[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 565 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate bill, S. 
455.

                              {time}  1325

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
Senate 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, with Mr. Lancaster in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Senate bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to S. 455 because I think it 
extremely unwise for Congress to approve a massive spending increase on 
the very last day of the session.
  This bill provides for $484 million in new spending--a 150-percent 
increase within 4 years--in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] 
program--as well as an additional $1.3 billion in the next decade 
thanks to annual cost-of-living escalator that guarantees permanent 
increases as the years roll along.
  Do not let anyone pretend this is a minor bookkeeping bill. The vote 
on this legislation will be a good test of whether we are serious about 
controlling government spending, or just spouting campaign rhetoric.
  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, and 
the permanent increases will be locked in year and year after year. Any 
opportunity for real reform will be eliminated because, as we know, 
Western senators will block any efforts to modify their uncapped 
spending.
  I know that PILT is a highly popular program in Western States that 
hugely benefit from its largesse--including my own State of California. 
I know that lobbyists for counties and States have showered you with 
printouts of how much money you can bring home by voting for this bill. 
I know that your counties are as hard pressed as mine and could use a 
little Federal pork.
  Those are not sufficient reasons to boost Federal spending by 
hundreds of millions of dollars on the last day of the Congress.
  I appreciate that PILT funding has not increased since the program 
was created in 1976.
  It is not a crime to have kept a program at a fixed authorization 
level. Let us remember what we have been doing in this House over the 
past decade and a half: 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 jobs programs, reduced 
educational programs, cut military programs and closed bases, cut 
hundreds of millions from farm programs--all affecting more districts 
and more Americans than PILT.
  Why does PILT, unlike all others, deserve an absolute right a 150 
percent increase, as well as a permanent cost-of-living escalator?
  Before you think that voting for PILT is smart because you will be 
``bringing home the bacon,'' read the fine print: PILT money is 
distributed very disproportionately. Three quarters of the money goes 
to just a handful of States with a small number of Members of this 
body.
  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.
  Neither does the National Taxpayers Association which opposes this 
bill.
  This is not a free vote. There is not a lot of excess money packed 
into the Interior appropriations budget. In fact, major cuts have been 
made in that budget in recent years. 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 question 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.
  This legislation fails to answer these questions and raises new ones. 
S. 455 would continue PILT funding for 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. Where does the gravy train stop?
  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.
  My amendment would provide for the first 2 years of increase 
contained in S. 455. During those 2 years, we would commission a review 
of PILT's financing mechanism and operations, which would provide the 
substantive basis for comprehensive PILT oversight and reform during 
the 2 years of interim funding. This amendment was rejected by my 
committee which, I must note, is well populated by Members from those 
small States where PILT's greatest largesse is distributed.
  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-
in-the-limit spending bonanza for a few small States.
  There is virtually no way for additional PILT money to be distributed 
in fiscal year 1995 in any event, which is the first year of increase 
under S. 455. Granting a short term increase and initiating reasonable 
oversight afford us more than enough time to pass a reauthorization 
bill next year and seek the funding increase allowed under my 
amendment.
  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 uncritically for the precise language sent 
us by the Senate without expressing our own concerns and preferences 
about this legislation.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, there are many other questions, and I will come back 
and address other problems with this program, the most glaring of which 
is that this used to be for Federal lands, and we would provide 
payments on the theory that those Federal lands were a burden to local 
communities. But in this legislation, we find out that even if those 
lands are now transferred into State ownership or to private ownership, 
we are in fact now going to continue a Federal payment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of 
my time be given to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] for 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will be recognized 
for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen.].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HANSEN. asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at this PILT thing, payment 
in lieu of taxes, for a long time. I think we have heard some things 
that are not exactly correct about this. Let us just look at what this 
does. True, the majority of this ground is in the States that are owned 
by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the owner of this 
ground. Now we find these little communities strung out all over the 
West, and in the East, and in the South where they are owned 70, 80, 
and 90 percent by the Federal Government. They have to take care of 
their kids, they have to go to school, they have to do their 
infrastructure, and how do they pay for it? They levy taxes.
  If you happen to live in one of these counties that is privately 
owned, you can levy taxes everywhere. What do you do in Garfield 
County, UT or Kane County or Sweetwater County, WY? Where do you levy 
the taxes? Do you say to the Federal Government, ``Now we're going to 
put a levy on you for schools, we're going to put a levy on you for 
other things''? No, they do not do that.
  So in 1976, this Congress wisely passed the payment in lieu of taxes. 
In the interim period, the folks from the East love to go out to the 
West. They love to go to our national parks, they love to go to the 
wilderness areas they create, they love to go to these areas, and what 
do they do? They put their garbage down and it costs thousands and 
thousands of dollars out of these poor little counties to take care of 
it. They go up and they hike in our beautiful mountains and then they 
fall off a rock and break a leg and who do they call on? They call on 
these little counties to come and rescue them.
  They are careless with their campfires, they put a match out, they 
are not thinking and all of a sudden they burn a lot of acreage. And 
who do they call upon? They call upon these little counties to come and 
pay for it. One case after the other, and the list goes on and on. Yet 
the owner of the ground, he will not step up to the plate. He will not 
step up and say, ``Hey, I own it. I want to tell you how to take care 
of your garbage, I want to tell you about wilderness, I want to tell 
you how to do it, but I won't step up to the plate and pay for it.''
  What kind of deal is that? That is the most unfair situation I have 
ever seen.
  So 49 states are going to receive PILT payments. In 1976 they passed 
it with no cost-of-living adjustment. It comes out to about 20 cents an 
acre. All we are asking is equity, we are asking fairness. We are 
asking, ``Federal; Government, you own it, you step up to the plate and 
you pay it.'' This will bring it up to about 50 cents is all it will 
bring it to. I cannot understand why we would not want to go along with 
this at this particular time.

