[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1910
 
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Visclosky). The gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Gordon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. At this time I yield 
the customary 30 minutes for the purpose of debate only to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. Pending that, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 565 provides for the consideration of 
S. 455, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  All points of order are waived against consideration of the bill. The 
bill is considered as read.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report 
to accompany the rule, to be considered in the order and manner 
specified in the report. Each amendment is debatable for 20 minutes.
  The amendments are considered as read, are not subject to amendment, 
and are not subject to a demand for a division of the question. All 
points of order are waived against the amendments in the report.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  The payment in lieu of Taxes Program was originally established in 
1976 to compensate local governments for property tax revenues which 
are foregone due to the tax exempt status of land owned by the Federal 
Government.
  The Bureau of Land Management administrators the program and is 
responsible for setting the payment formula which is based on acreage, 
population and any other Federal payments received due to federally 
owned land.
  For the past 15 years the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program has been 
funded at the same level. S. 455 would gradually increase the program's 
authorization over the next 5 years. After the fifth year, the program 
would be adjusted annually for inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the resolution so the 
House can debate the merits of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee [Mr. 
Gordon] for yielding and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the record following 
my statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support enactment of this bill to increase 
the Federal payment in lieu of taxes. The Federal Government owns over 
760 million acres of land in the United States--land which would 
otherwise generate property taxes for local government use. In my home 
State of Tennessee, approximately 1.16 million acres are owned by the 
Forest Service, the Park Service and the Corps of Engineers. Over 40 
percent of this land, almost 471,600 acres, is located in my district 
in east Tennessee, which I am proud to say is the home of the Great 
Smoky Mountains National Park, the Cherokee National Forest and other 
forest lands.
  Currently the Federal Government pays only 75 cents per acre owned to 
the local governments--this amount has not been raised since the 
program began in 1976, and the Federal Government should pay a fair 
price for this loss in revenue. I have been a supporter of legislation 
to increase the payment in lieu of taxes for several years, and I am 
glad to see this measure finally considered by the House.
  However, I must oppose this restrictive rule and I urge my colleagues 
to vote against it. There is no justifiable reason that we should not 
have an open rule for the consideration of this bill.
  I can accept the blanket waiver. I could accept a reprinting 
requirement or a time limitation. Only one amendment was offered during 
markup by the National Resources Committee. That amendment is made in 
order under this rule, along with one other amendment.
  Under an open rule, we might see another two or three amendments 
offered--I may or may not support any particular amendment, but I 
support each Member's right to offer amendments and I think we have 
sufficient time to deal with this bill under an open rule on the House 
floor.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and send a 
message to the Rules Committee that we deserve the opportunity to 
participate in a fair and open legislative process in the House of 
Representatives.

              OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Open rules       Restrictive rules
  Congress (years)   Total rules ---------------------------------------
                      granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).....          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).....          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).....          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).....          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).....          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)....          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)....          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).....          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).....          102      31         30       71         70 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported   
  from the Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration  
  of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive 
  points of order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged
  are also not counted.                                                 
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane    
  amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with  
  the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules  
  as a percent of total rules granted.                                  
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments     
  which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified
  closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing  
  for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the     
  Whole. The parenthetical percentages are restrictive rules as a       
  percent of total rules granted.                                       
                                                                        
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-   
  102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,'' Committee on Rules, 103d     
  Cong., through Oct. 4, 1994.                                          


