[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 455, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 455) to amend title 31, United States Code, to 
     increase Federal payments to units of general local 
     government for entitlement lands, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with amendments; as 
follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Payments In Lieu of Taxes 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PAYMENTS FOR ENTITLEMENT LANDS.

       (a) Increase Based on Consumer Price Index.--Section 
     6903(b)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       [(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``75 cents for each 
     acre of entitlement land'' and inserting ``93 cents during 
     fiscal year 1994, $1.11 during fiscal year 1995, $1.29 during 
     fiscal year 1996, $1.47 during fiscal year 1997, and $1.65 
     during fiscal year 1998 and thereafter, for each acre of 
     entitlement land''; and
       [(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``10 cents for each 
     acre of entitlement land'' and inserting ``12 cents during 
     fiscal year 1994, 15 cents during fiscal year 1995, 17 cents 
     during fiscal year 1996, 20 cents during fiscal year 1997, 
     and 22 cents during fiscal year 1998 and thereafter, for each 
     acre of entitlement land''.]
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``75 cents for each 
     acre of entitlement land'' and inserting ``93 cents during 
     fiscal year 1995, $1.11 during fiscal year 1996, $1.29 during 
     fiscal year 1997, $1.47 during fiscal year 1998, and $1.65 
     during fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, for each acre of 
     entitlement land''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``10 cents for each 
     acre of entitlement land'' and inserting ``12 cents during 
     fiscal year 1995, 15 cents during fiscal year 1996, 17 cents 
     during fiscal year 1997, 20 cents during fiscal year 1998, 
     and 22 cents during fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, for each 
     acre of entitlement land''.
       (b) Increase in Population Cap.--Section 6903(c) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$50 times the 
     population'' and inserting ``the highest dollar amount 
     specified in paragraph (2)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by amending the table at the end to 
     read as follows:

                                                         the limitation
                                                        is equal to the
                                                             population
    ``If population equals--                                    times--
       5,000....................................................$110.00
       6,000.....................................................103.00
       7,000......................................................97.00
       8,000......................................................90.00
       9,000......................................................84.00
      10,000......................................................77.00
      11,000......................................................75.00
      12,000......................................................73.00
      13,000......................................................70.00
      14,000......................................................68.00
      15,000......................................................66.00
      16,000......................................................65.00
      17,000......................................................64.00
      18,000......................................................63.00
      19,000......................................................62.00
      20,000......................................................61.00
      21,000......................................................60.00
      22,000......................................................59.00
      23,000......................................................59.00
      24,000......................................................58.00
      25,000......................................................57.00
      26,000......................................................56.00
      27,000......................................................56.00
      28,000......................................................56.00
      29,000......................................................55.00
      30,000......................................................55.00
      31,000......................................................54.00
      32,000......................................................54.00
      33,000......................................................53.00
      34,000......................................................53.00
      35,000......................................................52.00
      36,000......................................................52.00
      37,000......................................................51.00
      38,000......................................................51.00
      39,000......................................................50.00
      40,000......................................................50.00
      41,000......................................................49.00
      42,000......................................................48.00
      43,000......................................................48.00
      44,000......................................................47.00
      45,000......................................................47.00
      46,000......................................................46.00
      47,000......................................................46.00
      48,000......................................................45.00
      49,000......................................................45.00
      50,000..................................................44.00.''.

     SEC. 3. INDEXING OF PILT PAYMENTS FOR INFLATION; INSTALLMENT 
                   PAYMENTS.

       Section 6903 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) On October 1 of each year after the date of enactment 
     of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall adjust each dollar amount specified in 
     subsections (b) and (c) to reflect changes in the Consumer 
     Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of 
     the Department of Labor, for the 12 months ending the 
     preceding June 30.''.

     [SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGES.

       [The second sentence of section 6902(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``and does not apply to payments for lands 
     conveyed to the United States in exchange for Federal 
     lands''.]

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGES.

       Section 6902 of title 31, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     Sec. 6902. Authority and Eligibility.

       ``(a) The Secretary of the Interior shall make a payment 
     for each fiscal year to each unit of general local government 
     in which entitlement land is located, as set forth in this 
     chapter. A unit of general local government may use the 
     payment for any governmental purpose.
       ``(b) A unit of general local government may not receive a 
     payment for land for which payment under this Act otherwise 
     may be received if the land was owned or administered by a 
     State or unit of general local government and was exempt from 
     real estate taxes when the land was conveyed to the United 
     States except that a unit of general local government may 
     receive a payment for--
       ``(1) land a State or unit of general local government 
     acquires from a private party to donate to the United States 
     within 8 years of acquisition;
       ``(2) land acquired by a State through an exchange with the 
     United States if such land was entitlement land as defined by 
     this chapter; or
       ``(3) land in Utah acquired by the United States for 
     Federal land, royalties, or other assets if, at the time of 
     such acquisition, a unit of general local government was 
     entitled under applicable State law to receive payments in 
     lieu of taxes from the State of Utah for such land: Provided, 
     however, That no payment under this paragraph shall exceed 
     the payment that would have been made under State law if such 
     land had not been acquired.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on [October 1, 1993] October 1, 1994.
       (2) Limitation.--The amendment made by section 2(b)(2) 
     shall become effective on [October 1, 1998] October 1, 1999.
       (b) Transition Provisions.--
       (1) Fiscal year [1994] 1995.--During fiscal year [1994] 
     1995, the table at the end of section 6903(c)(2) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
                                                         the limitation
                                                        is equal to the
                                                             population
    ``If population equals--                                    times--
       5,000....................................................$62.00.
       6,000.....................................................58.00.
       7,000.....................................................54.50.
       8,000.....................................................51.00.
       9,000.....................................................47.00.
      10,000.....................................................43.50.
      11,000.....................................................42.00.
      12,000.....................................................41.00.
      13,000.....................................................40.00.
      14,000.....................................................38.50.
      15,000.....................................................37.00.
      16,000.....................................................36.50.
      17,000.....................................................36.00.
      18,000.....................................................35.50.
      19,000.....................................................34.50.
      20,000.....................................................34.00.
      21,000.....................................................33.75.
      22,000.....................................................33.50.
      23,000.....................................................33.00.
      24,000.....................................................32.50.
      25,000.....................................................32.25.
      26,000.....................................................32.00.
      27,000.....................................................31.75.
      28,000.....................................................31.50.
      29,000.....................................................31.25.
      30,000.....................................................31.00.
      31,000.....................................................30.75.
      32,000.....................................................30.50.
      33,000.....................................................30.00.
      34,000.....................................................29.75.
      35,000.....................................................29.50.
      36,000.....................................................29.25.
      37,000.....................................................28.75.
      38,000.....................................................28.50.
      39,000.....................................................28.25.
      40,000.....................................................28.00.
      41,000.....................................................27.50.
      42,000.....................................................27.25.
      43,000.....................................................27.00.
      44,000.....................................................26.50.
      45,000.....................................................26.25.
      46,000.....................................................26.00.
      47,000.....................................................25.75.
      48,000.....................................................25.50.
      49,000.....................................................25.00.
      50,000..................................................24.75.''.
       (2) Fiscal year [1995] 1996.--During fiscal year [1995] 
     1996, the table at the end of section 6903(c)(2) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

                                                         the limitation
                                                        is equal to the
                                                             population
    ``If population equals--                                    times--
       5,000....................................................$74.00.
       6,000.....................................................69.50.
       7,000.....................................................65.00.
       8,000.....................................................61.00.
       9,000.....................................................56.00.
      10,000.....................................................52.00.
      11,000.....................................................50.50.
      12,000.....................................................49.00.
      13,000.....................................................47.50.
      14,000.....................................................46.00.
      15,000.....................................................44.50.
      16,000.....................................................43.50.
      17,000.....................................................43.00.
      18,000.....................................................42.00.
      19,000.....................................................41.50.
      20,000.....................................................41.00.
      21,000.....................................................40.25.
      22,000.....................................................40.00.
      23,000.....................................................39.50.
      24,000.....................................................39.00.
      25,000.....................................................38.50.
      26,000.....................................................38.25.
      27,000.....................................................38.00.
      28,000.....................................................37.50.
      29,000.....................................................37.25.
      30,000.....................................................37.00.
      31,000.....................................................36.75.
      32,000.....................................................36.25.
      33,000.....................................................36.00.
      34,000.....................................................35.50.
      35,000.....................................................35.00.
      36,000.....................................................34.75.
      37,000.....................................................34.50.
      38,000.....................................................34.00.
      39,000.....................................................33.75.
      40,000.....................................................33.25.
      41,000.....................................................33.00.
      42,000.....................................................32.50.
      43,000.....................................................32.25.
      44,000.....................................................32.00.
      45,000.....................................................31.50.
      46,000.....................................................31.00.
      47,000.....................................................30.75.
      48,000.....................................................30.50.
      49,000.....................................................30.00.
      50,000..................................................29.50.''.
       (3) Fiscal year [1996] 1997.--During fiscal year [1996] 
     1997, the table at the end of section 6903(c)(2) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
                                                         the limitation
                                                        is equal to the
                                                             population
    ``If population equals--                                    times--
       5,000....................................................$86.00.
       6,000.....................................................81.00.
       7,000.....................................................76.00.
       8,000.....................................................71.00.
       9,000.....................................................65.50.
      10,000.....................................................60.00.
      11,000.....................................................58.50.
      12,000.....................................................57.00.
      13,000.....................................................55.00.
      14,000.....................................................53.50.
      15,000.....................................................51.50.
      16,000.....................................................51.00.
      17,000.....................................................50.00.
      18,000.....................................................49.00.
      19,000.....................................................48.00.
      20,000.....................................................47.50.
      21,000.....................................................47.25.
      22,000.....................................................46.25.
      23,000.....................................................46.00.
      24,000.....................................................45.25.
      25,000.....................................................45.00.
      26,000.....................................................44.50.
      27,000.....................................................44.00.
      28,000.....................................................43.75.
      29,000.....................................................43.50.
      30,000.....................................................43.00.
      31,000.....................................................42.50.
      32,000.....................................................42.00.
      33,000.....................................................41.75.
      34,000.....................................................41.25.
      35,000.....................................................41.00.
      36,000.....................................................40.50.
      37,000.....................................................40.00.
      38,000.....................................................39.50.
      39,000.....................................................39.00.
      40,000.....................................................38.75.
      41,000.....................................................38.25.
      42,000.....................................................38.00.
      43,000.....................................................37.50.
      44,000.....................................................37.00.
      45,000.....................................................36.50.
      46,000.....................................................36.00.
      47,000.....................................................35.75.
      48,000.....................................................35.25.
      49,000.....................................................35.00.
      50,000..................................................34.50.''.
       (4) Fiscal year [1997] 1998.--During fiscal year [1997] 
     1998, the table at the end of section 6903(c)(2) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

