varying amounts of money that will be available if one has the 20 percent setaside. a 20 percent that is mandated within this legislation. This is supposedly an argument. as the gentleman from Oregon said and as has been said over the last several years as timber policy in this country has changed. that this is an argument about sustaining the rural schools and county roads and other obligations of county governments where one has high ownership of Federal lands and timber based economies. If this is about maintaining those schools. schools that are in dire straits. I sit on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. we listen to these schools every day in that committee talk about the problems of rural schools. talk about the problems of the western United States: of rural schools. We just had a bipartisan effort to try to get additional money to those schools under ESEA to provide them additional flexibility. We understand that problem. It is a very real problem. The administration. as the gentleman from Oregon pointed out. offered legislation to make whole these schools without coupling it to forest policy. Why is this amendment important? This amendment is important. the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado . because it recognizes what this 20 percent setaside is. This 20 percent setaside is the last gasping of the forest industry in these areas to try to see whether or not they can bootstrap themselves into additional logging in these areas. to try to tell the communities that they can bring in additional monies even if it is contrary to the national interest of the National Forests and the people of this country. That is what this 20 percent setaside is. That is why they fought so hard about it. I do not know how they got the school districts to do it. I do not know how they got the NEA and the School Boards Association and others. because supposedly the school boards are in such terrible trouble. that is why we need this legislation. but they took 20 percent of the money off the top on a mandatory mandate by the Congress. Now. we are told that. if one -wants local flexibility. it is a poison pill. Six weeks ago. we are out here arguing that we had to give absolute flexibility to local governments. we had to give absolute flexibility to local schools. My. how far we have come from the Contract on America when local flexibility is a poison pill. But we are going to go ahead. if this legislation is passed without the Udall amendment. we are going to set up 150 Federal advisory committees. They are going to try to see whether or not they can come up with projects on the forests. That is not a problem. But do my colleagues know what? If the local community decides that 100 percent of these receipts should go into the schools. why should not they be able to make that determination? They are prohibited from making that determination because there is a Federal mandate in this legislation that says the local communitycannot make that decision. So even if they decide what is in their best interest. they do not get to make that decision. They do not get to make that decision. That is why the Udall amendment is important. Because the fact of the matter is. what we are trying to do here and what this formula tries to do. is we take the highest users of forest policy when maybe. perhaps. the poorest policy was at its most irresponsible level. where we were timbering lands far beyond their sustained yield. far beyond their sustained productivity. That is why we are in the fix we are in today. because those lands have been butchered in such a fashion that they no longer will yield. because the people 10 years ago decided they would take everything they could get and they would rip and run. Now these communities are left without the resources to educate the children. We happen to believe. I think most people. that those communities can be made whole still. and the administration proposed that. But the timber industry said that is not good enough. That is not good enough. We have got to have the means to try to come in the back door and see whether or not we can. again. drive the timber harvest. So. therefore. one has a mandatory 20 percent setaside. a 20 percent setaside against the best interest of the community if the community decides that its roads and its school children are important. Plus in some cases. as I tried to point out earlier. the amount of money is so small that it is hard to believe that one can efficiently use it. But we will set up these committees. we will have 150 of them on every unit of the Forest. and they can decide what to do with $8.000 or $10.000. But if the community said we want to buy 10 computers or we want to buy software or we want to buy books or we want to contribute to the payment of one of the 100.000 teachers the President is trying to get passed. they will not be able to do that. because they will have to spend this 20 percent in a mandated setaside to try to come up with some project on the Forest that the community. in fact. maynot agree with. That is the wisdom of the Udall amendment. It is about understand what this 20 percent setaside does..