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 22, 1994).  
                                           Authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 542, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4008: NOAA Auth. Act....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 543, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4926: Natl. Treatment in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Banking.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 544, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 3171: Ag. Dept.           N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Reorganization.                                                                                              
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994...  MO        H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste    22 (D-15; R-7)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 552, Sept. 27, 1994...  O         H.R. 4683: Flow Control Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 29, 1994).  
H. Res. 562, Oct. 3, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 5044: Amer. Heritage      N/A.............  N/A.......................                                   
                                           Areas.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 563, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 301: SoC Re:      N/A.............  N/A.......................                                   
                                           Entitlements.                                                                                                
H. Res. 565, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        S. 455: Payments in Lieu of    N/A.............  N/A ......................                                   
                                           Taxes.                                                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], a valuable member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, as a former mayor and county commissioner who 
has struggled with making ends meet at the local level, and as a 
cosponsor of the House version of S. 455, I am pleased that this bill 
is coming to the floor today. I do wish that the chairman of the 
Natural Resources Committee had acted sooner on this legislation, so 
that we could have this debate under a genuine open rule. However, with 
perhaps fewer than 3 days remaining in the 103d Congress, we need to 
move quickly on this important bill. S. 455 seeks to address a 
federally imposed catch-22: On the one hand a local government is 
required to meet environmental, educational, and other Federal 
standards; on the other, it loses the revenue needed to meet these 
requirements if the Federal Government owns land within its 
jurisdiction because the Federal Government does not pay property 
taxes. For example, I represent three counties in southwest Florida--
all have Federal lands within their borders. The 728,866 acres of Big 
Cypress National Preserve alone are almost entirely contained within 
Collier County--the county cannot collect property taxes on any of this 
land. While the original 1976 legislation offset these losses to a 
small degree, the funding authorization has never been adjusted--
meaning that fewer and fewer real dollars are available every year for 
this program. Today, PILT payments are worth less than half of their 
original amount. S. 455 would immediately adjust the authorized levels 
for PILT payments and provide that these levels are automatically 
adjusted in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, while I do not like this rule, I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill, because, under the circumstances, we have run out of 
time, and I do not think it is the fault of the sponsors of this 
legislation.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
passage of S. 455, the bill to increase Payments in Lieu of Taxes to 
Local Governments.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to ask rural America to provide wildlife 
habitat, natural resource protection, and recreational opportunities, 
we have to protect these rural communities and their local economies. 
Basic fairness dictates that we make sure that these rural communities 
receive fair and just compensation for their loss of tax revenue.
  The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 was put in place to 
compensate local government for the taxable revenues they forego by 
having tax-exempt Federal lands within their boundaries. Unfortunately, 
PILT has not been adjusted for inflation, leaving the program with 
spending power that is less than half of what it was in 1976.
  This bill revises the per-acre formulas and population caps used to 
calculate payments in lieu of taxes to compensate these local 
communities for the loss value due to inflation and other factors since 
1976. There is no question that the PILT program is an successful 
program, but it is time to bring the programs' budget into the 1990's.
  Those of us who keep in close contact with our local elected 
officials know that the demands on local government have increased 
enormously over the last 18 years. In my county of Colusa, where many 
State and Federal wildlife refuges are located, this situation has 
become a terrible fiscal burden. PILT funds are used for critical 
services like road repairs and maintenance, emergency services, law 
enforcement, fire protection, health, education, and social services. 
In short, PILT payments are vital to the continued health of rural 
communities across the Nation.

                              {time}  1900

  The Federal Government owns millions of acres of land in California. 
PILT payments are a critical tool for making up for the foregone 
revenues resulting from the Federal tax-exempt status of Federal lands.
  With our current State budget crisis, it is absolutely essential we 
not short the counties any more than they have been shorted by those at 
the State level.
  Time is short in this session for passage of this measure. That is 
why we are being asked to approve the Senate measure. I am proud to be 
a cosponsor of H.R. 1181 by my friend Mr. Pat Williams of Montana, the 
House version of the PILT reform legislation, but I realize the urgency 
of the situation and the need to provide some immediate relief for 
rural America. This bill passed the other body by a vote of 78 to 20 
and enjoys broad, bipartisan support in both Houses.
  So I ask my colleagues to put aside their concerns and differences 
and support the basic essence of what was in the Williams bill, support 
the Senate bill so that we can take action before we leave on Friday. 
It is absolutely essential to the small rural counties and communities 
of our country.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 455 and of the rule and 
encourage all Members of the House to support this vital piece of 
legislation. It seems to me what we are talking here is fairness and 
equity. We are talking about States that have anywhere from 50 to 75 
percent of their State surface owned by the Federal Government. These 
are payments in lieu of taxes that offset some of the losses that 
communities and counties have as a result of that kind of ownership.
  This is an update. The bill has been in effect since 1976. Great 
increases in cost have occurred to the counties. This is something to 
make that more fair and equitable.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and in strong 
support of the bill.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill from the Senate of legislation 
which I have introduced and had a good many of my colleagues cosponsor.
  I first introduced this two Congresses ago, that is to say this is 
the third Congress that the House has had the bill before it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this modified open rule so that we 
can get on with the consideration, with full consideration of the bill, 
payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT.
  Mr. Speaker, PILT was first enacted in 1976, and county commissioners 
in this country have had not 1 penny of inflationary increase in those 
Federal dollars since the bill was first passed.
  Consequently, the program's value has been cut in half during those 
years because inflation has gone on but PILT payments have not kept up 
with it, not only not kept up with it, they have not increased a penny 
because of inflation.
  The other body passed the bill, as the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] just noted, it passed the other body; that is, this bill passed 
the other body last April or this April by a vote of 78 to 20. It 
passed the Senate committee by a vote of 18 to 2.