                                                         the limitation
                                                        is equal to the
                                                             population
    ``If population equals--                                    times--
       5,000....................................................$98.00.
       6,000.....................................................92.00.
       7,000.....................................................86.00.
       8,000.....................................................80.50.
       9,000.....................................................74.50.
      10,000.....................................................68.50.
      11,000.....................................................66.50.
      12,000.....................................................64.50.
      13,000.....................................................63.00.
      14,000.....................................................61.00.
      15,000.....................................................59.00.
      16,000.....................................................58.00.
      17,000.....................................................57.00.
      18,000.....................................................56.00.
      19,000.....................................................55.00.
      20,000.....................................................54.00.
      21,000.....................................................53.50.
      22,000.....................................................52.75.
      23,000.....................................................52.00.
      24,000.....................................................51.50.
      25,000.....................................................51.00.
      26,000.....................................................50.50.
      27,000.....................................................50.25.
      28,000.....................................................50.00.
      29,000.....................................................49.50.
      30,000.....................................................49.00.
      31,000.....................................................48.50.
      32,000.....................................................48.00.
      33,000.....................................................47.50.
      34,000.....................................................47.00.
      35,000.....................................................46.50.
      36,000.....................................................46.00.
      37,000.....................................................45.50.
      38,000.....................................................45.00.
      39,000.....................................................44.50.
      40,000.....................................................44.00.
      41,000.....................................................43.50.
      42,000.....................................................43.00.
      43,000.....................................................42.75.
      44,000.....................................................42.25.
      45,000.....................................................41.75.
      46,000.....................................................41.25.
      47,000.....................................................40.75.
      48,000.....................................................40.25.
      49,000.....................................................39.75.
      50,000..................................................39.25.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the reported 
committee amendments are considered agreed to.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WALLOP addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Chair.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Domenici's staff member, Gary Ziehe, be granted privileges of the floor 
during the Senate's consideration of S. 455.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, before I begin, may I say to the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I very much 
appreciated the remarks that he made about the bill just passed. I hope 
that somehow or another we can find a way to come to our senses, 
because it is not a responsible thing to do to acquire more and more 
land without the means of caring for it. I know ranchers who do that, 
and the condition of those properties is what one might expect. The 
Government need not join them in that irresponsibility. So I thank the 
Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop].
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I support S. 445, the payment in lieu of 
taxes legislation. I am an advocate of and a cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  The way to get rid of payments in lieu of taxes would be to treat the 
public lands States in the manner that all those that are not public 
lands States are treated, and return some of this land to State 
ownership. But that is another issue.
  The bill, if approved, would increase payments in lieu of taxes over 
a 5-year period and base the payments on the Consumer Price Index. I am 
not generally an advocate of indexing, but the problem that we in the 
public land States have is that the Federal Government is our biggest 
neighbor and landlord. We provide the Federal Government with the 
police services, the fire services, the maintenance services, the 
transportation services, highway services, and everything else to 
manage these lands. Were these lands in private ownership or were these 
lands in the ownership of the State, they would directly produce the 
income to the State that we now ask as a fair share of this payment in 
lieu of taxes. It is to compensate these States for the presence of a 
Government that other States, who will be opposing this, do not know 
about and cannot comprehend.
  Local governments that have Federal lands within their jurisdiction 
are compensated for revenues they would ordinarily receive in local 
property taxes if the lands were not under Federal control and 
management. Payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT payments, were designed 
by Congress to supplement, not to replace, other Federal land payments 
that local governments may be receiving.
  May I say, under this administration those local payments are 
diminishing rapidly because they come from timber sales, they come from 
other public land uses.
  PILT provides Federal funds to local governments which have these 
tax-exempt lands within their bounds. For the last 14 years the program 
has received the maximum amount allowed under the 1976 act, which is 
$105 million. However, the program has nowhere near kept up with 
inflation and the overall dollar value of the program has declined 
significantly. The bill seeks to correct that shortfall by phasing in 
the new payment schedule, increasing the present 75 cents an acre 
payment to 93 cents in 1994, $1.11 in 1995, $1.29 in 1996, $1.47 in 
1997, and $1.65 in 1998. Payments based on other factors such as 
population are also phased in, with increases according to a schedule 
proposed in the legislation.
  After the 5-year phase-in period, the payments would be adjusted for 
inflation based upon the Consumer Price Index. The bill also would 
delete a provision in the existing law that forbids PILT payments for 
certain lands that States or local governments have transferred, 
traded, or sold into Federal holdings. In my State of Wyoming, payments 
in lieu of taxes have become critical to local government. It is part 
of the budget for the many services as I mentioned before: search 
rescue, law enforcement, road maintenance, and other services that 
these local governments provide. The burden on the year-round taxpayer 
to provide services to seasonal visitors using the public lands is 
often substantial.
  The Congress has recognized its unique intergovernmental relationship 
with Wyoming counties and others through the PILT program and other 
natural resource receipt sharing programs. That is because the counties 
and local governments provide the basic infrastructure and services 
that have enabled the Federal agencies to protect and manage these vast 
amounts of public lands.
  This is the original unfunded mandate. We are obliged to do this for 
the health and safety of our citizens and because the Federal 
Government does not do it. Were they to do it, we would have to 
establish some sort of national police force, a national firefighting 
agency, a national search and rescue capability. They are not about to 
do that.
  So, if Wyoming counties and the local governments did not exist, the 
Federal Government would have to invent something like those to provide 
community facilities, roads and schools and other services for the 
thousands of Federal employees and their children who manage the public 
resources. We have to educate the children of the Federal employees. We 
would not shirk that duty. But surely there is some level of 
accountability that the Federal Government ought to shoulder for this 
privilege and this service. Were they State employees or were they 
private employees, taxes would be paid.
  The partnership between Wyoming counties and local governments and 
the Federal Government is a partnership that has benefited our local 
communities and enabled the Federal Government to manage its lands. The 
time has come, however, for us to address a shortfall that has been 
allowed to materialize within the PILT program. In the public land 
States again, I would say, these programs have become essential to 
Government operations. And the government operations that are local 
have become essential to the Federal Government. This is an exchange of 
service for compensation, and the payments not having been adjusted 
since 1976, but the costs of delivering and providing those services to 
the Federal Government have increased along with everything else during 
that period of time.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of our time. I understand the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], would control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield whatever time necessary to the 
Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon for 
yielding time, as well as the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, for 
his advocacy of this bill.
  I speak today as an original cosponsor of S. 455, the Payments in 
Lieu of Taxes Act, as introduced by Senator Hatfield. I want to commend 
my colleague from Oregon for his hard work in crafting this 
legislation.
  This legislation is responsive to the needs of rural communities 
across the Nation. In short, it proves to rural communities across the 
country that Uncle Sam can be a good neighbor. It is also fiscally 
responsible.
  Many counties in the West have a large portion of their land base in 
Federal ownership. In my State of Montana, nearly 30 percent of the 
land base is in Federal ownership. In the past, these communities have 
counted on Federal lands to provide jobs and an adequate tax base.
  Mineral development, oil and gas drilling, and logging are activities 
that have historically occurred on public lands and that provided high 
paying jobs and a steady flow of tax revenue to rural counties.
  This bill amends the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976, which was 
designed to compensate local governments for the presence of tax-exempt 
Federal lands within their boundaries.
  Envision, as a county commissioner, trying to provide services for 
the people in your county when most of your tax base is exempt and 
cannot be taxed. Why? Because it is Federal land. You would have a 
devil of a time providing services to the people who live within your 
county.
  As a Member of the House, I worked hard to pass the law creating 
PILT. Since that time, Federal compensation has been frozen. Time and 
inflation have eroded this program to the point where payments worth $1 
back in 1976 are worth only 50 cents today.
  Back in 1976, a half gallon of milk cost 80 cents; a gallon of gas 
cost 60 cents, and a box of cornflakes cost 51 cents. Today that half 
gallon of milk will cost you around $1.40; the gasoline costs $1.10 a 
gallon; and the cornflakes cost $2.70 for a 12-ounce box.
  While most folks have seen their incomes rise to keep pace with the 
inflationary rise in consumer goods, counties must provide the same 
services--usually more expensive services--with PILT dollars that have 
not risen in 17 years.
  The fact that PILT payments have been frozen at the same level for 17 
years is particularly disheartening when you look at other instances 
where the Federal Government has kept pace with inflation in providing 
payments almost identical to the PILT Program.
  For example, the Federal Government compensates the District of 
Columbia for tax revenue lost by the presence of federally owned land 
and buildings. In 1977, just a year after the PILT Program was enacted, 
Congress appropriated $272 million to meet that obligation. Every year 
this payment has increased to more than keep pace with inflation. This 
last year, we appropriated $636 million for the District of Columbia.
  Now, I have traditionally supported this program, that is, the D.C. 
payments, because I understand the need to compensate the District of 
Columbia for lost revenue. All I ask is that we also do right by the 
States, particularly the counties, that are funded under the PILT 
Program. This bill brings about a long overdue increase in the level of 
appropriations to the PILT Program under a 5-year phasein. Put simply, 
the PILT Program would be brought in line with the 1990's and would 
guard against the value of payments diminishing in the future.
  Also, by phasing this increase in over a 5-year period, this bill is 
specifically tailored to minimize the budgetary impact of a payment 
increase.
  More than 1,700 counties in 49 States benefit from this program. In 
Montana, all 56 counties depend on the program to some degree. Mostly 
rural, these counties house our enormous complex of national forests, 
national parks, wildlife refuges, and lands administered by the Bureau 
of Land Management. These payments enable rural counties, the tax bases 
of which are constrained by the presence of nontaxable Federal land, to 
meet the education and transportation needs of their citizens and meet 
the demand placed on local services by people recreating on public 
lands.
  Think of all the folks from the East, Mr. President, who come out to 
western Montana--Glacier Park, Yellowstone Park--to enjoy themselves on 
vacation. They put immense pressure on these counties, and these 
counties provide services for folks all around the country who come out 
and visit us. It is only fair that we enable counties to have adequate 
revenue so they can provide the services not only to residents of those 
counties but all the visitors who come out to visit our Federal lands.
  These counties relying on PILT payments recognize the need to control 
Federal spending. At the same time, the need to keep pace with the 
growing cost of providing basic services is something we cannot 
overlook or ignore. The bill simply asks that we recognize the 
importance of the PILT Program and tailor it to more adequately reflect 
the present.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate to adopt this legislation.
  I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the sponsor of this legislation, I 
want to merely highlight a few of the points that have already been 
eloquently stated in arguments supporting this bill by Senator Wallop 
and Senator Baucus.
  There are now some 44, I believe, cosponsors of this legislation, 
because it does affect 1,700 counties over 49 States in this country.
  Back in 1976, we first adopted the payment in lieu of taxes, and very 
simply stated it is the effort of the Federal Government to compensate 
as an offset for some of the costs for road maintenance, for highway 
patrols, for police, for rescue efforts, for all the other things that 
occur on the Federal public land that is tax-exempt. Those counties 
provide those services.
  Now, to summarize, Mr. President, the Federal Government has been 
increasing recreational positions of special, unique setasides, of 
wilderness, of scenic and wild rivers, of heritage centers, and so 
forth and so on, because we want to preserve unique areas of our 
country, withdrawing those lands frequently from either private 
ownership or transferring their interests to increase the recreational 
value to those land.
  We also have, Mr. President, a continuing withdrawal of the 
administration, especially this administration, of many of those 
activities on those Federal lands that have produced revenues such as 
in the forestry of the Pacific Northwest. So there is a double whammy. 
The Feds are saying we must increase recreational access, recreational 
activities on Federal land--and I have been a supporter of that--but at 
the same time the Federal Government is closing down in the process 
forestry, mining, fisheries, grazing, and others. Rural America is 
getting the squeeze.
  I would like to recite at some appropriate time even the changing of 
the formulas of educational grants to the States where they are being 
now skewed to the urban centers at the expense of rural America.
  So here we have in these counties that provide these services an 
eroding base of financial support to provide the services that are 
mandated, mandated by the Federal Government, by the policies the 
Federal Government is pursuing.
  Some will argue that this is an entitlement. This is not an 
entitlement. This is set up as payment in lieu of taxes to the local 
governments charged with administering services to those Federal lands.
  It is a bill we owe; it is a contract we have to try to keep up with 
the changing policies of narrowing the base lands of revenue producing 
activities and increasing the people flow into those areas. That is 
what it is, to update that almost 50 cents on the dollar of 20 years 
ago.
  Some will argue, well, this is going to then create a further 
obligation by the Federal Government that is going to set aside other 
obligations that are current. Mr. President, this is a continuing 
obligation, and every year the Interior Subcommittee will have to make 
the tough decisions that that Interior Subcommittee, chaired by the 
Senator from West Virginia, has to make today. We cannot cover all 
those obligations. We have just added 6 million acres of wilderness and 
other classifications for the California Desert. That does not mean 
that is going to be funded this year. It is going to have to take its 
place, and it is going to have to find its way, competing with all the 
other funding responsibilities of the Interior Subcommittee. And it is 
going to have to be done on an annual basis.
  This is a small effort to try to update the obligation the Federal 
Government owes the counties, owes the people of this country to 
provide those services. Now, $105 million this year is what we pay out 
to those counties. We want to add $25 million this year. We want to go 
on on an incremental basis to move this in with the greatest possible 
ease and with the least disturbance to other ongoing programs up to 
$200 million a year within 5 years.
  So I just want to plead with my colleagues to recognize what is 
happening to rural America --I give myself 2 more minutes--with all the 
policies that we are facing today that are in the process of change and 
transition. Are we going to squeeze them out?
  I should like to also indicate when the health plan was first 
discussed, rural America had very little attention. I think those of us 
who have some concerns about rural America must realize, when we lose 
200 and 300 hospitals within a couple of years in rural America, that 
is the trend of rural America--to be further eroded by policies that we 
are undertaking even at this time.
  So I plead with my colleagues again on behalf of the county 
associations across this Nation, 49 States involved, 1,700 counties, 
that we take this reasonable, this logical, and this obligatory action 
to keep faith with the people in those counties who are providing these 
services.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from West Virginia allow me 5 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I hear the comments made by my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Hatfield from Oregon, and it is with 
some regret that I oppose him on this bill because I happen to share 
many of the views he stated. I agree there are some obligations out 
there. The Federal Government presently owns over 600 million acres, 
about one-third of the United States.
  We will be making payment in lieu of taxes of about $109 million in 
1994. That is a pretty significant amount, but I could imagine that if 
that was in private hands the payments would be much, much greater than 
$109 million.
  But, Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this bill because I am 
looking at the end results. The results are that payments in lieu of 
taxes will skyrocket over the next 5 years and then be indexed. I do 
not think we can afford it. We are paying $109 million in 1994. If this 
bill is enacted, that will escalate about $20 million plus for the next 
several years. It will be $227 million by the year 1998. So in 1994, we 
are spending $109 million. By 1998, we will be spending $227 million. 
It will more than double in 5 years and then it will continue to 
escalate with inflation automatically.
  The Senator from Oregon was correct. He said, well, the 
Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on the Interior, is going to 
have to find the money. The chairman of the subcommittee and I have 
spent a lot of time on this, and we do not have an extra $100 some 
million per year to be distributing in this committee in payment in 
lieu of taxes. I wish we did, but the money is not there. The 
obligations are there. We have lots of commitments. We have commitments 
on land. We have commitments on inholdings where people are surrounded 
by Federal land and have been told that the Federal Government was 
going to buy their lands and incorporate them as part of the national 
parks.
  We just added maybe more than $1 billion of inholding obligations 
with the California Desert bill that just passed. My concern is that 
the PILT bill is going to obligate this subcommittee another $100 
million per year. I do not believe we have the money. I do not see the 
money this year or the next several years.
  I know my colleagues said, well, many, many States will benefit. I 
know in my State our county officials have contacted me and said 
Oklahoma is receiving $781,000 right now, and that will more than 
double in the next 4 years. Frankly, everyone's payments will more than 
double in the next 5 years under this bill. The unfortunate thing is we 
do not have the money to pay for it.
  I have made this statement in the past. I think the Federal 
Government owns too much land, particularly out West. I sympathize with 
my colleagues from the West who have the Federal Government owning a 
majority of the State because it brings about a lot of problems--in 
many cases restrictions on development; in many cases they are not able 
to service the land. So they are seeking payment in lieu of taxes. They 
are seeking other changes. People are trying to make changes in grazing 
policy and in mining policy. A lot of that probably would not happen if 
we had those lands in private hands. There is no reason for grazing 
land in many cases to be in the Federal Government's hands, to be under 
the BLM. There is no reason. We graze in my State on private lands. Why 
do we not do that in other States? Maybe we could solve a lot of these 
problems. We have a lot of obligations in our parks, BLM and the Forest 
Service. They are Federal lands, and in many cases should be Federal 
lands. We should be able to fund those and provide decent services to 
them. We are not doing a good enough job right now. I am talking about 
anything from the Grand Canyon to the Grand Tetons to other national 
parks, forests, or monuments to which we are not giving adequate 
service.
  We have constituents that cannot get access. We have constituents 
that are not receiving services because we are not able to adequately 
fund resources to those parks. Yet, now another major new spending 
initiative that will be coming from this committee, and I do not see 
the money coming to pay for it.
  So, yes, I know that every Senator probably has county commissioners, 
county officials saying, please support this bill, because they are 
going to get more money. My concern is we do not have the money to give 
them.
  So it is with some reluctance and also with respect that I rise in 
opposition to my friend and colleague from the State of Oregon. I hope 
my colleagues will vote in opposition to this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my ranking member, Mr. President. I thank my good 
friend from Oklahoma, too, because I think he brings out some very good 
points. Maybe the money is not there or maybe it is. Maybe it is the 
lack of priorities we set on how we are going to spend it. Maybe we 
should take a look at that. Maybe we should take a look and see why our 
commissioners--and ``I are an old one''--maybe they are saying, because 
of those public lands our roads are broken up; because of those public 
lands and the activities on those public lands is the reason we have to 
provide water, sewer, infrastructure; we have to provide a lot of 
things in this county that normally settles on the taxpayers that pay 
on private lands.
  I will tell you that the PILT payment is nowhere near what the 
private landowners pay. If this Government wants to own the land, then 
they must own up to the responsibility of ownership, which is in a 
community you pay your share of the taxes right along with everybody 
else.
  We pass tax bills here. We say, well, the Federal Government is not 
taking a big bite out of our paycheck. When you go home and count your 
county taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes. All at once 
you have a big bill.
  So what I am saying is, yes, we have money there to pay for this. We 
have to set our priorities. Are we going to be a good neighbor, or are 
we not going to be a good neighbor?
  I have dealt with these PILT payments. They are very important. It 
compensates those county governments and local governments for public 
lands that are not taxed normally in each of the States. I would say it 
is kind of hard to figure out. If you are from a State that really does 
not have a lot of public land, it is hard to figure. But nonetheless, 
every year since I have been a Member of this body, we have tried to 
increase the PILT payments to stay up with the rest of the property 
taxpayers in our particular communities every year just like anybody 
else.
  But if the American people want those lands to be owned by the 
Government, then the American people are going to have to be good 
neighbors and pay their taxes and pay their fair share of what it takes 
to run schools, to do roads, health facilities, emergency facilities, 
public safety, sheriffs, ambulances, all the infrastructure it takes to 
put together and keep together a community.
  Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Hatfield, to 
urge the Senate to pass S. 455, the PILT bill. This bill will update a 
Federal program that is very important in Montana and other Western 
States that have extensive Federal lands. It is a program known as 
payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT. While there are other Senators here 
which support PILT, I know first hand what this program means to 
Montana's counties.
  As a former county commissioner, I have dealt with the difficulties 
local governments face in providing all the necessary services to a 
community. While the Congress allows our Federal Treasury to go into 
the red, county government just can't do that.
  The PILT program compensates counties for the Federal lands--which 
cannot be taxed--within their boundaries. Since over one-third of 
Montana is owned by the Federal Government these funds are essential to 
the local governments of my State. We are not here asking for more than 
our fair share, we are here to make sure we are treated fairly.
  Current PILT funds have not been increased since 1976. They have not 
been increased to reflect even inflation. It is simply a matter of 
fairness that S. 455 be signed into law. The bill which Senator 
Hatfield has introduced, and I am a cosponsor of, is an evenhanded plan 
that provides for a phased in increase of PILT funds over the next few 
years.
  PILT helps build and maintain the roads which support our local 
economies, in some counties it is the funding that provides our 
schools, our firefighting and other resources other areas take for 
granted. But when your county may be as much as 88 percent owned by the 
Federal Government, this investment in Montana's infrastructure becomes 
very important. Mr. President, an increase in these payments is long 
overdue, and it is a fair thing to do.
  Mr. President, I want to bring to this body a little bit of common 
sense. This, in fact, could be an unfunded mandate if we do not start 
increasing the PILT payments. You are mandating local governments to 
provide services and infrastructure without sending a check with it. I 
do not see the Federal Government spending a lot of money on the roads 
in and around Yellowstone Park, Glacier Park, nor the Forest Service or 
BLM, and yet those public lands attract people from all over America, 
and they use that infrastructure.
  So I support this bill. Yes; it is an increase. But, remember, this 
increase has not been tinkered with or advanced or increased since 
1976, if I have my information correct, 1976. That is a long time. In 
fact, we are nearing almost 20 years since any adjustment has been made 
in payments to the States under this program, which is a program. If 
you want us to own public lands in the State, then we have to be good 
neighbors and pay taxes and pay for the services that we receive with 
ownership of that land.
  Mr. President, I thank my ranking member.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be added at 
this time as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1629

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Johnston, our 
chairman, I have a technical amendment that has been cleared on both 
sides. I would like at this time to send the amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Johnston, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1629.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       1. On page 7, line 3, strike ``October 1, 1999.'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``October 1, 1998.''