  This bill passed our committee, the Committee on Natural Resources, I 
guess now about a week ago, by a bipartisan vote of 31 to 10.
  So this bill would provide your counties--if you come from any State 
in this Union, with the exception of Rhode Island--your counties get 
money under PILT. This bill would phase in an inflationary increase for 
your counties and your State during 5 years beginning next year end 
ending in 2001.
  Of course, like all authorizations, increased funding for PILT will 
have to be weighted in the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation 
each year. They have to make tough choices, constantly, year after 
year. But if this authorization does not increase, the Appropriations 
Committee will have no choice but to not give your counties 
inflationary increases.
  Finally, let me tell you how PILT monies are used by your counties. I 
think the Members of this House know this. They are used for road 
repair and maintenance, for emergency services, search and rescue and 
ambulance services on Federal lands; they are used for law enforcement, 
for fire protection. They are used for America's school children. They 
are used for health and human services. PILT monies are used for solid 
waste management.
  Let me, in closing, tell you what some folks have said to us about 
PILT.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Association of Counties executive director 
had this to say:

       The National Association of Counties, representing the 
     Nation's 3,000 counties, fully supports this legislation and 
     opposes any attempt to amend the measure when it reaches the 
     floor of the House.

  The director of the American Trucking Association has written this to 
us:

       We urge the Members of Congress to support S. 455 without 
     amendment.

  The director of legislation for the American Federation of State, 
Counties and Municipal Employees, Mr. Chuck Lovelace, has written this 
to us:

       On behalf of the 1,300,000 members of the American 
     Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, I 
     strongly urge you to support S. 455, payments in lieu of 
     taxes legislation, and oppose all amendments.

  The mayor of Newark, who is the president of the National League of 
Cities, Mayor James, wrote us this:

       Amendments to this legislation at this late date could doom 
     this legislation. Congress has had a version of this 
     legislation before it for more than 5 years. There has been 
     plenty of time to make changes in the bill. Please support S. 
     455.

  Finally, the former Governor of the State of Arkansas, back in 1991, 
now President Clinton, said this:

       Achieving an appropriate and inflation-adjusted level of 
     funding under the PILT program should be a priority among all 
     the States involved.

  I urge my colleagues to support this good modified open rule. And 
tomorrow when we finally vote on the bill, I urge you to oppose 
amendments and support this bill as the only way to get this needed 
inflationary increases to your counties.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1976 I think people realized that the great areas 
that are owned by the Federal Government, that someone had to 
compensate them. As the gentleman from Montana pointed out, 49 States 
receive PILT payments.
  I would like to tell you a little bit about out in my area. Seventy-
three percent of the State that I represent is owned by the Federal 
Government. As you get down into the southern Utah area, you see areas 
like little old Garfield County, which is 93 percent owned by the 
Federal Government. What a lot of folks do not realize is that Garfield 
County has Bryce Canyon in it, it has part of Canyon Land, part of 
Zion. So people come from all over America because they want to see 
this gorgeous, beautiful area.
  What do they bring in? They bring in garbage, they bring in a lot of 
people and create all kinds of problems. They go hiking up the canyon, 
and some, a 14-year-old boy, invariably falls and breaks his leg and he 
is up there so far no one can get at him.

                              {time}  1930

  And so who do they turn to to come and get him? They do not turn to 
BLM, they do not turn to the Park Service, they do not turn to the 
Forest Service. They ask Garfield County to do it. So, Garfield County 
has to come out, send their sheriff out there, spend some time, and 
before long all they are doing is taking care of this impact of the 
people that are coming there.
  The same time this body comes along, gives them wilderness areas, 
endangered species, all of these unfunded mandates that they are 
putting on them, and yet since 1976 these thousands of little counties 
have not had an increase.
  It is most reasonable thing we have come up with in a long time, is 
to give them the opportunity to at least keep up with the cost of 
living and have some index to increase the money that is brought in.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that this bill is not perfect. We all 
know it has got some problems with it, and everybody in this House 
would correct it somewhere, if they could. But that clock up there 
keeps spinning around. In a few more days someone is going to stand up 
and adjourn sine die, and it is all over. We strike the enacting clause 
on anything. If we ever had an opportunity now to help the people in 
these 49 States, and especially the West, now is the time to do it.
  It really bothers me somewhat when I see people from all over the 
areas tell the folks in Utah, Nevada, California, Idaho, Montana, 
Wyoming how to run their show, but they do not want to do anything 
about it. They put bills in and never even seen our country. Now, if 
they are going to do that, let us ask them how they got their ground. 
Somebody came in and gave it to them before they had it. I say, ``If 
you lived in Oklahoma, if you had the fastest horse, you got it,'' and 
now we are trying to just exist, and it will not come up and pay the 
amount of money to help us out when they own the ground. Now, if they 
wanted to fight their fires, they want us to rescue their people, they 
want us to take care of it, step up to the plate.
  Mr. Speaker, that is all we are asking them to do, and I think it is 
a very reasonable piece of legislation, and I would strictly urge 
everyone to vote yes on this rule and also for the bill.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule, and 
I rise in opposition to the bill, S. 455.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am responsible for part of the 
problem in terms of the timing of this bill. I, we, had held up 
consideration of it based on many of the faults and problems that were 
demonstrated during the hearings with this bill that we held in the 
last two Congresses. Earlier this year we had a hearing. I pointed out 
that the public lands, the public lands council commission that was 
designated in the 1970's, pointed out--in the 1980's pointed out what 
the problems were with the bill, that there are 11 different programs 
that raised revenue off the Federal lands for mining, and timber and 
other programs that return revenues to local and State government, and 
this bill, notwithstanding the fact that you raise such revenue, 
notwithstanding the fact that such revenue goes back, and many counties 
receive significant amounts of money from that source, makes no 
differential between those counties that raised small amounts of money 
and those that raised large amounts of money. This bill, there is no 
response to that on the part of the sponsors.
  Finally, of course, as the time is slipping away, we tried to provide 
for a temporary increase for 2 years that would put the counties and 
put the local governments that have these large public lands within 
their areas, their States, in the same position that this bill would. 
That amendment is permitted under the rule with only 20 minutes of 
debate. It is permitted under the rule, but the difference in my 
amendment is that it would be a temporary increase for 2 years to 
alleviate or to address the problem, whether we come back and take 
another look at that particular proposal. But we cannot do that, we 
cannot adopt that amendment, the advocates of this say, because it 
might go back to the Senate, and we know what happens in the Senate. In 
the Senate we got a single Senator that can veto a bill. It is a new 
power. It is one they invented and irrigated unto themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not in the rules of the House or the Senate. 
That is not in the Constitution. But that is the way they intend to 
operate. Nevertheless it seems like we are sending many things back, 
but for some reason this bill cannot go back. We cannot adopt the 
amendment that is going to be proposed that would limit the cost-of-
living increase, the inflation adjustment, in this that would go on 
forever in perpetuity. We cannot address that because it might go back 
to the Senate, and one Senator might object. Again, Mr. Speaker, with 
the newfound rules that have locked the Senate into a position where it 
cannot do anything that some Members in this House, apparently, or 
others, do not want them to do.
   Mr. Speaker, I have sought to offer additional amendments. We are 