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment. As 
reported by the committee, the bill provides for a 5-year phase in of 
increased PILT payments and after that the bill provides for an annual 
adjustment for PILT payments based on inflation. This amendment makes a 
technical correction to the effective date of the annual adjustments 
after the 5-year phase in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreement to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1629) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon, for yielding.
  Let me tell the Senate that I am extremely pleased to be a cosponsor, 
an original cosponsor, of S. 455, attempting to address an issue that 
many have already spoken to this morning, that the Congress has been, 
in my opinion, negligent in not readdressing the issue of payment-in-
lieu-of-tax legislation, a law that has been on our books for now a 
good number of years, since 1976.
  Mr. President, I rise to express my strongest support of S. 455, the 
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1993 [PILT]. It was my pleasure to 
join with Senator Hatfield as an original cosponsor of this greatly 
needed legislation.
  The current PILT legislation was enacted in 1976. The payments made 
under that act have never been adjusted for inflation since the bill 
was enacted. That is simply unacceptable. Costs to operate the rural 
counties have continued to rise, and this legislation intends to help 
those counties. Mr. Chairman, my counties desperately need this help.
  In my State of Idaho 63 percent of the land--nearly 34 million 
acres--is owned by the Federal Government. There are no local property 
taxes assessed on these lands. Yet public use of the Federal lands has 
increased dramatically during the same period, and that places a 
financial burden on local government. Their costs for road maintenance, 
traffic signing, law enforcement, and many other activities are 
increased because thousands of visitors are attracted to our national 
forests, national monuments, and public domain lands.
  Traditionally, most counties in Idaho have relied on annual payments 
from the Federal Government based on receipts from logging, mining, and 
grazing programs. For many reasons, these receipts have declined. It is 
only fair that we enact changes so that local governments are provided 
reasonable payments for the mixed blessing of being neighbors to vast 
tracts of Federal ownerships which are nontaxable.
  The formula for payments to local governments in lieu of taxes is 
badly in need of updating. It has not been changed in 14 years. 
Obviously, the value of these payments have declined substantially over 
these years. This legislation will adjust the current formula so that 
payments more closely approximate those intended when the bill was 
passed in 1976, and provides for an annual update based on the Consumer 
Price Index.

  This legislation is welcomed in Idaho, and is important to 48 other 
States with Federal ownership. It has my support.
  Let me give an example of the problem as it is manifested in two 
Idaho counties.
  Idaho County is 86 percent federally owned and contains 4.6 million 
acres of Federal land. That's about the size of the State of New 
Jersey. Approximately $1.6 million--25 percent--of the county's annual 
budget is used for search and rescue, law enforcement, solid waste 
handling, court costs, road access, et cetera on Federal lands. The 
current PILT payment to Idaho County is $434,000 per year.
  In Boise County, 84 percent of the land base is federally owned. 
There is a little over 1 million acres of Federal land, and the county 
receives about $89,000 per year in PILT payments. Approximately 44 
percent of the county's budget is spent on costs generated on Federal 
lands. Court costs for two murder cases that occurred on Federal lands 
have cost Boise County over $300,000 in direct costs and continue to 
cost $10,000 to $12,000 per month for appeals. This does not include 
indirect costs which are estimated at over $500,000.
  In both cases, costs incurred from activities on Federal lands far 
outstrip the PILT revenues. Mr. Chairman, these costs are strangling 
our rural counties. Due to the high percentage of Federal ownership 
counties do not have a broad based tax base to collect revenues and 
spread costs. It is for this reason that I support a more equitable 
funding for PILT and the proposal as outlined in S. 455.
  The Senator from Oklahoma said that we do not have the money. The 
Senator from Montana said, then, ``Let us readjust our priorities.''
  It is not a coincidence, Mr. President, that those who debate for 
this legislation are from the West, west of the Mississippi; those who 
oppose it are from east of the Mississippi. The reason is simply that 
Western States are the holders of large tracts of public land that this 
Senate oftentimes gets caught up in debate on. We just finished debate 
on S. 21, a major redesign of Federal properties in the State of 
California--8 million acres of Federal properties in that State alone, 
in one piece of legislation. It speaks to the tremendous scope of land 
that we, as Senators representing our States and governments, are 
responsible for in the direction of public policy, as to how those 
Federal lands will be managed.
  (Mrs. MURRAY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. CRAIG. For well over a decade, the National Association of 
Counties lobbied this Congress to be more responsive to the needs of 
those States who had large tracts of public land, and in 1976 the 
payment-in-lieu-of-tax concept became law. That was simply to say that 
the Federal Government, beyond other resources that it was utilizing in 
those counties, in those public-land States, ought to be like other 
landowners; it ought to participate directly as it relates to paying 
some form of revenue in the form of a tax on an allocation of a per-
acre basis of those lands. That worked well in concert with other forms 
of revenue that were flowing off from public lands in our States.
  For example, in the State of the Presiding Officer, Washington, in 
the State of Oregon, the State of the cosponsor of this legislation, 
and in my State of Idaho, many of those public lands were yielding 
public timber. We here in Congress said that a portion of the stumpage, 
the price paid for the timber, should flow back to counties, and that 
money should be used for bridges, schools, roads, and that was all well 
and good. It did help our counties provide what was primarily their 
major responsibility: The support of the infrastructure of an existing 
central government at the county level.
  That has changed dramatically, Madam President, as we see diminished 
timber cuts and, therefore, diminished revenue flows to many counties. 
That is why the payment-in-lieu-of-tax becomes increasingly more 
important, because we had changed public policy here in Washington that 
directly affected the revenue flow of counties as it related to timber. 
It has also happened regarding grazing. Therefore, it affects the 
ability of a ranch to sustain itself and to be an income source through 
property tax to the local unit of government.
  What I am saying, Madam President, as we change public policy here on 
our public lands, we, in a very direct way, affect the ability of a 
county, based on revenue flow, to operate. That is on the negative 
side. There is a positive. The positive was that as we changed public 
policy, as the public became increasingly aware of public lands and 
wanted to enjoy them, to recreate on them, in the decade of the 1970's 
and 1980's, and as Americans fled or flowed to their public lands for 
recreational purposes, this in one way helped counties, because it 
created greater population flows to live in and stay in the motels, to 
utilize those facilities.
  Well, as that increased the flow, it also increased the demand from 
these counties as it related to police, law enforcement, and all of 
that.
  Here is something that my colleagues from Eastern States do not 
understand: Idaho County, ID, is 86 percent federally owned. Of its 
entire budget, $1.6 million, 25 percent is spent on Federal lands doing 
the work of the Federal Government. Boise County, ID, is 84 percent 
owned by the Federal Government; 37 percent of its budget is spent on 
Federal lands taking care of Federal responsibilities. Yet, a very 
small portion of their total budget comes from a source of Federal 
revenue.
  By the way, I say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Idaho County, ID, is larger than the State of New Jersey; Boise County, 
ID, is larger than the State of Connecticut. Yet, less than a fourth of 
their land base is privately owned and yields revenue for the purpose 
of infrastructure, maintenance, law enforcement, and community support.
  It is an important piece of legislation. I congratulate the Senator 
from Oregon for getting this to the floor for the purpose of debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, we have now come to the time of year 
``when well-apparel'd April on the heel of limping winter treads.'' The 
flowers of April are in bloom, and so is authorizing fever. The trouble 
is that it is difficult for a limping Federal budget to afford these 
well-appareled authorization programs, and we tread upon our ability to 
pay for our existing responsibilities with each pretty new authorizing 
posy that sprouts.
  April may be fine, but the coming budget winter is going to be very, 
very cold.
  Madam President, today the Senate is considering S. 455, the Payment 
In Lieu of Taxes Act, which was reported out of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on February 2, 1994, by a vote of 18 yeas and 2 
nays. This legislation is sponsored chiefly by my good friend, Senator 
Hatfield, and he is my good friend.
  If he were not my good friend, we might be on this bill a little 
longer. He is also the ranking minority member of the Appropriations 
Committee. And the bill is cosponsored by 44 other Senators.
  I have the highest regard for Senator Hatfield. I have stated that 
time and time again on this floor, and I can understand his support of 
the legislation. I do not question for a minute his good reasons, his 
sincere dedication to this effort, and I know that he will be prepared 
to ably defend the legislation. I just wish he were on my side on this 
question.
  While I appreciate Senator Hatfield's commitment to the legislation, 
I must voice my concerns about the cost of this bill. This we cannot 
avoid. This we cannot eschew. There is no way around facing up to the 
cost of this bill.
  The payment in lieu of taxes--PILT--program comes under the 
jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chair 
and upon which the able Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, who has 
already spoken in opposition to this measure, serves as ranking member 
of the subcommittee.
  Senator Hatfield is also on the subcommittee, and Senator Hatfield, 
of course, is the ranking member of the full committee and the former 
chairman of the full committee.
  Madam President, the PILT Program compensates local governments for 
tax revenue lost on lands which become exempt from local taxation when 
the lands are acquired by the Federal Government. The pending 
legislation will, over a period of 5 years, more than double the 
current payment level authorized for the PILT Program.
  However, nothing in S. 455 indicates which programs are to be reduced 
in order to fund the increase proposed by this legislation. There is 
nothing in this bill which tells me, as chairman, and which tells the 
other members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, what programs are 
going to have to be reduced in order to pay the increased funding 
proposed by this bill.
  This bill is yet another example of ``spend now, worry later'' 
legislation.
  The Interior and related agencies appropriations bill currently 
provides $104 million for the PILT Program. This is a program that has 
been in existence since 1976.
  The Department of the Interior estimates that S. 455 would authorize 
increases in appropriations for the PILT Program totaling approximately 
$150 million to be phased in over 5 years. Madam President, this is an 
increase of nearly 145 percent in the cost of the program over a period 
of 5 years, not considering the additional costs that would be incurred 
through the indexation of the program for inflation. Senators had 
better stop, look, and listen.
  Madam President, where are we going to come up with this kind of 
money? It really does not grow on trees. I know that my friend from 
Oregon understands the motivation for my concern. As chairman of the 
committee, I have to address these things.
  This is not to say that I am any more dedicated to reducing the 
budget deficit than is my friend from Oregon. He often joins me and I 
join him in efforts to reduce the budget deficits.
  But in the outyears, after providing for directed payment increases, 
S. 455 also would automatically adjust PILT annually for inflation, 
based on changes in the Consumer Price Index--annually.
  So if we enact this legislation, these PILT payments, for my State as 
well as others, will go up automatically after the fifth year to cover 
inflation.
  Madam President, no other discretionary program, that I can think of, 
in the entire Federal budget is adjusted upward for inflation. In fact, 
discretionary spending as a whole has not kept up with inflation, and 
we are operating now under a freeze, which means that it will not keep 
up with inflation.
  Are we now going to set the precedent that what are, in effect, 
property taxes are to be indexed to inflation? Remember, PILT payments 
are designed to help local governments replace tax revenues lost 
because lands are removed from the local tax base due to Federal 
acquisition. What about the opposite? Should we reduce the PILT payment 
when States impose property tax limitations? By linking payments for 
Federal lands to inflation, it is possible that the push for Federal 
land acquisition funding will increase, particularly as States are 
faced with difficult budgetary decisions.
  Madam President, in addition to the changes discussed thus far, the 
pending bill would expand lands eligible for PILT payments by allowing 
local governments to receive payments for lands exchanged between the 
States and the Federal Government. Such is currently not the case. 
Furthermore, the costs of this bill increase with each piece of land 
the Federal Government will purchase in the future.
  Let me say that again, and as I say it, I have in mind all of the 
many requests from Senators that come to the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee for appropriations for additional land acquisition. I say 
to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, you ought to see the 
list. Many of the same Senators who are supporting this legislation 
write to the committee and ask for more moneys for land acquisition. 
They want the Federal Government to own more and more land in their 
State. It is a thirst of which there is no known quenching.
  These factors are not taken into account in the cost estimates 
provided by the Interior Department, but will obviously increase PILT 
payments in the coming years.
  Despite the fact that the level of funding for the PILT Program has 
remained constant, at about $105 million for the last 15 years, a 
random sampling conducted by the Bureau of Land Management which 
compared revenues received by local governments from taxes paid on 
private property with PILT payments for similar properties shows that 
PILT payments on Federal lands often exceed the average per-acre 
property taxes that are paid to local governments for private property 
in the Western States.
  The primary beneficiaries of an increase in the PILT Program would be 
Western States, as Senator Craig stated just a few minutes ago. Ten 
Western States receive 75 percent of the PILT payments made under the 
current program, 10. Ten Western States receive 75 percent of the PILT 
payments made under the current program.
  So that means that the remaining 39 States--one State, Rhode Island, 
does not receive any PILT payments-- the remaining 39 States and 
possessions receive 25 percent of the PILT payments. Some of the 
Senators from these favored Western States have raised the strongest 
voices about the need to cut discretionary spending.

  I can hear the echoes now rattling the rafters in this Chamber. ``We 
must cut discretionary spending,'' they say. And yet the same Senators 
have written a new speech. Now they want to increase PILT payments by 
145 percent and index them to the rate of inflation after the first 5 
years.
  So they are the strongest voices, many of them, about the need to cut 
discretionary spending. And I would remind them that PILT is 
discretionary spending.
  Madam President, the Office of Management and Budget has not yet 
issued a formal statement of administration position for S. 455. 
However, in testimony before the Energy Committee on this legislation 
last year, the Bureau of Land Management, in testimony cleared by the 
Interior Department and the OMB, opposed enactment of this legislation.
  Madam President, I have noted the number of cosponsors that this 
legislation has. Many may view this legislation as an easy vote because 
it benefits each and every State where the Federal Government owns 
land.
  It benefits my own State, West Virginia. I am looking at a table of 
current expenditures under the PILT Program. For 1993, West Virginia 
received $789,525. And, of course, over the next 5 years that will 
increase, and then it will be indexed to inflation.
  No wonder my county commissioners, many of them, contact me and say 
they support this program. ``Senator Byrd, please vote for this bill.'' 
And I can understand their need for the payments in those counties.
  But, Madam President, I do not know where we are going to get the 
money. I do not know. And when Senators come to me asking that this be 
funded, I am going to say, ``I don't know where we will get the money. 
What programs do you want to cut? What programs benefiting your State 
do you want to cut?''
  Before voting for this legislation, each Senator should consider what 
programs should be cut in order to fund this initiative. Should the 
allocation for the Labor-HSS-Education Subcommittee be reduced? I 
daresay not. The chairman and ranking member of that subcommittee will 
not want to see it reduced.
  Should we cut defense? I daresay the chairman and ranking member of 
that subcommittee will not want that subcommittee's allocations cut.
  Should agricultural programs be reduced in order to fund this 
increase? I daresay the chairman and ranking member of that 
subcommittee will likewise not want to see the allocations cut for 
their programs if this bill passes and becomes law.
  Should water and sewer infrastructure investments be decreased?
  If the answer to these questions is no, then the cuts will have to be 
found where? Within the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction, my 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  What programs are we going to cut there? Should we start closing 
parks? Should the level of assistance provided for low-income 
weatherization be reduced? Should the per student funding levels for 
Indian education be decreased? Should we terminate funding for Forest 
Service road construction? Should the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
State assistance program be eliminated? Should the Smithsonian 
Institution be closed several days of the week? How will we make up the 
$250 million cut in the Indian Health Service budget proposed in fiscal 
year 1995?
  And we are getting a double whammy here today with not only this 
bill, but also the bill which has just passed the Senate a little while 
ago--the California Desert bill. Both of these bills, the costs 
thereof, are going to fall upon the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee. That is the subcommittee I chair.
  These are the types of choices the Interior Subcommittee will be 
faced with if this legislation becomes law. These are not pleasant 
alternatives to have to confront. The way to avoid these types of 
choices is to not enact this legislation. It is hard to vote against, 
of course.
  I will have to write my county commissioners and say, ``I voted 
against it. I know that you wanted me to vote for it, but I voted 
against it.'' I have to write them and tell them that. And when I go to 
West Virginia--and I am going this weekend--I will undoubtedly meet 
some of them there and I will have to tell them why I voted against 
this legislation.
  So, if this bill passes, we are, in effect, saying that a transfer of 
funds from the Federal Government to State and local governments is 
more important than other programs funded in the Interior 
appropriations bill. I contend that this should not be the case.
  I will suggest, however, that if the State and local governments are 
so concerned about the effects of Federal land ownership, there is a 
solution. We can stop--s-t-o-p; the red sign that we find at the 
intersection--we can stop all land acquisitions funded in the Interior 
bill. Just stop them. None. Zip. Zero. This would not eliminate the 
cost of this legislation insofar as existing Federal lands are 
concerned, but it would minimize, somewhat, the un-costed effects of 
this legislation. But I know that this is not a policy that many of the 
cosponsors of the legislation would desire.
  Many of the very Senators who are suggesting through their 
cosponsorship of this legislation that local governments are not being 
adequately compensated for the lands the Federal Government already 
owns, are also supporters of additional Federal land acquisitions. For 
fiscal year 1994, the cosponsors of this bill requested approximately 
$245 million. Get that, the cosponsors of this bill, for fiscal year 
1994, requested approximately $245 million in funding for land 
acquisition projects in the Interior bill!