not trying to delay the bill. We thought when the bill came out of 
committee that we would have a fair opportunity on the floor because we 
know in the committee with the Members from the West, the Members that 
are the big beneficiaries of this bill, could not, would not, listen to 
reason or accept amendments. They were operating under this goal of get 
it out at all expense and pass it without any modifications. We thought 
we would have a shot on the floor, but the third amendment we wanted to 
offer is, I thought, was a reasonable one, would not have delayed the 
bill. It simply would have said that we would not have had to pay 
payment in lieu of taxes on Federal lands that have been given to the 
State and sold to the private sector. This bill provides that we will 
continue to pay payment in lieu of taxes on lands that are private, 
lands that already are paying property tax.
  Do we need an adjustment? The President says we need an adjustment. 
Did he mean that we need a 150 percent increase? As my colleagues know, 
it is not the 1970's anymore, Mr. Speaker. Today we have got a $4.4 
trillion deficit. In the 1970's we had revenue sharing, we had other 
programs, were helping other municipalities and individuals across this 
country. It is not the 1970's anymore. This bill will increase spending 
by a half a billion dollars in just the first 4 years of the existence 
of this particular bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest this rule, because of its restrictions--I 
respect this bill because of--because of those shortfalls this bill 
should be defeated. This bill deserves to be closely analyzed and 
reviewed by the House.
  As my colleagues know, those Members that have voted in this body, we 
voted for budgets, and we are doing a good job in terms of making 
progress on the budget. But this will be added in the discretionary 
spending authorization, and let me assure the Members that this becomes 
a No. 1 priority for those 11 Western States that are the major 
beneficiaries in terms of this bill. They are going to become the No. 
1, the No. 1 priority in terms of what happens, in terms of the 
Interior appropriations bill, and the may just be an authorization in 
the minds and hearts of some of the Members that may be voting for it, 
but, believe me, these are authorizations that are going to turn into 
dollars in terms of our counterparts in the Senate and the Members in 
the House that are advocating. This will be their No. 1 priority.
  I suggest they need an inflation adjustment, but I think it ought to 
be done in the context of reform. It ought not to be done in a vacuum. 
It ought not to be done with a rule that is unfair that does not permit 
the proper debate and consideration in an orderly manner for this 
subject on the floor today and tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Visclosky). All Members are cautioned 
relative to their remarks about Members of the U.S. Senate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a very unwise bill for 
Congress to be considering at this late date, and I hope every Member 
will think very carefully about voting for a huge increase--150 
percent--in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program--as well as an 
additional cost-of-living escalator to make sure costs continue to rise 
higher and higher.
  This legislation would cost $484 million in new spending over the 
next 4 years, and over $1.3 billion in the next decade.
  Once again, late in the session, we are being called on to pass 
legislation that will allow unlimited increases in a deeply flawed 
program that no longer serves the purposes for which it was designed. 
The vote on this legislation will be a good test of whether we are 
serious about controlling Government spending, or just spouting 
campaign rhetoric. And that is why the National Taxpayers Union opposes 
S. 455 as passed by the Senate.
  The House Committee on Natural Resources reported this legislation 
last week with language identical to that contained in the Senate-
passed bill. If S. 455 were to be approved by the House in its current 
form, therefore, the measure would go directly to the President.
  I know that PILT is a highly popular program in several of the 
Western States; for all the rhetoric around here about cutting spending 
and reducing the deficit, few States or local communities oppose a big 
grant of Federal cash when it is offered to them. But that is not a 
sufficient reason to boost Federal spending by hundreds of millions of 
dollars.
  I know that PILT funding has not increased since the program was 
created in 1976. That also is not a sufficiently compelling argument to 
justify passage of a huge spending increase.
  We have cut, frozen, and eliminated dozens of programs since 1976. We 
eliminated general revenue sharing, which affected far more districts 
than PILT; we cut job programs, educational programs, military programs 
and bases, farm programs, all affecting more districts and more 
Americans than PILT. Why would we assume that PILT, unlike all others, 
is not only working fine, not only deserving of a 150-percent increase, 
but is also deserving of a permanent cost-of-living escalator that 
effectively ends hopes of reform?