  I would say, Madam President, that despite stated concerns over 
underpayment for existing Federal lands, and their so-called drag on 
the local tax base, many in this body still believe that additional 
Federal land acquisition is desirable. They just cannot get enough. 
Their appetite is gargantuan. How are we to fund additional land 
acquisition if a higher PILT payment is authorized in a time of flat, 
or declining, budgets?
  Madam President, prior to the recess the Senate passed the budget 
resolution which provides for even less spending authority than was 
requested in the President's budget. Spending cut fever is alive and 
well in the Congress. All of the doctors have diagnosed the disease but 
the agreement on the cure is proving to be more difficult. The 
Appropriations Committee and the Senate are going to have to cut some 
of the spending proposed in the budget. And no doubt, there will be 
those who will contend that some of the program reductions and spending 
cuts proposed by the President are unacceptable. Will our ability to 
face these difficult decisions become any easier by increasing 
authorized spending levels for existing programs?
  Madam President, discretionary spending is under very strict 
budgetary caps for the foreseeable future. Allowances are not available 
for inflation, and any increases are going to have to come as a result 
of decreases elsewhere in the budget. Increases here have to be offset 
by decreases elsewhere in the budget. We cannot continue to delude 
ourselves that these types of decisions will not be necessary. The 
bucket is full. The only way to prevent it from overflowing is to turn 
off the authorizing faucet or to spill some out in the form of specific 
cuts in programs.
  Madam President, on the chart to my left is a diagram on which we 
will see two faucets. The faucet at the upper left is designated as the 
``authorizing faucet.'' It represents authorization bills, like the one 
pending before us. The authorizing faucet.
  The lower faucet is the appropriations faucet through which 
appropriations bills flow. I have long contended that, if we want to 
stop the money flood, we ought to shut off the authorizing faucet.
  I know it is a great pleasure, I have experienced it a few times, to 
be called down to the White House and witness the President sign a 
bill. The President, after he signs, a letter at a time, he turns 
around and hands a pen to one of the admiring onlookers. And how 
pleasant it is for me to be able to take one of those pens--that the 
President has just used in signing a bill that I cosponsored--back to 
my house where my daughters--who are no longer small, my grandchildren 
are grown--but there was once upon a time I could take the pen home and 
give it to one of my grandchildren. Whereupon, I could say, ``Here is a 
pen that I received. Yes, I stood right beside the President. As a 
matter of fact, I stood by his elbow. And he signed the bill with this 
pen and gave it to me.''
  And who is ``me?'' I am just a country boy from way back there in the 
hills of West Virginia. Who would ever have thought that I would one 
day stand at the elbow of the President of the United States and 
receive a pen from his own hand by which he had just signed a bill that 
I had cosponsored? What a matter of tremendous pride!
  But, my friends, we have to sober ourselves up a bit. Those who 
criticize the Appropriations Committee so loudly and perennially for 
spending, should turn off the authorizing faucet. The same Senators go 
glibly down to the well day after day and cast their votes for this 
authorizing measure, that authorizing measure, and some other 
authorizing measure, the enactment of each of which increases the 
pressures for funding on the Appropriations Committee. Now, you watch 
the pressures, I have said to Senators, watch the pressures that build 
on the Appropriations Committee as a result of the legislation that was 
passed earlier today and as a result of this measure, if it is passed 
into law.
  The way to cut spending is to vote against authorizing bills that 
authorize new spending rather than continuing to vote for authorizing 
measures, letting that faucet open which increases the pressure as the 
flow enters the second faucet, the appropriations faucet. In between, 
you see, there are all the pressure groups that come in, write in, and 
call in. They will say, ``Now we have this new bill that authorizes 
additional PILT payments, Senator, we want you to fund that 
legislation.''
  Therefore, the only way to really get a handle on spending is to 
exercise caution when it reaches the authorizing faucet, turn off the 
authorizing faucet. And to date, the Senate has been unwilling to vote 
down bills authorizing new spending programs.
  I suggest the time is long overdue for us to start that process, and 
I urge Senators to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Perhaps 10 minutes, 15 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do we have remaining, may I ask?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 24 
minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I have 24 minutes. I thank the Chair.
  I have to save 10 minutes for Mr. Metzenbaum, and the Senator wants 
how many?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Bradley].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, the basic message on this bill is that 
we really cannot afford it. We have a mushrooming budget deficit, a 
growing national debt. We need to cut spending, not increase spending. 
This program increases spending.
  For 200 years there was no payment in lieu of taxes. The first 
payments were authorized in 1976 and were made in the late 1970's, when 
the deficit and the Federal debt were a fraction of what they are 
today. What is the chance, do you think, we would have PILT payments if 
we had a national debt of $3.5 trillion? Unlikely. This program came 
into being at a time when there was virtually no national deficit and 
the national debt was very small.
  Proponents of the legislation argue that the PILT payments have been 
reduced because of inflation. It is true. Over the 17 years, PILT 
payments have been reduced in real dollars. It is also true that, over 
the last 18 years, PILT payments have increased in real dollars--
because in reality they did not exist 18 years ago. This was a new gift 
to counties and States with high amounts of public lands.
  The proponents want to index these payments to communities to 
compensate for inflation. The existing program pours money out, $100 
million a year or so. Now we want to index them for inflation. Madam 
President, would the same proponents of this amendment be willing to 
index payments to the Federal Government for such things as grazing 
rights? When the money is going out from the Federal Government to 
States, we are for indexing. When the money is coming back in from 
private users of public lands, the money is not indexed--a very 
interesting irony, but one that should be noted. Maybe that is where we 
can get some more money to reduce that budget deficit. We will index 
grazing fees, index all payments to the Federal Government from users 
of Federal property.
  Madam President, this program is technically not an entitlement, 
since funds still have to be appropriated. History tells the story that 
funds will be appropriated. This program has been funded to the 
authorized level, just over $100 million per year, since its inception 
in 1976. The fact is that, if we pass this legislation, the odds are 
overwhelming that we will be appropriating another $130 million by 
1998--that is the BLM estimate--another $130 million, making it a $250 
million program at a time when the budget deficits are mushrooming.
  I would like to make another point. PILT payments can be used by the 
local governments for anything. They can be used for anything. The 
money is completely unencumbered. No wonder the communities are so 
enthusiastic about it. It is kind of like general revenue sharing: Here 
it comes back. You use it for anything.
  Proponents of the legislation will make the case that this money is 
really to compensate local communities for the hardship of Federal 
land. But there is no requirement that this money be used to alleviate 
the hardship of Federal land. This money could be used for police; it 
could be used for emergency services; it could also be used for a giant 
conference table in the office of the local county commissioner. This 
money could also be used for a modern audiovisual room to show videos 
to the county commission when the deliberations get boring.
  So let us make no mistake here. This is not money to alleviate 
hardship. This is money in the form of general revenue sharing directly 
to counties.
  Of course, the distinguished ranking member and proponent of this 
legislation says that this goes to 1,700 counties in America, in 49 
States. But 75 percent of the money goes to 10 States; 33 States will 
get under $1 million a year; 9 States will get over $5 million a year. 
This is money that goes to States that have high amounts of public 
lands. North Carolina has 6 percent public lands. It gets about $1.3 
million. New York has 1 percent public lands. It gets $35,000. Michigan 
has 9 percent public lands. It gets about $1.2 million. Nevada, on the 
other hand, has 90 percent Federal lands and gets $6.7 million. The 
reality is that this program represents large payments to States with 
high levels of public lands, not for everybody in the country, but for 
10 States. And the argument is to alleviate the hardship of public 
lands.
  A final point: The PILT payment takes no account of local need or 
circumstances. The program is completely blind. Money is allocated 
based on a formula. The formula references Federal acreage, local 
population, and other Federal land payments. A community that is in 
desperate need gets no special help here. For example, in the 
Northwest--I see the distinguished Senator in the chair from the State 
of Washington--timber communities have been hard hit, timber 
communities with sizable amounts of Federal land. Do those communities 
get any more money than any other community with the same amount of 
Federal land? No. They do not get any special consideration here. And, 
in fact, if that community is losing population because people are 
being unemployed and they are leaving, that community would end up 
getting less money--less money.
  Madam President, I think there is another way to illustrate how this 
is a blind payment, not based upon need, not based upon real local 
circumstances. Let me just give you three counties in the West that one 
would not normally associate with hardship.
  Take Pitkin County, CO. That is the home of Aspen, CO. Under this 
legislation, that county gets $350,000 per year, forever. That is more 
than 24 States will get under this legislation, $350,000 for Aspen; 
more than 24 States.
  Take Teton, WY. That is where Jackson Hole is. They get $500,000. 
That is more than 27 States will get under this legislation.
  Take Taos, NM. They get $1 million. That is more than 33 States will 
get under this legislation.
  And why is Aspen getting $350,000, and Jackson Hole $500,000, and 
Taos $1 million? Well, it is to compensate for the hardship, the 
hardship of Federal lands.'' It seems to me, Madam President, that 
those million dollar properties in Aspen are there precisely because of 
the ``hardship'' of Federal land. It seems to me as well that they are 
able to make it on their own.
  Now, if the case was made that there are some counties in the West 
that have real hardship because of timber, that have real hardship 
because of Federal lands, and at the same time there is no attempt by 
the State, by the county to promote tourism to try to bring in more 
people from the outside to create more hardship----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New Jersey has 
expired.
  Mr. BRADLEY. May I have 2 minutes, rather 1 minute.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BRADLEY. If those counties were not luring in other people, 
tourists, to create more hardship, this case would be a stronger case. 
But the reality is that the money will go to counties that do not 
deserve the money. It is a blind contribution. It goes to local 
governments for whatever purpose the local government chooses to use 
it. It will increase the Federal budget deficit by over $400 million in 
the next 5 years. And in my view we ought to say, no, let us not 
increase the Federal budget deficit another $400 million.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
the bill be extended until 12:45 p.m. with the additional time equally 
divided as under the previous agreement and that the Senate vote on 
final passage of S. 455 at 12:45 p.m., with paragraph 4, rule XII being 
waived.
  This is a request from the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Utah [Mr. 
Bennett].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 4 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  I am pleased to associate myself with the legislation of the Senator 
from Oregon as a cosponsor of S. 455. Many of my colleagues feel as I 
do that action on PILT is long overdue. Counties around the country 
depend upon this program to provide funding to help them govern their 
counties and comply with the myriad of unfunded Federal mandates.
  The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 was adopted with the 
purpose of providing compensation to those counties with Federal lands 
within their boundaries in lieu of their lost private land tax base. 
These national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, national forests, 
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers 
lands in nearly every instance would be worth thousands of dollars per 
acre if held in private ownership and part of the local tax rolls. 
Although payments rates of 10 cents an acre is certainly not equivalent 
to the revenues these lands would produce if they were on the local tax 
roll, but at least there is some compensation for these Federal 
enclaves. At its best, this compensation is pennies on the dollar, but 
it is something.
  It is important to note that PILT payments are not a Federal subsidy 
to the counties. PILT payments are intended to compensate counties for 
services provided on Federal lands and which are required by Federal 
law. The basic service provided on Federal lands are no different than 
service to be provided on private lands. The distinction is that 
private land pay for these services and the Federal lands do not.
  Inflation has seriously diluted the level of PILT payments. The act 
was authorized in 1976 but the appropriated level has not changed since 
that time. The reason for this is that the basic formula for 
determining PILT payments has not been adjusted in 17 years. Senator 
Hatfield's bill corrects this problem by adjusting the formula by 
raising the PILT authorization over 5 years. It would still be the 
responsibility of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee to determine 
whether to fund the program at the new higher levels.
  I hope the Appropriations Committee would be willing to follow the 
lead of this committee. Last year the Appropriations Committee 
expressed concern with the PILT increase primarily due to its costs and 
insists that any increase be offset by commensurate spending 
reductions. I support that approach.
  I want to express my concern on the issue of transient tourist 
populations. This is an important issue for the State of Utah. There 
are counties whose population changes radically during the course of a 
year as a result of tourist visiting national parks, monuments, and 
recreation areas. Daggett County, UT, has a permanent population of 694 
people. The county is 97-percent federally owned with much of the land 
under the control of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Flaming Gorge 
Reservoir was built during the Kennedy administration as part of the 
Colorado River storage project. The fishing and recreational 
opportunities are fabulous. Approximately 2.5 million visitors recreate 
on the reservoir from May through September. Originally safety on the 
reservoir was the responsibility of the U.S. Coast Guard. However, 
since the early 1980's Daggett County has been responsible for 
providing emergency services including those previously provided by the 
Coast Guard. Daggett County has provided these services, in addition to 
the other basic county services, by generating tax revenues from the 3 
percent of the land within the county subject to property taxation and 
from modest PILT receipts.
  You may be wondering about the large revenues generated by tourist 
dollars. The sad truth is that very few tourist dollars are generated 
in Daggett County. Many visitors bring their food and supplies with 
them. When the tourist season is over, the county is left with 
substantial unreimbursed costs as a result of search and rescue, waste 
disposal, fire protection, and police services provided to tourists by 
the county. Tourists spend very few of their dollars in Daggett County. 
As a result, Daggett and other counties are experiencing difficulty in 
providing even the most basic services their permanent county 
residents.
  Finally, the Federal Government may not make PILT payments on Federal 
lands that were exchanged for State lands. For example, this committee 
and the Congress recently approved land exchange legislation on the 
behalf of the State of Utah. This legislation exchanged State land for 
Federal land. It also exchanged State lands for federal royalties. 
Under S. 455 State lands traded for federal royalties would be eligible 
for PILT payments.
  I should like to respond briefly to the comments made by my friend 
from New Jersey, who has given us some specific counties that he says 
are not worthy of these kinds of payments by the Federal Government. 
And he implies that if only the counties would get busy and acquire 
tourism, they would have enough income to take care of their needs.
  Since he cited a specific county, I will respond with a specific 
county from our home State of Utah. Daggett County in Utah has a 
permanent population of 694 people; 97 percent of the land in Daggett 
County is owned by the Federal Government, and the Flaming Gorge 
Reservoir in that county was built during the Kennedy administration as 
part of the Colorado River Storage Project. The fishing and 
recreational opportunities are fabulous, and approximately 2\1/2\ 
million people visit that county every year.
  On a tax base of 694 permanent residents, they have to provide all of 
the safety, all of the fire service, all of the search and rescue for 
2\1/2\ million people off of the tax base, as I say, of 694. It is the 
opposite side of the example cited by my friend from New Jersey whose 
State does not have the blessing we do of being owned in the majority 
by the Federal Government.
  I believe that these PILT payments are necessary. We are talking 
about $130 million over the next 5 years. The Senator from New Jersey 
voted for a crime bill that will cost $20 billion, and we are talking 
about getting a little money for crime control and law enforcement into 
the hands of the local counties in my State and in the other States 
that do not have a large property tax base.
  Very simply, the Federal Government is the largest landowner in the 
State of Utah. The Federal Government has not been paying its share of 
property taxes like any other landowner would. If those from the States 
that are concerned about this issue say, well, let them tax their local 
land properly and the Federal Government does not have a role and would 
agree with us, we will be glad to make a swap and let all of the land 
become Utah land so that they will not be burdened with the 
responsibility of the Federal Government running it. Then we will 
handle our own affairs.
  Otherwise, we have to look to the Federal Government for assistance 
just the way the District of Columbia does because of their shrinking 
tax base.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I really appreciate my colleague doing 
that.
  Madam President, I understand the arguments on both sides.
  But I rise to express my enthusiastic support for S. 455, the 
Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program Act, and I strongly encourage 
my colleagues to adopt this important piece of legislation. Passage of 
this measure would be a tremendous boost to counties all across our 
Nation that have large portions of Federal lands within their 
boundaries and that struggle under the financial burden of providing 
services to those who visit and recreate on these lands.
  My colleague from Utah mentioned Daggett County, located in the far 
western corner of our State, with less than 700 people. And, yet, 2.5 
million people visit that county, and local officials have to provide 
all services to these visitors. They are in despair. They do not know 
what to do. The Federal Government does not pay any taxes. They do not 
pay anything for those lands, and we are stuck out in the West having 
the Federal Government in control of them.
  I am an original cosponsor of S. 455, and I have been a longtime 
supporter of the PILT Program. This has not been a difficult position 
to take over the years, since the Federal Government is the majority 
owner of Utah's total acreage; 70.2 percent of Utah's 52 million acres 
is owned and managed by various Federal agencies. In most of Utah's 
rural counties, the Federal Government owns more than 70, 80, and even 
90 percent of the entire county. This means that the land base in the 
large majority of Utah's 29 counties, as far as tax base is concerned, 
consists of 30, 20, and even 10 percent or less of the county's total 
acreage. From these dismally low percentages, a county must obtain the 
necessary funds to provide all county services to all county citizens. 
As I am sure my colleagues can appreciate, our county officials are 
forced to tax to death that portion of their land held privately to 
make up the shortfall caused by the presence of Federal lands.
  The PILT Program recognizes the financial burden these lands place 
upon local governments and forms the backbone for Utah's county budgets 
and other States as well. PILT funds are used for emergency search and 
rescue, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services, solid 
waste disposal, road maintenance, health and human services, and many 
more uses to support a local community's welfare.
  These funds are not always used, as the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey said, for conference tables or to purchase audio-video 
materials. Counties are dying out there, and worried sick about how 
they are going to keep up their services.
  That is why PILT funds are so essential to local governments. They 
come relatively unencumbered with Federal mandates and directives, 
which makes them even more helpful to local governments. They are not 
misspent or used in some wasteful fashion that taxpayers would 
disapprove of or resent. The PILT Program is not a handout to Utah's 
counties or any other county in the Nation. It is a constant reminder 
to the Federal Government that it owns millions of acres of land 
throughout the country which cannot be taxed, but which generate 
financial obligations to local governments.
  They are equally important for the millions of citizens who visit our 
national parks and forests each year. If you are lost hiking in the 
Uinta National Forest, it will be the Utah County Sheriff's Department 
that will look for you. If you are caught in a flash flood in the 
Narrows in Zion National Park, the Washington County emergency team 
will initiate your rescue operation. Most of the costs of these 
lifesaving undertakings will be incurred by local entities.
  Congress cannot treat this program like other Federal programs; that 
is, it cannot pass the costs of managing or administering these lands 
on to local governments whose budgets are already severely constrained. 
Local governments cannot take it; there is simply little or no tax base 
to absorb these costs. That is why passage of S. 455 is vitally 
important to county governments.
  As my colleagues know, since 1976, the PILT Program has received 
approximately $105 million, which is the maximum amount authorized 
under the original legislation. Unfortunately, this amount, measured in 
constant dollars, is less than half of the authorized amount. During 
the past decade, visitation to the national parks and forests has 
increased by approximately 20 million and 25 million people, 
respectively. S. 455 recognizes the impact these increases have on 
local governments and updates the PILT Program over a 5-year period so 
it reflects the present, not the past. It adjusts the program for 
inflation to ensure that counties are not faced with this situation 
again.
  What does passage of S. 455 mean to Utah's counties? It would mean a 
gradual increase from last year's payment of approximately $8.9 million 
to an amount totaling over $20 million by fiscal year 1998. Frankly, 
this amount that will be paid is especially appropriate for Utah for 
our public-land counties which have experienced tremendous increases in 
visitation during the past decade. In Utah, we brag about our national 
parks throughout the country because Utah is one of the great national 
park and national monument States. Just within Utah's 12 national 
parks, visitation increased 78 percent between 1980 and 1990.

  S. 455 also contains an important provision originally drafted last 
session by our former colleague, Jake Garn, in collaboration with the 
Utah Association of Counties, that was modified this year by myself and 
several Senators, including Senator Bennett. This provision will allow 
State lands conveyed to the United States in exchange for Federal 
lands, royalties, or other assets, to be eligible for PILT payments. In 
the past, Utah has suffered from its own charity by conveying State 
lands to the Federal Government without those lands becoming eligible 
under the PILT formula. Through these exchanges, Utah has seen its 
historic annual PILT payment decrease by approximately $2 million in 
recent years. This legislation will ensure that States are not 
penalized when the total percentage of Federal ownership increases 
within their boundaries, even though counties must provide services to 
those additional Federal acres.
  Even with passage of S. 455, there remains one important item related 
to the PILT Program that should be addressed by this body in the 
future.
  During the summer, on any given weekend, the local population in 
several Utah counties, such as Grand County, may increase two-, three-, 
or fourfold. A temporary explosion of individuals who do not pay local 
taxes and who do not own land on the local tax rolls, yet require the 
time and attention of local government, should be recognized by the 
PILT Program.
  This matter was discussed prior to deliberations by the Senate Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee on S. 455 without reaching a solution. 
I hope that a resolution can be found in the near future by those of us 
interested in this issue so that additional and justifiable relief can 
be provided to these impacted counties through the PILT Program. I 
intend to continue pursuit of this matter.
  In closing, I want to praise Senator Hatfield for his superb 
leadership on this issue. This is important, and he has done a great 
job.
  Let me just say one other thing. Give us back our lands. Let us take 
them back in Utah. We will be glad to take them over, and we will 
manage them better than the Federal Government ever could. Let us 
consider Daggett County and other smaller counties with populations of 
less than 1,000, less than 5,000, which do not have any tax base. They 
are primarily owned by the Federal Government, which pays no local 
taxes, and yet these counties are responsible for providing many 
services to the tourists who come to our State to visit the national 
parks, the national monuments, the national wildlife refuges, and so 
forth.
  We want these people provided for, but our counties do not have the 
funds to do it. They are strapped. This bill is the only hope for them 
to be able to solve these problems. The remedy this legislation 
provides is long overdue.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor S. 455, and I commend the senior 
Senator from Oregon for offering the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.
  Let us be realistic, Mr. President. This is simply an issue of 
fairness. The States east of the Mississippi, States like New Jersey, 
West Virginia, object to this because they get a very, very small 
amount of PILT payment.
  Fine. Fine. As has been said by some of my colleagues, then just give 
the Western States back their land. Give it back to us. We will not ask 
for any PILT payments. We look at the needs of the east coast relative 
to rapid transit, mass transit, Amtrak, legitimate issues for the 
populated Eastern States that do not have the impact of tremendous 
Federal acreage.
  You know, this body just voted for more Federal land in the West, 
more land, more wilderness, and that vote cost the taxpayers in this 
country $1 billion because we are going to have to pay those inholders. 
That is what it cost. Did we appropriate the money? No.
  We committed an obligation for a billion dollars--we passed it a few 
moments ago--a billion dollars for wilderness. Why do we object to $100 
billion a year for schools, sewers, and drinking water for small areas 
of the West?
  Mr. President, I am from Alaska, and 70 percent of the land in our 
State is owned by the Federal Government. We have 248 million acres of 
Federal land. In fact, Alaska is so vast and contains so much Federal 
land that 34 percent of all of the Federal land in the United States is 
in my State.
  There are 51 million acres of Park Service land in Alaska. Mr. 
President, that is 70 percent of all the Park Service acreage; 15 
percent of the land in my State of Alaska.
  There are 76 million acres of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges. 
That is 85 percent of all the Fish and Wildlife Service lands; 21 
percent of the land in my State.
  There are 90 million acres of BLM lands. That is 34 percent of all 
BLM lands; 25 percent of the land in the State.
  There are 57 million acres of wilderness already designated in 
Alaska. That is why when we ask, ``Well, how much wilderness is 
enough?'' we are a little testy relative to those from other States 
mandating more wilderness in my State of Alaska. We have 60 percent of 
all of the wilderness designated in the United States.
  So when we look at the justification of PILT payments and we are 
taken to task on the issue of ``can we afford it?'' we just committed a 
billion dollars for inholdings. As you know, Mr. President, this 
billion-dollar commitment associated with the California Desert 
Wilderness Act is already behind another $2 billion that has already 
been authorized in the sense of acquiring the inholdings, but no 
appropriation.
  So as we look at the merits of PILT payments for the Western States, 
those vast acreages that have sparse populations, they have legitimate 
needs, and these needs can only be met by legislation such as that 
introduced by the senior Senator from Oregon, S. 455. That is why I 
support this issue, which is simply fairness.
  When I listen to colleagues say we cannot afford it, I say: Give us 
back our land, Mr. President, and we will call it even. Give that 
acreage in the State of Alaska back to the State, and we will manage 
it. But when you say it is Federal land and you dictate the use of that 
land and put the burden on us, and we do not get anything for it, that 
is why we are here today in support of S. 455.
  I commend my friend from Oregon and urge my colleagues to support 
this bill, which could mean an awful lot to the people in the remote 
villages of Alaska, who have no other alternative than to accept the 
dictate of the Federal Government on the manner in which the Federal 
Government chooses to manage its land in my State, with no contribution 
to those residents that live there, who would like to see some of this 
land put perhaps to a more productive utilization.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It means so much to the 
remote areas of the West. I say to my friend from Oregon that if we 
cannot get this, we will be happy to take the land back.
  PILT payments are intended to compensate boroughs for Federal lands 
that do not generate taxes. The program applies to National Park 
Service, BLM, and Forest Service lands.
  PILT payments are vital to Alaska's boroughs. Alaska's boroughs have 
desperate needs for funding. The very basic services usually funded by 
local taxes are wanting in many of our villages. We struggle to find 
funding for clean drinking water systems, for sewer systems, and for 
education and health care services. These villages are often surrounded 
by Federal land, but the land provides no tax base.
  Mr. President, this is a situation that this Congress can and should 
correct. It is a simple issue of fairness. This is especially true as 
the current administration and in fact the trend of the Congress is to 
put more and more Federal land off limits to resource development and 
dedicate more and more lands for single purpose preservation use. This 
means less tax revenues as a result of development and more unfunded 
demand to provide basic services for tourist visitors. This body has a 
responsibility to recognize the very real impact of these land use 
decisions.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
remarks. I yield myself whatever time I may need.
  I am sorry that our colleague, our good friend from New Jersey, 
Senator Bradley, had to leave the floor for other pressing business. We 
are all in that situation, unfortunately, too often here, not to be 
able to conclude any matter that we start. We have to spread ourselves 
over many places and meetings.
  For the record, I want to make a slight comparison between the State 
of New Jersey, which he represents so ably, and the State of Oregon. 
But I do not want to do it State by State--that is, State in comparison 
to State. I want to compare the State of New Jersey to one county in 
Oregon, Harney County. Mr. President, Harney County has 6 million acres 
of land, or 9,375 square miles--in one county. The State of New Jersey 
has 7,468 square miles. That is the State of New Jersey versus one 
county in Oregon. That one county in Oregon, which is Harney, has 74 
percent, or 5 million acres, of Federal ownership. That equates to 
7,812 square miles within the county. So the Federal ownership within 
one county of Oregon is larger than the whole State of New Jersey.
  It sort of reminds me of the Constitutional Convention, the big 
States and the small States, and the debate of how we were going to 
represent them in the U.S. Congress. Our forefathers came up with the 
brilliant idea of recognizing both population and space, or square 
miles, and recognizing that by appropriating representation to the 
small States and the large States in the House on the basis of 
population; and it gave all States equal representation here in the 
U.S. Senate. That was a brilliant solution.
  But I see no accommodation in the remarks made by the Senator from 
New Jersey, recognizing that there are these unique differences between 
his State, which has very little public ownership, and my State and the 
States of others who have been speaking here today, representing their 
States, having large amounts of public ownership under the Federal 
title.
  Surely, there must be some understanding expressed here as to those 
unique problems of large public ownerships and those responsibilities 
imposed upon the counties of those States to perform the basic services 
of fire protection, rescue, health, roadway, construction, and access.
  I wish I had the number of New Jersey licenses that have visited 
Oregon. I understand why they all want to come to Oregon--to see the 
beauty--whether it is from New Jersey or any other State; as in the 
State of Colorado, which because of the large public ownership, the 
large number of scenic and wild rivers, we have 42 scenic and wild 
rivers in my State. I have authored every one of them, and I am proud 
of that record. The next highest number is 10 in the State of 
California. We have over 2 million acres of wilderness in my State, 
beautiful wilderness, and I am proud to have authored most of that. We 
have the Columbia River Gorge, which is one of the most unique pieces 
of God's creations on Earth. We have set that aside in order for the 
people from other States to come and enjoy. We have the Seashore Sand 
Dunes, unique to any part of this country--acres upon acres of land set 
aside, taken off the tax rolls, to provide recreation for other people 
besides our own people in Oregon.
  I could go on about the John Day Fossil Beds, the Equinta Head, the 
Cascade Head, the monuments that we have in our State. And other 
Western States have similar spectacular scenery that we are preserving 
and taking off the tax rolls. I say to my good friend from West 
Virginia, as well, that I would be very happy to say each acre of land 
we withdraw from private ownership for public designation and public 
preservation and ecology and environmental reasons, we ought to return 
back to the tax rolls one acre of public ownership.

  We have the largest amount of BLM checkerboard in our State. 
Checkerboard is a poor way to administer public land. That is where you 
have a section of private, a section of public, a section of private, a 
section of public. That is why we call it checkerboard.
  I know there is a lot of marginal land in that Federal ownership. All 
right. Let us respond. If we say, well, we are taking more off and 
withdrawing more land for public purposes, let us make it equal and 
return to private land ownership.
  We have found that land exchange really enhances both parties--it 
enhances the public land management to be able to block up their land 
for management, and it also helps us establish new and preserved areas 
of beauty.
  We are working now with the full support of the Federal agencies on 
some land exchange for the Steam Mountains in our State to preserve 
them. There are a lot of big ranches there. Those are willing sellers 
or willing traders for land elsewhere owned by the Federal Government. 
That does not cost us a penny. There are lots of ways we can adjust to 
this plan.
  I would also say that when I hear my colleague from New Jersey say, 
``Well, it did not happen for 200 years, so, therefore, why should we 
do it today?'' I can make all sorts of comparisons about what did not 
happen 200 years ago that we are doing today. I do not think that is 
much of an argument. I found that to be part of the bane of my 
existence in political philosophy with some of the colleagues even 
within my own party. If it had not happened for 200 years, why do it 
today? And across the aisle, it is the same way. We are hearing it 
today. I just do not think that argument holds water. We did not fly 
200 years ago. We did not do a lot of things that we are doing today. 
So that to me is a very, very weak argument to say just because we did 
not do it for 200 years why should we have this kind of compensation 
now.
  I also would like to indicate, in response to my colleague, the 
chairman of our committee, as we were chatting awhile ago, very seldom 
do we find ourselves on opposite sides of the controversial issues. We 
are more together than we are apart. I do not particularly enjoy this 
role. I would much rather be fighting the battle with him than against 
him. It is on a matter of principle and he is very friendly. This is a 
matter that the counties are getting a higher rate of return on the 
PILT than they are in return from private property tax.
  First of all, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the National 
Association of Counties study debunking the Interior Department's 
statements on this issue be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             National Association of Counties,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1992.
     Hon. Timothy E. Wirth, 
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wirth: The National Association of Counties 
     has become aware of a report prepared by the Bureau of Land 
     Management for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
     Interior and Related Agencies. It claims to show that federal 
     land payments are higher than local real property tax 
     payments on comparable private lands. The implication is that 
     the current Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) program is more 
     than adequate compensation for counties.
       As we both know, that notion is absurd. The BLM report 
     contains serious flaws, misleading analysis, and leads to 
     erroneous conclusions. We are extremely concerned that the 
     report prepared without our knowledge or input might be 
     misconstrued by Senator Byrd's Appropriations Committee and 
     have an adverse impact on our chances of passing the PILT 
     bill, S. 140, which you have introduced with Senator 
     Domenici.
       We have, therefore, prepared our own response to the BLM 
     study which we have enclosed. Please review our analysis and 
     take whatever action you think is appropriate. We will await 
     your advice.
       Thanks for your help and continuing support.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Naake,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____


NACO Response to BLM Study Comparing PILT Payments to Real Property Tax 
                              Collections