  Let us recall that PILT money is distributed very disproportionately 
to the number of citizens of a State. Of the $99.3 million distributed 
just last week, for example, Florida received just $1.3 million, 
Connecticut $25,000, Illinois $323,279, Indiana $225,433, and 
Massachusetts $51,554.
  By contrast, Alaska received $4.4 million, Arizona $8.7 million, 
Colorado $6.2 million, Idaho $7.4 million, and Montana $8.2 million.
  Michigan received $1.2 million, New Jersey received $48,442, New York 
$58,121, Ohio $249,079, and Pennsylvania $185,000.
  By contrast, Nevada received $6.7 million, New Mexico $10.6 million, 
and Utah $8.9 million.
  To get an increase of a few thousand dollars in your district, do you 
want to go on record voting for over a billion dollars in new spending 
and an uncapped authorization in the waning hours of the congressional 
session? I hope not.
  Every dollar spent on a PILT increase is going to come out of one of 
the already strapped programs of the Department of the Interior: 
national parks, wilderness, forest programs, historic areas, heritage 
areas, and many more.
  The issue is not whether PILT has increased since 1976, but whether 
an increase is warranted. Because of the many questions and 
uncertainties about the soundness of this program, a massive, uncapped 
increase at this time is profoundly unwise.
  PILT, as originally proposed by the Public Land Law Review 
Commission, was supposed to replace streams of Federal funds for local 
governments derived from timber harvests, grazing, mining, and other 
activities. But instead of replacing the funds, Congress created a 
formula to add PILT to the existing payments and provided for the PILT 
payment to reflect some, but not all, of those other receipts.
  PILT is also justified as compensation for services provided by local 
governments on Federal lands. But the PILT formula includes no 
consideration of whether counties that receive PILT funds actually are 
performing any services. Nor does it calculate the value of the 
services rendered or, conversely, the value of Federal services related 
to the Federal lands--for example, law enforcement, fire protection--
that benefit local interests.
  Other questions abound: Why are some Federal lands included among the 
definition of entitlement lands eligible for PILT while others are not?
  Why are some Fish and Wildlife Service-managed acres carved from the 
public domain considered entitlement lands, but those on acquired lands 
are not?
  In the East, mineral receipts from acquired lands are not eligible 
for PILT payments, but those from the public domain are.
  And this legislation, far from answering these questions, ignores the 
problems and raises new ones. Under S. 455, which we are being asked to 
pass without change, we would continue to provide PILT funding to lands 
that are transferred from Federal ownership to State, or even private, 
ownership. The whole idea of PILT was to compensate for Federal lands; 
now we are compensating for State and private lands. Why stop there?

  If we grant unlimited funding to PILT now, in the last hours of the 
congressional session, we will never get a handle on that spending 
because westerners, and especially Senators of Western States, will on 
their indexed PILT funding as a birthright.
  I will be offering a reasonable compromise to the House: a 2-year 
increase, combined with a mandate for a GAO study, that will give 
States some needed funding, but also provide us with the accounting we 
need to determine what reforms are required. As I have said, enactment 
of S. 455, by granting permanent and uncapped increased will, for all 
intents and purposes, make it virtually impossible to enact needed 
changes in the future.
  Should that amendment fail, I would urge you to vote for Congressman 
Vento's amendment to eliminate the cost-of-living escalator in S. 455. 
I cannot believe that the Members who have voted against every other 
COLA are going to acquiesce in an unlimited COLA for PILT that will 
cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Do not fall prey to the argument that we cannot change a comma in S. 
455 because the Senate does not have time to pass an amended bill. Have 
you been watching the television? Do not tell me they do not have time 
to pass a bill that saves us the embarrassment of voting for a sky's-
the-limit spending bonanza for a few small States.
  If the Senate wants a PILT bill, they will vote to take our 
responsible, limited expansion. But no House Member should accept the 
argument that we must vote unthinkingly for the precise language sent 
us by the Senate without expressing our own concerns and preferences.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________