       As a preface to our response to the Bureau of Land 
     Management (BLM) study, let us remind the Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the central 
     facts: the Payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) program which was 
     enacted in 1976 has never had an authorized increase; the 
     Consumer Price Index has increased by 120% since 1976; and 
     PILT is not an entitlement program. If the original program 
     had contained some measure of inflation index, some baseline 
     as most other programs contain, we would not, in 1992, be 
     asking Congress for an increase that is critical to 1789 
     counties across the nation.
       The BLM comparison of PILT payments with county real 
     property tax collections contains serious flaws, misleading 
     analysis, and leads to conclusion which are erroneous. Given 
     the complications which even BLM admits to in the study, we 
     strongly feel that the report which was not approved by the 
     BLM Director is not a legitimate document on which the 
     Appropriations Subcommittee can reach valid conclusions.
       To set the historical context of the PILT program, the 
     Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in its 
     report entitled The Adequacy of Federal Compensation to Local 
     Governments for Tax Exempt Federal Lands published in 1978, 
     stated that the real costs and benefits cannot be known, that 
     a relationship analogous to a business partnership is formed. 
     ``Both the federal and local governments must incur costs to 
     make the federal land productive: both deserve a share of the 
     rewards. . .''
       The ACIR goes on to say that ``. . . the per acre payment 
     approach makes no claim that the payment approximates the 
     actual fiscal impact on local governments of federal land 
     ownership. Furthermore, ``. . . this approach adopts an 
     administratively simple device--a set payment per acre.'' In 
     other words, the very essence of the program is its 
     simplicity and a recognition by Congress that it is a 
     partnership arrangement, not an exact value for value 
     approach.
       Trying to do a tax equivalency analysis, federal land 
     payments vs. local property tax collections, is fraught with 
     pitfalls. Unfortunately, BLM has fallen in the pit at every 
     turn.
       The problem, as pointed out by ACIR, is varying state law 
     made more complex by administrative practice which departs 
     for legal standards. It is compounded by the lack of reliable 
     data concerning local tax practices.
       From the beginning, the BLM methodology is questionable. 
     The most reliable and accurate methodology for collecting 
     data would have been to directly contact knowledgeable county 
     officials to request property tax data for comparable private 
     real property. BLM dismissed that approach because of the 
     time and effort that would have to be expended. That was an 
     unfortunate decision, for it undermined the accuracy and 
     authenticity of its report. Talking directly with county 
     officials who could have explained and even helped BLM 
     understand the peculiarities of each states basis for taxing 
     real property might have produced a more accurate picture of 
     the local conditions. The fact that BLM may have had limited 
     time and resources to fulfill the Subcommittee's request 
     showed little sensitivity in its approach to this issue which 
     is critical to county governments.
       In its approach, BLM chose to lump together PILT payments 
     and payments made under natural resource receipt sharing 
     statutes, such as the 25% timber receipts shared between 
     counties and the federal government. This presents an unfair 
     and inaccurate picture. PILT payments go into the general 
     funds of counties with no restrictions. Timber receipts can 
     only be used for county school and road budgets while grazing 
     receipts pay only for grazing improvements in the counties 
     where they are generated. In addition, many counties receive 
     only PILT payments and do not receive natural resource 
     payments since there is no commercial uses on the public 
     lands in their county.
       In choosing categories of private lands to compare with 
     federal lands, BLM has made some erroneous assumptions. As 
     our Oregon Association of Counties points out (see 
     attachment) in its analysis of the Oregon data, the report 
     totals three types of lands; timberland, grazing land, and 
     grazing and recreational land, as though they were equitable. 
     These cannot be grouped together and only timberland is an 
     accurate classification in Oregon tax law. In addition, 
     timberland is subject to a severance tax when timber is 
     harvested. This adds $58 million of private annual tax 
     revenue and is completely ignored by BLM in its analysis. 
     Therefore, the whole set of data for Oregon is misleading and 
     inaccurate.
       In Colorado, only agricultural assessed lands were included 
     as comparable lands. Under the state constitution, the actual 
     value is determined solely by the earning or productive 
     capacity of such lands, capitalized by a rate prescribed by 
     law. The intent of all this is to grant all agricultural 
     lands preferential treatment for tax purposes. The use of 
     agricultural lands as comparable lands by BLM is an attempt 
     to find the lowest property tax liability to illustrate the 
     adequacy of PILT. Again, it is misleading and inaccurate, and 
     the conclusion that federal land payments are more than 
     those generated by tax revenues is not valid.
       An example provided by Clear Creek County, Colorado (see 
     attached), provides a more reasonable comparison of private 
     land to federal land. Mining claims are privately owned 
     properties for which the only allowed uses are mining, 
     milling, and closely associated or related uses. A mining 
     claim with this zoning, located on a mountainside with no 
     existing utilities would pay on the average $2.84 per acre in 
     property taxes. We have included examples in the attachments 
     from other counties in Colorado to indicate private property 
     tax rates.
       If you closely examine the individual states selected for 
     the study and the individual counties within the states, the 
     comparisons are made on very small samples of private 
     property. For example, in Coos County, Oregon, only 160 acres 
     out of 700,000 acres of private lands, and in Marion County, 
     Oregon, only 320 acres out of 500,000 total acres of private 
     land. In the Oregon analysis, twenty two counties do not have 
     any private land listed in the report. With such a tiny 
     sample it is statistically impossible to draw any accurate 
     conclusions.
       It is interesting to note that BLM also collected data from 
     Florida, Michigan, and West Virginia. Data from those states 
     showed that real property tax payments were considerably 
     higher than total federal payments. However, BLM dismissed 
     those findings because it ``. . . includes tax revenues from 
     residential and commercial tracts in two counties in each of 
     these states.'' If they could tell that residential and 
     commercial values rendered those comparisons invalid, surely 
     logic would dictate that BLM should have recognized that 
     comparing subsidized tax rates with federal land payments is 
     just as invalid.
       We suggest that the BLM report which was prepared for the 
     Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies is seriously 
     flawed and cannot be used to compare the adequacy of federal 
     land payments to the current PILT program. Even BLM noted in 
     its report ``. . . comparisons of local tax collections to 
     PILT and Federal land payments should only be used as general 
     indicators of the adequacy of the Federal payments.''
       As we have indicated earlier, it is also not relevant to 
     the issue. PILT payments are now worth less than half of the 
     value of when the program was enacted. Furthermore in the 
     last fifteen years the costs of providing services to public 
     lands has increased and counties' ability to raise revenues 
     have actually decreased. Congress created a partnership 
     program with local governments and we are looking for the 
     Federal government to live up to its commitment to provide 
     adequate funds to carry out our own responsibilities on 
     public lands.
                                  ____


                          List of Attachments

       Association of Oregon Counties--A.
       County of Clear Creek, Colorado--B.
       Jackson County, Colorado--C.
       Moffat County--D.
       Montrose County, Colorado--E.
                                  ____


                              Attachment A

        [From the Association of Oregon Counties, Mar. 11, 1992]

     To: Peter Kenney & Rick Keister (NACo)
     From: Bob Cantine, AOC Executive Director
     Subject: Senate Appropriations Committee report on federal 
         payments to counties (objections to PILT bill--S. 140).
       At your request, Gil Riddell and I reviewed the BLM/Senate 
     Appropriations Committee report related to S. 140, NACo's 
     PILT adjustment bill. You asked for an immediate response. 
     Here are our observations on the report.
       1. The report includes federal forest receipts in the 
     analysis. This is unfair because the two types of programs--
     PILT and forest receipts--are paid on different bases and are 
     county-specific. Forest receipts are paid to counties that 
     have federal forests based on the amount of commercial 
     activity (i.e., timber harvesting) done that year. Twenty-
     five percent of this income on national forest land is 
     returned to counties in the forest; 75% goes to the federal 
     treasury. Consequently, if payments to counties increase, 
     payments to the federal government also increase--three times 
     as much! It has been a long-standing, mutually beneficial 
     county/federal government partnership; a program that has 
     stood alone and supported itself. This is not a per acre 
     assessment as is PILT; the legal basis is completely 
     different. Moreover, national forest receipts are dedicated 
     to roads and schools, if they are not available--as are PILT 
     payments--to support other essential relevant services as law 
     enforcement and search & rescue. Road funds are used to build 
     and maintain roads driven by persons who work and play in the 
     federal forest.
       Further, the authors ignore that these two types of 
     programs are county-specific, not statewide. Each type of 
     program treats each county differently. For example, nearly 
     75% of our major PILT county, Malheur, is owned by the 
     federal government and virtual all of that land is managed by 
     BLM. Malheur Co. receives $595,256 to provide essential 
     services to over 4.3 million acres of federal land. These 
     revenues must be used for road maintenance as well, because 
     national forest payments to the county road fund amounted 
     this fiscal year to a ``whopping'' $6,832.
       2. The sample acreages of private land used to compare 
     property tax rates with federal payments are extremely small. 
     For example, Coos Co. timberland--160 acres (over 700,000 
     total acres of private land); Marion Co. timberland--320 
     acres (500,000 total acres of private land); etc. Twenty-two 
     counties do not have any private land listed in the report at 
     all. The total private acreage used is 13,353 acres--out of 
     over 45,000 square miles of private land. It seems that the 
     authors picked a parcel here and there that suited their 
     intentions. Property taxes are based on assessed valuation--
     i.e., market value of the ``tax lot''/parcel--not payments 
     per acre. Market values can vary considerably from property 
     to property. It is impossible to judge the accuracy of this 
     report with such a tiny sample.
       3. The report purports to sample private ``timberland'', 
     ``grazing land'', and ``grazing and recreational'' land. It 
     then totals the three types together as though they were 
     equitable. Only ``timberland'' is an accurate classification 
     in Oregon tax law. We assume the other types listed are under 
     farm-use assessment. These are separate classifications that 
     cannot be grouped together. In addition to regular property 
     taxes, private timberland is generally subject to a severance 
     tax when timber is harvested (5.85% of sales price in Western 
     Orgeon; 4.35% in Eastern Oregon). This amounts to $58 million 
     of private annual tax revenue, and is completely ignored by 
     the authors. Also ignored by the authors is the State's per 
     acre assessment on forest land for fire protection; it varies 
     from 39c/acre to 76c/acre depending on the county.
       4. In Oregon, the tax rate per acre of private land for the 
     operation of county government only, not for schools or 
     cities or special districts, is $9.30/acre, and not the 
     $1.04/acre stated in the report. Granted the authors have 
     drawn their figure from a tiny sample of about 1/3rd of the 
     counties in Oregon, while the larger figure is for all 
     private land. Nevertheless, county services are delivered to 
     all lands, with an emphasis on areas outside cities, based on 
     the need for those services at the time. Ranchers and 
     timberland owners can expect to receive the same county 
     services when needed as the town dweller. If the authors 
     really want to compare the private and federal tax loads 
     statewide, and insist on including federal forest receipts in 
     the analysis, it is more appropriate to compare the $9.30/
     acre counties draw from private land to the report's $4.55/
     acre counties draw from federal land.
                                  ____


                              Attachment B


                                        County of Clear Creek,

                                   Georgetown, CO, March 11, 1992.
     Hon. Timothy Wirth,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Attn: Russ Shay

       Dear Senator Wirth: Thank you for providing the information 
     developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding 
     the relationship between federal land payments and actual 
     property taxes paid on comparable, privately owned lands. It 
     is clear to me that employees of BLM who prepared this data 
     have intentionally skewed their methodology to insure a 
     predetermined result.
       In reviewing the data for Colorado, I noticed immediately 
     that only agriculturally assessed lands were included as 
     comparable lands. In fact as I reviewed the data for several 
     other states, the same pattern was clearly apparent. As you 
     know, agricultural land in Colorado is valued exclusively by 
     the capitalization of income approach. Article X, section 3 
     of the Colorado Constitution provides that the actual value 
     of agricultural lands, as defined by law, shall be determined 
     solely by consideration of the earning or productive capacity 
     of such lands, capitalized at a rate prescribed by law. The 
     income stream to be capitalized is the net income that could 
     be derived from the earning or productive capacity of the 
     land after allowance for typical expense. The intent of this 
     constitutional provision and of the legislature in enacting 
     law to implement it, is to grant all agricultural lands 
     preferential treatment, for taxation purposes, when compared 
     to the valuation of all other lands. The use of agricultural 
     lands as comparable lands by BLM is clearly an attempt to 
     find the lowest possible property tax liability to 
     illustrate the adequacy of PILT payments to offset the 
     cost of local government services.
       I would offer three examples of lands within Clear Creek 
     County, as more reasonably comparable to federal lands:
       Mining claims which are contained within the ``Mining 2'' 
     zoning district, under the ``Clear Creek County Zoning 
     Regulations'', are privately owned properties for which the 
     only allowed uses are mining, milling and closely associated 
     or related uses. A mining claim with this zoning, located on 
     a mountainside with no existing road access, in very steep 
     topography and with no utilities whatsoever, would pay on 
     average $2.84 per acre in property taxes.
       Mining claims in the ``Mining 1'' zoning district are 
     privately owned properties with allowed uses including all 
     mining uses and residential uses. A mining claim with this 
     zoning, four wheel drive access road, sloping to steep 
     topography and no utilities available, would pay on average 
     $38.37 per acre in property taxes.
       Large acreage tracts located near the eastern boundary of 
     the Mount Evans Wilderness Area, surrounded by national 
     forest lands, zoned for residential use, with access through 
     a locked gate on a four wheel drive road, sloping to steep 
     topography and no utilities available, pay on average $16.44 
     per acre in property taxes.
       These examples are typical of privately owned, vacant lands 
     within Clear Creek County which have the lowest assessed 
     value because of their remoteness or difficulty of 
     development. As factors such as access, availability of 
     utilities, terrain, etc. improve, the assessed value and 
     taxes paid would increase. I believe these provide much more 
     valid comparisons than those presented by BLM. In addition, I 
     am certain the BLM realty specialists in Colorado are 
     sufficiently familiar with the special treatment afforded 
     agricultural lands to have concluded their data was 
     irrelevant in this context.
       We are working with other Colorado counties and counties in 
     other states selected by BLM to develop similar responses. 
     When we have the data together we will forward it to you.
       Thanks again for your support on this and many other issues 
     important to Clear Creek County.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Peter Kenney,

                                      Chairman, Clear Creek County
                                           Board of Commissioners.
                                  ____


                              Attachment C

           Review of BLM PILT Payment Report--Jackson County

       All data based on year 1990.
       Government Payments:
       PILT Acres: 519,138.
       PILT payments: 519,138.
       Federal Land Payments: 173,931 (made up of U.S. Minerals 
     Lease & Federal Forest payments).
       Total Federal payments: 225,845.
       $/Acre: $0.435.
       Private Property Tax Payments:
       Private agricultural acres: 338,798.
       Ag tax payments: 304,674 (5.89/AC).
       Severed mineral tax payments: 7,918.
       Total ag + sev min: 312,592.
       $/Acre: $0.92.
       Oil payments: 43,524.
       Total ag + sev min + oil: 356,116.
       $/Acre: $1.05.
       Jean E. Maxwell, Jackson County Assessor, March 16, 1992.

                              Attachment D

        ASSESSED VALUATION 1991 MOFFAT COUNTY AGRICULTURE LANDS         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Appraised                               
         Grazing land           value per    Assessed value per acremill
                                  acre          levy=taxes per acre     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1......................       $14.23  $4.10 67.824=$0.278         
Class 2......................        12.07  3.50 67.824=.237            
Class 3......................        10.38  3.00 67.824=.203            
Class 4......................         8.53  2.45 67.824=.166            
Class 5......................         6.30  1.89 67.824=.122            
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Appraised                               
        Dry farm land           value per    Assessed value per acremill
                                  acre          levy=taxes per acre     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1......................       $94.69  $27.00 67.824=$1.831        
Class 2......................       876.76  25.50 67.824=1.729          
Class 3......................        64.46  19.00 67.824=1.288          
Class 4......................        41.00  12.00 67.824=.813           
Class 5......................        29.30  8.50 67.824=.576            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average payments per acre Moffat County: 0.724                          

                                                 Board of Montrose


                                         County Commissioners,

                                      Montrose, CO March 12, 1992.
     Mr. Peter Kenney, 
     Clear Creek County Commissioners' Office,
     Georgetown, CO.
       Dear Peter: After reviewing the information prepared by BLM 
     estimating the amount of property taxes Montrose County would 
     receive in place of P.I.L.T. funds, I requested our County 
     Assessor to prepare a more accurate calculation (enclosed for 
     your review).
       It is really quite unfair to assume the entire 970,497 
     acres of public land Montrose County has would be classified 
     as grazing and waste land. Instead, our assessor has taken 
     the total amount of acreage we have in the following 
     classifications and applied this ratio to the 970.497 acres 
     of public land we have:
       *Vacant land.
       *Crop land.
       *Dry farm.
       *Meadow hay.
       *Grazing land.
       *Waste land.
       Even this conservative approach produces $2.12 per acre for 
     potential property taxes versus the $0.065 to $0.75 per acre 
     currently received.
       I hope the enclosed worksheet will help mitigate the BLM 
     report.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Cindy K. Bowen,
                        District #1 Montrose County Commisssioner.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me give you an illustration.
  We have, as I say, in Harney County 6 million acres, of which 5 
million approximately are in public ownership, Federal ownership. The 
private land in Harney County is being taxed today at $2.90 an acre on 
the average. The payment in lieu of tax on that same acreage in Harney 
County is 6 cents an acre, s-i-x cents, pennies an acre.
  If this bill should pass, that would increase this PILT Program, and 
it would then rise to 14 cents an acre as against $2.90 an acre.
  We can give many examples. This is not just a unique, bizarre-type of 
case that I have cited. But I could give examples in every Western 
State about the ratio of the payment in lieu of tax as against the 
private tax against the private landowners within those counties.
  I think, therefore, that that is challengeable and particularly with 
this study which I have asked to be made a part of the Record.
  I would like to respond briefly to the chairman of the committee in 
saying where we are we going to get the money. That is a legitimate 
question. I struggle with him. In the 6 years that I chaired the 
committee, I struggled to issue the then 302(b) allocation, how we are 
going to apportion the discretionary funds across the 13 subcommittees, 
and the chairman today, along with his chairmen of the subcommittees 
and the ranking members of those subcommittees, worked out an allotment 
we call the 602(b) allocation. That has not been done to my knowledge. 
And, therefore, there is this flexibility, this window of flexibility, 
in which we will then soon find ourselves with what the figure that we 
have to work within this Interior Subcommittee. That is not a known 
figure to me at least at this time.
  That is a very difficult position that the chairman is in and that is 
a very difficult position for each member of the committee, that is, 
the full Appropriations Committee, because there are so many good 
programs and there are so many great requests, legitimate requests, 
passionate requests, we have to deal with.
  Let me suggest at this point--and it is not just a suggestion that is 
taken out of the air--Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and I cosponsored a 
proposal here last year dealing with this problem by suggesting a 
transfer of some reductions in the Defense Subcommittee. We have 20 B-
2's authorized, B-2 bomber airplanes for the Air Force, $818 million 
each, almost $1 billion for one airplane, which was all done prior to 
the whole change of the geopolitics of this world. We have a star wars 
program for 1995 of $3.3 billion request. We have the F-22 advanced 
tactical fighter, $2\1/2\ billion in 1995 request. Some question even 
the need for this airplane in today's world. A C-17 cargo airplane, six 
airplanes authorized at $3 billion in 1995, $500 million, a half 
billion per copy. One of those C-17 cargo airplanes could take care of 
all of this plus many more requests that the chairman of that committee 
will have to phase in trying to satisfy all the colleagues in this 
Senate. Or one B-2 bomber could take care of this.
  So I do not come here saying let us add another $25 million this year 
and incrementally raise it up to double what it is today of $105 
million, without any concern about where we are going to get the money.
  But as the colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, said a while ago, 
it is not a question of the amount of money; it is a matter of the 
priorities that we place on the expenditure of that money. Everyone 
would have a different set of priorities. I understand that. I am sure 
that many of my colleagues would not agree with me that one B-2 bomber 
or part of the star wars program or the F-22 advanced tactical fighter 
or the C-17 cargo, even taking one of them away to transfer that money 
to other purposes, that they would agree with that. We are 100 
different persons in this body, and I am sure we have at least 90 
different priorities as we would individually want to set the 
priorities. But that is at least a possibility that should be 
considered in setting the priorities of how we are going to pay for 
this increased PILT Program.
  I would like to suggest too, that as we get into this business 
further, we are going to hear a lot about the matter of counties 
already receiving enough money. Let me just quote from the Public Land 
Law Review Commission that was established in 1970 a very great 
document that was sort of a milestone in our public policy.

       If the national interest dictates that land should be 
     retained in Federal ownership, it is the obligation of the 
     United States to make certain that the burden of that policy 
     is spread among all the people--

  Including New Jersey; all the people--

     Of the United States and not borne only by those States and 
     governments in whose area the lands are located.

  I conclude that report's quote:

       Therefore, the Federal Government should make the payments 
     to compensate State and local governments for the tax 
     immunity of Federal land.
  That is why the Sierra Club has endorsed this program. That is why 
the Nature Conservancy people have endorsed this program. It is not 
just the recipients, the county associations, as you might imagine, 
would be for it, logically, legitimately, reasonably. But here we have 
the Sierra Club, we have the Nature Conservancy Organization that say 
we want to preserve those lands, we want to preserve the unique parts 
of the ecology and the environment and we are willing to endorse the 
proposition that was stated so eloquently in the Public Land Law Review 
Commission that all of the Nation should help support that setaside, 
that withdrawal, that preservation.
  You know, it is very interesting, we are facing an increasing problem 
of the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act is a national 
law. I am proud to have authored the first one in 1972. I am sometimes 
a little hesitant to tell my constituents at home, now that we have had 
this siege of the spotted owl and now we have the salmon problem. And 
there is a tremendous impact on all the people of our State.
  But, it is a national law. Every State now has some listing, and 
there are thousands, and more plant and wildlife candidates for further 
listing.
  The question now to be considered is: Should the Nation, as a whole, 
with a national law, bear some of the economic impact or should the 
people of a given central area or a focused area bear that burden of a 
national law?
  Now that is going to become an increasingly difficult question to 
answer as the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act comes 
along. Let me tell you why.
  We have spent $100 million in the Bonneville Power Administration 
alone, which is based on ratepayers of the region to mitigate salmon 
loss in our Columbia State River system. We have paid that within the 
region because of four listings of salmon, because we have treaties 
that were made by our National Government and the various tribes of the 
American Indians in that area and committing to those Indian tribes a 
certain take of that fish because of their culture, because of their 
religion, because of their economics.
  During the Depression of the 1930's, there was no depression on the 
Indian reservations in my State because the fish were running in those 
rivers and that was their economy.
  So, consequently, we are taking that responsibility, even those 
treaties were made by the National Government of trying to fund a major 
part of the mitigation of that fish loss.
  And yet, Mr. President, in this administration's budget that is now 
before us, they have excised the Mitchell Act funds to build the 
hatcheries and to upgrade the hatcheries. And 25 percent of the salmon 
that are caught come out of the hatchery mitigation, the fence or the 
screens that we are trying to place on the dams to protect the 
downstream fingerlings, excise that; the Columbia smelt, excise that; 
the National Oceanographic study to the anadromous fish going out from 
the ocean into our waters, excise that; excising all of these programs 
for fish mitigation that the Federal Government put on the Endangered 
Species Act. And they are saying, in effect, to us, ``You fund it.'' 
And yet, that is a national concern, a national resource.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have some time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes and 26 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. Has the time of the Senator from Oregon been used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oregon has 
expired.
  Mr. BYRD. I would be happy to yield some of my time to the Senator.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 10 minutes to the control of Senator Hatfield.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Let me close with one sentence and then I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  I was concluding that I think we now have the eye and the ear of the 
administration. They have now committed themselves to trying to find 
the money for the fish mitigation.
  My point was simply this. There is a national interest in these 
counties because of the national ownership. There is a national 
obligation because of the utilization by people of these areas and by 
people all over this Nation. Therefore, I think the least we can do is 
help offset the increased costs that are created by public ownership in 
my part of the country.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair and I certainly thank my friend from 
Oregon and Senator Byrd for yielding time.
  I understand in previous debate Senator Bradley alluded to a county 
in New Mexico, Taos County, with the assertion that that county would 
get $1 million under this proposal.
  Let me just make sure that the Senate understands the size of the 
public domain in counties like Taos. Taos County has 740,000 acres of 
public land.
  One might even have picked a different county in New Mexico and said, 
``How about Catron County?'' 2.8 million acres of Catron County are 
owned by the Federal Government. They will get something like, well, I 
do not have the exact dollar number, but significantly more obviously 
than Taos, which is a very poor county, not rich, because the Federal 
Government owns all the land, very poor, very poor services, very 
little money for the county Government.
  So, obviously, I am here as a cosponsor of Senator Hatfield's 
legislation.
  I was one of the original Senators on the floor when we passed PILT. 
The distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Senator Hansen, was on the 
floor when this PILT amendment was passed here and retained in 
conference and we started down a path of fairness.
  The Federal Government owns huge portions of our respective counties' 
lands in a State like New Mexico, in a State like Oregon, in a State 
like Colorado, and certainly in a State like Nevada.
  Much of the source of revenue for running a county comes because of 
taxes they impose on land. Here we have in many counties nothing left 
to impose any local taxes on. Clearly, PILT is a way to treat these 
county Governments fairly with reference to the ownership of Federal 
land versus taking care of the basic needs of the people of the 
respective counties in a State like New Mexico.
  Thirty-three percent, overall, of the State of New Mexico is owned by 
the Federal Government. In several of our counties, 80 percent of the 
surface of the land is owned by the Federal Government.
  Local governments will not be able to function without adequate PILT 
payments. And it goes without saying that a formula that has not 
changed the dollar number since 1976--meaning if you are really helping 
local government by this formula distribution, they are getting exactly 
the same as in 1976. That is a long time without any increase. And the 
Hatfield amendment would not try to pick all that up but would say, in 
the future, you would index the PILT payment.
  And I fully understand that the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, while I was not here this 
morning to hear the entire statement, indicated that appropriations is 
in a pretty tight squeeze. He mentioned a blossoming April with a bleak 
winter. I think I heard that much and I thought that was a very fine 
way to explain the appropriated accounts of this Government. This is an 
appropriated account. It is not an entitlement. We are going to have to 
find the money in appropriations.
  But I say to the distinguished chairman, when there is so much need 
to bring this formula current, we understand we will have to take our 
place among all the various authorized programs of the Nation and try 
to get our money through the process. We do have some people who are 
going to work very hard at that, I say to the chairman, and I think we 
are going to try very hard to succeed.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of this bill, 
which I have cosponsored with my friend, Senator Hatfield.
  This bill is extremely important to the counties in the State of New 
Mexico. Thirty-three percent of New Mexico lands are owned by the 
Federal Government. Several counties in New Mexico contain over 80 
percent Federal lands.
  Local government would not be able to function without adequate PILT 
payments.
  The present formula for PILT was devised in 1976, and has not been 
revised to meet today's realities.
  Currently, the PILT formula provides that lands acquired from the 
State are exempt from consideration for PILT payments.
  This creates a situation that when the State agrees to exchange land 
with the Federal Government for their mutual benefit, this exchanged 
land ceases to be eligible for PILT payments.
  This legislation corrects this unintended, unfair removal of land 
from eligibility for payments. It also clears the way for States to 
enter into exchange agreements with the Federal Government that will 
ultimately benefit both everyone.
  This bill provides for a phasing-in of increased payments over a 5-
year period to allow Congress, Federal agencies and local governments 
to better plan future activities.
  Since its inception in 1976, the PILT Program has not seen a single 
increase in the authorized level of payments.
  Undoubtedly, all of us would agree that the cost of government at all 
levels has increased significantly since 1976.
  Mr. President, this legislation is most important to the survival of 
local government in the provision of public services.
  The concept of PILT is as valid today as when it was passed, but the 
lag of payments behind inflation has produced a hardship on the local 
communities.
  When the Federal Government holds what would ordinarily be private 
lands, it should act responsibly, and provide its fair share to the 
local infrastructure.
  I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation.
  I just say to the U.S. Senate, much has been said in the last year 
about the U.S. Government versus the West; the U.S. Government versus 
the States with great public ownership. Some have talked about the war 
on the West, maybe I have even, when we speak about new grazing rules 
and regulations.
  But, essentially, this is one that is desperately needed to just 
treat our States fairly when we try to take into consideration the 
public, U.S. Government, ownership of lands within our respective 
States.
  I hope it passes. As I indicated, it is not an entitlement. Clearly, 
this is needed. It is needed out of a sense of fairness to these 
States. I hope the Senate will, before the day is up, vote it in.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] is 
recognized.


            The Birthday Of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on another matter, I call attention to the 
fact that today is the birthday of our distinguished Presiding Officer, 
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the Senator from the State of 
Colorado.
  The Senator from West Virginia wants to congratulate the Chair. I 
have experienced a similar situation 76 times, and it has gotten to the 
point that I do not enjoy it anymore. But let me say to my friend, 
Senator Campbell, who is in the chair:

       Count your garden by the flowers,
       Never by the leaves that fall;
       Count your days by the sunny hours,
       Not remembering clouds at all.
       Count your nights by stars, not shadows;
       Count your life by smiles, not tears;
       And on this beautiful April afternoon,
       Count your age by friends, not years.

  Mr. President, back on the bill, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a table showing the distribution of PILT payments 
by the States, and I make that request.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

   Table II.--Summary of payments to eligible units of Government by 
                               State, BLM

State/Territory:                                           1993 Payment
  Alabama......................................................$139,175
  Alaska......................................................4,347,805
  Arizona.....................................................8,696,248
  Arkansas....................................................1,257,446
  California.................................................10,459,027
  Colorado....................................................6,285,256
  Connecticut....................................................18,850
  Delaware........................................................9,576
  District of Columbia...........................................49,513
  Florida.....................................................1,281,825
  Georgia.......................................................699,913
  Guam..............................................................895
  Hawaii..........................................................9,950
  Idaho.......................................................7,379,289
  Illinois......................................................313,252
  Indiana.......................................................212,652
  Iowa..........................................................127,815
  Kansas........................................................337,818
  Kentucky......................................................506,096
  Louisiana.....................................................156,088
  Maine..........................................................95,200
  Maryland.......................................................41,157
  Massachusetts..................................................52,865
  Michigan....................................................1,179,441
  Minnesota.....................................................718,539
  Mississippi...................................................327,514
  Missouri....................................................1,015,777
  Montana.....................................................8,239,592
  Nebraska......................................................351,861
  Nevada......................................................6,716,988
  New Hampshire..................................................94,332
  New Jersey.....................................................40,730
  New Mexico.................................................10,595,126
  New York.......................................................35,205
  North Carolina..............................................1,269,779
  North Dakota..................................................549,463
  Ohio..........................................................203,047
  Oklahoma......................................................783,600
  Oregon......................................................2,843,000
  Pennsylvania..................................................211,044
  Puerto Rico....................................................22,292
  South Carolina................................................302,709
  South Dakota................................................1,228,642
  Tennessee.....................................................472,483
  Texas.......................................................1,309,563
  Utah........................................................8,885,822
  Vermont.......................................................243,975
  Virgin Islands.................................................10,918
  Virginia....................................................1,102,214
  Washington..................................................4,034,049
  West Virginia.................................................739,525
  Wisconsin.....................................................411,283
  Wyoming.....................................................6,789,331
                                                       ________________

    Total...................................................103,205,555


  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have before me a statement of 
administration policy with respect to S. 455, Payments in Lieu of Taxes 
Act.

       The Administration supports the payment in lieu of taxes 
     (PILT) program to compensate units of local governments of 
     losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands 
     within their boundaries. The Administration, however, cannot 
     support S. 455, which would authorize substantial increases 
     in PILT payments.
       Unlike other public land payments to States and units of 
     local government that are funded principally from revenues 
     arising from public land use, the PILT program is funded 
     through direct annual appropriations. Consequently, given the 
     discretionary limits imposed by the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993, additional PILT payments would 
     come at the expense of other priority programs.

  Mr. President, in closing, may I say, we will have to cut various 
domestic programs, defense and other existing domestic programs, below 
the President's request. And we will have to cut them, not just below 
inflation but below a hard freeze in 1995. The question is, should we 
enact a bill that will more than double these payments to local 
governments over the next 5 years and then index them to rise 
automatically with inflation thereafter and at the very time when we 
are going to have to cut many existing worthwhile programs every year 
for the foreseeable future?
  Mr. President, I speak apologetically with regard to my friend Mr. 
Hatfield. I have spoken in opposition to S. 455, realizing that he has 
44 fine cosponsors on his legislation. He is entitled to tremendous 
credit for the efforts that he has put forth. He has talked with me 
about this bill a number of times and visited me in my office about it, 
and I think he is going to win a victory today. That would be my guess. 
I have not counted votes. But if he has all those 44 cosponsors vote 
for the bill, which I presume they will do, that is a pretty good 
start.
  In any event, I congratulate him on his dedication to the goal of 
passage of the bill. I do express the hope, however, that Senators who 
are not cosponsors will think carefully and remember that, as a result 
of passage of this bill into law, what is added to one part of the 
budget will have to be taken away from some other part of the budget, 
from other programs which have been very worthwhile and which continue 
to need funding. But we only have so much money and we have to make 
that do. That is what concerns me.
  I call attention once more in closing to the fact that we should be 
more careful at the authorizing level when bills are brought to the 
floor, bills that are very attractive--many of them create new 
programs. These are programs that cost money. That is the time and 
place for Senators to exercise care with respect to Federal spending.
  I daresay there is very little interest in the galleries today, very 
little interest in the press, probably, because this is not very 
spectacular, this business of passing authorizing measures while 
someone cries: ``Help me, Cassius, or I sink.''
  It is the charges concerning big spenders that make the headlines. I 
hope the National Taxpayers Union and other organizations that are 
pretty constantly criticizing the appropriators as the big spenders 
will take note that it is the authorizing legislation that opens the 
dikes, the authorizing legislation that opens the faucets to the big 
spending further down the road. Once that authorizing faucet is open, 
then the pressure flows toward the appropriations faucet, and that is 
when the dollar signs get the attention of the organizations that are 
perennially criticizing the appropriators.
  Does my friend need any additional time? I have 5 minutes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the chairman. I would just like to make a 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator for his consistent and totally 
generous conduct, and when we disagree, agree to disagree without being 
personal about it. As I say, I have great respect for the chairman, who 
represents, to me, the model  Senator of this body and again 
demonstrates that today as two people who work so closely together who 
happen to be of a different view on this particular bill.

  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record a letter from Governor Bill Clinton to Governor Roy Romer in 
support of this PILT increase. I emphasize the title ``Governor''--not 
the President, Governor; the National Association of Counties; the 
Association of Oregon Counties; Governor Ann Richards of Texas; and a 
letter from Governor Roy Romer; along with a Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on S. 455; a copy of the 1992 Hatfield-Byrd floor 
colloquy; a press release in support of S. 455 issued by the Nature 
Conservancy; and before I had asked for the National Association of 
Counties' rebuttal to the question of BLM private property versus PILT 
comparisons. Those would complete the documents that I ask be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                State of Arkansas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Little Rock, AR, July 23, 1991.
     Hon. Roy Romer,
     Governor of Colorado, State Capitol, Denver, CO.
       Dear Roy: I am in receipt of your correspondence concerning 
     Payments-In-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) to Units of Local 
     Government. With over 3.1 million entitlement acres in the 
     State of Arkansas, it is indeed an important issue here as 
     well. The shrinking availability of resources for all levels 
     of local government in this state as well as the nation is of 
     extreme concern. Achieving an appropriate and inflation 
     adjusted level of funding under the PILT program should be a 
     priority among all the states involved.
       You can be assured that the Arkansas congressional 
     delegation is being made aware of the significance of House 
     Resolution 1495 and Senate Bill 140.
       I appreciate your correspondence concerning this critical 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1993.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: The National Association of Counties 
     wishes to express its full support for your legislation which 
     would restore the full value to the Payments-in-lieu-of-taxes 
     (PILT) program. At our recent Board of Directors meeting, 
     NACo affirmed that the passage of an increased PILT 
     authorization is one of our top seven national priority 
     issues.
       As you are well aware, PILT was authorized in 1976 and is 
     subject to the yearly appropriations process. The 
     authorization, however, has not been increased since the 
     original program was introduced. The value of the program has 
     been severely eroded by simple inflation to the point where 
     in today's dollars, it is worth less than half of when 
     enacted 17 years ago.
       For 17 years Congress has recognized its responsibility to 
     provide payments to over 1700 counties in 49 states to 
     compensate them for the taxes lost through federal ownership 
     of open space lands. Full funding under the current 
     authorization has been about $104 to $105 million nationwide. 
     If inflation had been factored into the program, full funding 
     today would be $245 million as estimated by the Bureau of 
     Land Management. That would be just to keep up with the 
     original value of the PILT program.
       For counties with large amounts of tax exempt public lands, 
     the funding of PILT is critical. It is a major portion of 
     their budgets and goes to help fund the direct and indirect 
     services counties provide to public lands. PILT funds are 
     spent for emergency search and rescue, law enforcement, fire 
     and emergency medical services, solid waste disposal, road 
     maintenance, and health and human services. All of these 
     services are necessary to support the vast system of national 
     parks, national forests, fish and wildlife refuges, and 
     reclamation areas whose visitation has increased dramatically 
     in the last 17 years.
       Counties continue to rely on the property tax to fund the 
     operation of local government. Statewide tax limitation 
     measures have constrained the growth of local property taxes. 
     But even under the strictest limitations, there is room for 
     some increase for inflation. That has not been the case with 
     PILT. While the consumer price index has skyrocketed over 
     120 percent since 1976, PILT payments have remained flat. 
     Counties are faced with increasing costs for services to 
     public lands and are being squeezed by the shrinking value 
     of the existing program.
       Shifting priorities in federal land management decisions 
     have also piled an additional burden on local governments. 
     Economic uses of public lands have been curtailed by 
     Congress, further adding to the financial burden of local 
     communities. Restrictions on mining, logging, and grazing 
     have a direct impact on local economies and threaten the 
     stability of communities that must service public lands 
     areas. As natural resource payments to counties decline, the 
     importance of PILT has increased dramatically.
       The legislation you have introduced does not seek to make 
     PILT an entitlement program. Counties have, year after, year 
     gone to the appropriations committees in Congress to make 
     their case for full funding of the program. We are willing to 
     continue to do that in the future. We are, as elected 
     officials, perfectly aware of the constraints of budget 
     deficits. That is why we support your approach of phasing in 
     over a five year period an increase in the authorization for 
     PILT. As the Congress begins to shift savings from defense 
     programs to domestic programs, we think PILT should have a 
     high priority for increased funding.
       Your leadership on this issue is important to counties 
     across the nation. You have the unique perspective of 
     representing a state with vast amounts of federally owned 
     lands whose traditional uses are being altered by protection 
     plans for the northern spotted owl. You are aware of how an 
     increase in the PILT authorization could help distressed 
     natural resource dependent communities whose economies are in 
     transition. We appreciate your willingness to tackle this 
     issue which is so important to counties nationwide.
       We look forward to working with you on the passage of a new 
     PILT authorization. Thanks for your strong support and 
     leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Stroger,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                               Association of Oregon Counties,

                                      Salem, OR, February 8, 1993.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: The Association of Oregon Counties 
     most enthusiastically supports your legislative concept 
     regarding adjustment to the federal payments-in-lieu-of-taxes 
     program.
       In coordination with the National Association of Counties, 
     we have been seeking adjustment in payments under the program 
     that would simply recapture value lost to inflation since its 
     adoption in 1976.
       Given federal budget realities, a three-year phase-in is 
     certainly reasonable. In addition, the feature of an annual 
     cost-of-living index is key to the program current.
       Your concept effectively helps address the need for 
     domestic economic revitalization, particularly in our hard 
     pressed rural counties with predominant federal land 
     ownership, such as Lake (78% federal ownership), Harney 
     (76%), and Malheur (75%).
       Your concept also addresses equity in this federal-county 
     partnership. Tax immunity of these national purposes lands 
     places an unfair burden on taxpayers of the county, who 
     provide vital services--such as road maintenance, law 
     enforcement, solid waste, and search and rescue operations--
     to visitors and agency employees. Both the costs of county 
     services and number of visitors to public lands is increasing 
     significantly every year.
       Two quick examples of the need for your concept:
       Grant County is 60% federally owned. In 1976, PILT was 22% 
     of the county general fund budget. By 1991, PILT payments had 
     fallen to only 9% of the budget. After full phase-in of your 
     concept, payments to Grant County should return to 21% of its 
     budget.
       Harney County, with a population of 7,100, is 76% federally 
     owned and must maintain over 2,000 miles of county roads. 
     PILT pays $308,000, or only 6.4 cents per acre. This payment 
     is less than half of what the county would be authorized 
     under your concept.
       We deeply appreciate your leadership and stand ready to 
     help. We will stay in close consultation with your staff.
       We also look forward to our visit with you March 2nd, and 
     are pleased that you will be addressing the NACo Legislative 
     Conference.
           Best regards,
                                                 Michael J. Sykes,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                   State of Texas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Austin, TX, August 14, 1991.
     Hon. Roy Romer,
     Governor of Colorado, State Capitol, Denver, CO.
       Dear Roy: Thank you for writing about House Resolution 
     1495, to increase Payments-In-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) to Units 
     of Local Government. I also support its passage. To update 
     PILT levels at least to reflect inflation is a must.
       I am notifying members of our congressional delegation of 
     my support. If there is anything else that I can do for you, 
     please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ann W. Richards,
                                                         Governor.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Colorado


                                           Executive Chambers,

                                        Denver, CO, July 23, 1991.
     Hon. Dale Bumpers,
     Chairman, Public Lands, National Parks and Forests, Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bumpers: I am writing in reference to Senate 
     Bill 140, ``To Increase Payments-In-Lieu-of-Texas (PILT) to 
     Units of Local Government,'' by Senators Timothy Wirth and 
     Pete Domenici. This is the ``companion bill'' to House 
     Resolution 1495 by Representative Pat Williams of Montana.
       I was invited to testify on SB 140, but regret that I could 
     not, due to a scheduling conflict with the Western Governors' 
     Association. This bill is extremely important to counties in 
     this state with public lands. If the bills are enacted, most 
     of these counties will increase their PILT payments by two to 
     three times. Clearly, this will be an important gain for many 
     counties throughout this state and the West.
       The national lands in Colorado and the rest of the country 
     are our children's heritage and must be protected and served. 
     The counties in my state with public lands are becoming 
     inundated with demands for services on these lands, including 
     roads, shelter, fire protection, search and rescue, medical 
     and law enforcement, among others. SB 140 will allow the 
     nation's counties to better respond to these demands. We need 
     to begin the process of returning to the level of resources 
     envisioned in 1976 when PILT was enacted.
       Your support of this proposal is requested.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Roy Romer,
                                                         Governor.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, March 4, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 455, the Payment 
     In Lieu of Taxes Act. This estimate assumes that the bill 
     will be amended to make section 2(b)(2) effective as of 
     October 1, 1998.
       Enactment of S. 455 would not affect direct spending or 
     receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
     to the bill.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer.
                                  ____


                      Congressional Budget Office


                             COST ESTIMATE

       1. Bill number: S. 455.
       2. Bill title: Payment In Lieu of Texas Act.
       3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources on February 2, 1994.
       4. Bill purpose: S. 455 would change the formula used to 
     calculate payments in lieu of taxes (PILT payments) to locate 
     governments and would provide for annual adjustments to these 
     payments based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 
     The higher payments would be phased in over a five-year 
     period beginning in 1995. Counties containing certain types 
     of federal land within their borders currently receive PILT 
     payments as compensation for taxes that would be levied on 
     these lands if they were privately owned. The changes in the 
     formula would increase the amount of money authorized for 
     PILT payments, though total payments would still be limited 
     to the amounts provided in appropriation acts. The bill also 
     would delete a provision of current law that prevents the 
     federal government from making PILT payments on certain 
     lands.

               5. ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT              
                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               1995     1996     1997     1998     1999 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated authorization                                                 
 level.....................       25       53       78      109      137
Estimate outlays...........       25       53       78      109      137
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This table does not include an estimate of the impact of a 
     provision in S. 455 that deletes a current prohibition 
     against making PILT payments on certain types of federal 
     lands. While enactment of this provision would further 
     increase the authorization for PILT payments, CBO has no 
     information on the number of acres nationwide that would 
     be affected.
       The costs of this bill fall within budget function 800.


                           Basis of Estimate

       In preparing this estimate, CBO assumed that S. 455 would 
     be enacted during fiscal year 1994 and that appropriations 
     would be provided as estimated beginning in fiscal year 1995. 
     We also assumed that the permanent population caps specified 
     in section 2(b)(2) would be made effective beginning in 
     fiscal year 1999.
       The Bureau of Land Management provided CBO with estimates 
     of the total PILT payments that each county would receive 
     over the 1995-1999 period as a result of the formula changes 
     specified in the bill. This information indicates that the 
     payments would total about $132 million in fiscal year 1995 
     and would reach $255 million by 1999. The 1994 appropriations 
     bill for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
     provides about $105 million for PILT payments. Under current 
     law, we expect such payments to remain at about this level, 
     adjusted only for inflation, over the 1995-1999 period. The 
     estimated cost of S. 445 is the difference between payments 
     under the formula specified in the bill and the amounts 
     included in CBO's baseline projections.
       6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Budget Enforcement Act 
     of 1990 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation 
     affecting direct spending or receipts through 1998. CBO 
     estimates that enactment of S. 455 would not affect direct 
     spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 
     would not apply to the bill.
       7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: Assuming 
     appropriation of the necessary funds, county governments 
     would receive additional PILT payments beginning in fiscal 
     year 1995 as specified in the table above.
       8. Estimate comparison: None.
       9. Previous CBO estimate: None.
       10. Estimate prepared by: Theresa Gullo (226-2860).
       11. Estimate approved by: C.G. Nuckols, Assistant Director 
     for Budget Analysis.
                                  ____


      [From the Congressional Record, Friday, Oct. 2, 1992, S16299

Remarks by Hatfield (R-OR) and Byrd, Robert (D-WV) on H.R. 5503 and S. 
              140 on the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes Program.

                On the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes Program

       Mr. Hatfield. I know my good colleague from the great State 
     of West Virginia is aware of an issue that has arisen with 
     county governments over the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes [PILT] 
     program, a program funded through the Senate Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on Interior. To put it simply, the PILT Program 
     enacted in 1976, which compensates counties for the presence 
     of Federal tax exempt lands in their jurisdictions, has not 
     received an increase in the authorization level in 16 years. 
     Today, the value of the program is less than half of when it 
     was originally enacted.
       County governments provide vital search and rescue, law 
     enforcement, fire and emergency services, and road 
     maintenance and construction to national parks, national 
     forests and wildlife refuges. Though the costs of providing 
     these services has risen, the PILT payments which assist the 
     counties in providing these services have remained static. We 
     are fond of saying that the Nation's public lands belong to 
     all of us. We should also recognize the responsibility of the 
     Federal Government to financially assist the local units of 
     government expected to provide services to these areas.
       Today, PILT payments are distributed to 1,789 counties in 
     49 States. Contrary to a perception by some, PILT is not 
     simply a western program.
       Mr. Byrd. I understand that, Senator Hatfield. PILT 
     payments are critical to the local budgets of counties 
     located within or adjacent to national parks or forests in 
     the east, and throughout the country.
       Mr. Hatfield. That is an excellent point. Other States 
     whose counties receive at least $1 million through the PILT 
     Program are Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, 
     Texas, and Virginia. My own State of Oregon receives about 
     $2.9 million per year under the PILT Program.
       In order to adjust these current PILT levels for inflation, 
     however, legislation is necessary. Senate bill 140, currently 
     before the Congress, attempts to make an inflationary 
     adjustment for the PILT Program. The bill received broad 
     bipartisan support in the Senate, as indicated by the 
     cosponsorship of 64 Senators.
       Mr. Byrd. I understand the popular support for S. 140, but 
     am concerned about how an increased authorization will impact 
     many of the other critical programs contained in the 
     Department of the Interior appropriations bill. The Federal 
     budget outlook for next year is less than optimistic at this 
     time and thus the increase in the PILT Program called for 
     under S. 140 is simply unworkable in today's fiscally limited 
     climate.
       Next year the rules of the budget process will allow us to 
     review domestic versus defense programs and to assess our 
     spending priorities. I will be glad to work with the ranking 
     member at that time to consider a solution that seeks to 
     address the concerns raised by the Nation's counties while 
     also being fiscally responsible and sensitive to the 
     constraints on our Federal budget and the Interior 
     appropriations bill. We are unable at this time to fund many 
     existing authorizations, let alone providing for the 
     significant increases contemplated in S. 140, as well as 
     other legislation.
       Mr. Hatfield. I appreciate the Senator's expression of 
     support for finding an equitable solution in the next 
     Congress, and I look forward to working closely with him on 
     the PILT issue next year.
                                  ____


              [From the Nature Conservancy, Nov. 3, 1993]

     Decade-Old Federal Payment System Penalizes Rural Communities

       Washington, DC.--Today hearings were held on Senator Mark 
     Hatfield's Bill S. 455, designed to ensure that rural 
     communities are not penalized for having federal natural 
     areas in their counties. S. 455 would increase the 
     authorization for The Bureau of Land Management's Payment In 
     Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. The formula for computing these 
     payments has not been updated since 1976. Over the last 
     seventeen years inflation has greatly devalued the PILT 
     payments, creating hardship for many rural counties.
       The PILT program was established in 1976 to provide 
     payments to counties to offset the effect of tax-exempt 
     federal lands within their boundaries. PILT payments are 
     calculated by a formula involving the number of acres of 
     public land within a county, a county's population, and 
     certain revenue-sharing monies received by a county during 
     the previous year.
       ``We applaud Senator Hatfield's effort to provide a more 
     stable base of economic support for rural counties,'' said 
     Russell Hoeflich, Director of The Nature Conservancy's Oregon 
     Field Office, who submitted testimony in support of this 
     legislation to the Committee. ``As the federal government 
     acquires natural areas of national significance, it needs to 
     keep its commitment to support the continued health and 
     vitality of these local communities. Increased PILT payments 
     are an important first step in doing that,'' he added.
       Increasing PILT payments becomes increasingly important in 
     states such as Oregon, where pressure exists to cut back on 
     natural resource extraction and where additional land 
     acquisition by the Federal government for conservation and 
     recreational purposes is being considered. In order to avoid 
     having such acquisitions and cutbacks negatively effect local 
     tax revenues, PILT payments must be indexed to reflect the 
     impact of inflation.
       The Nature Conservancy is a landowner in many of the rural 
     jurisdictions where PILT payments are an important part of 
     country budgets, which support vital services such as law 
     enforcement, road maintenance, emergency medical service, and 
     fire protection. ``We have a strong interest in seeing that 
     jurisdictions don't find themselves penalized for federal 
     land ownership in the area,'' Hoeflich said.
       The passage of S. 455 would increase PILT payments ``in a 
     way that seems to us eminently fair,'' states Hoeflich's 
     testimony. It would set the payments at a level equal to 
     those established in 1976 adjusted to account for the 
     inflation since that date and accommodates future inflation 
     as well so that the problem currently faced would not be 
     repeated.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of whatever 
time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

                          ____________________