  Have we had a chance to look at this? Of course we had. In committee 
we have been playing around with this for 5 years. Yet we keep hearing, 
``Oh, you save it until the last.'' It is about time we brought it up,
  Many, many States receive an awful lot of money in regard to this 
particular payment in lieu of taxes. Please keep in mind, my 
colleagues, all we are asking for is some equity to help these people 
out. If you do not want to do that, why do you not step up to the plate 
and give it back? They would like to take it over just like New York 
got theirs, New Jersey got theirs, and other States got theirs. Give it 
back to them. The Governor of the State of Utah said he would be happy 
to take it over. And then you do not have to worry about payment in 
lieu of taxes, do not have to worry about AUM's, you do not have to 
worry about critical minerals. Just give it back to the States. But you 
will not do that because you want to control it. Why do you not then 
have the courage to at least pay your way? You are the owner. Pay your 
way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Ms. Norton). The gentleman from Montana is 
recognized.
  (Mr. WILLIAMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WILLIAMS. My colleagues, your States need this help, your county 
commissioners need this help, unless you are from Rhodes Island. That 
is the only State in the United States that does not receive payments 
in lieu of taxes. This law to help out your county commissioners is 
about 20 years old. From the day it was first enacted, your counties 
have not received one penny, count it, not one penny of inflationary 
increase in PILT payments. Consequently, the program's value because of 
inflation has not diminished to less than half of what it was when your 
counties first started receiving payments in lieu of taxes because of 
Federal land in your State and in your counties.

                              {time}  1340

  The bill that is before us today is the companion Senate bill to 
legislation which I have introduced in the last two or three 
Congresses. We are finally hearing it on the floor of the House on the 
last day of the session.
  Because this is the last day of the session, the only way that our 
countries can receive an increase in these PILT payments is if this 
Senate bill, a companion to mine but different than mine, passes 
without amendments. A vote for any amendment is a vote to kill PILT, 
and these increases that our States need in this session of Congress.
  This bill phases in, by the way, the increase during 5 years. The 
inflationary increase phases in in a very moderate way over 5 years 
beginning in 1995 and ending in 1999.
  The bill that is before us was not held at the desk. This bill came 
through the Committee on Natural Resources, and by the way, came 
through on a bipartisan vote of 31 to 10. It passed the Senate last 
April. We have been trying to bring it to the floor of the House since 
spring. It passed the Senate last April by a vote of 78 to 20, a very 
bipartisan vote. Why the bipartisanship? Because our county commissions 
are Republicans and Democrats and independents. This is money to help 
them for the Federal land that is in their countries, and they use this 
money for emergency services including search and rescue, and ambulance 
services that are needed by the people on the Federal land. Often they 
use it for law enforcement and fire protection, and they use it for the 
health and social services and solid waste management. And, my 
colleagues, the States and counties use it for the schools.
  This PILT payment is helping to keep property taxes lower than they 
would be in the counties and in the States without it.
  Madam Chairman, I include for the Record letters in support of this 
legislation as follows:

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I strongly urge you to support S. 455, 
     the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) legislation when it 
     comes to the floor and oppose all amendments.
       PILT was first enacted in 1976 to compensate counties for 
     the taxable revenues they forego by having tax-exempt federal 
     lands within their boundaries. This is excellent legislation 
     except for one problem. The PILT has never been adjusted for 
     inflation and consequently the program is compensating 
     counties in 1976 dollars while the counties' budget is in 
     1994 dollars. Today the program's value has diminished to 
     less than half of what it was when it was first enacted. This 
     bill corrects that.
       S. 455 has garnered bipartisan support this session in the 
     Senate and in the House. The Senate has passed Senator 
     Hatfield's PILT legislation, S. 455, by a vote of 78-20 last 
     April. And, S. 455 was reported out of the House Natural 
     Resources Committee with bipartisan support, 31-10. Now, it 
     is imperative that the House act before it adjourns.
       We all know that the demands on local governments have 
     increased enormously in the last 18 years. S. 455 would 
     restore the level of compensation which the more than 1,900 
     local units of government receive to their 1976 level in 
     current dollars over a five-year period beginning in 1995 and 
     ending in 1999. $105 million was appropriated for PILT in 
     1994. This could reach $255 million by 1999 only if the 
     legislation is fully appropriated. CBO stated that, ``Pay-as-
     you-go procedures would not apply to the bill.''
       PILT funds are used for critical services provided by local 
     governments including road repair and maintenance; emergency 
     services; law enforcement and fire protection; education; 
     health and social services; and solid waste management.
       In an era when local governments are pressed by budgetary 
     constraints to maintain service levels, I urge you to support 
     S. 455 which restores fairness to federal-local government 
     relations.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
                                          Director of Legislation.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
       Dear Member of Congress: Within the next few days you will 
     be asked to vote on S. 455, a revision of the Payments in 
     Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. The National Association of 
     Counties (NACo), representing the Nation's three thousand 
     counties, fully supports this legislation, and opposes any 
     attempt to amend the measure when it reaches the floor.
       When PILT was enacted in 1976, it was an expansion of a 
     notion of government partnership between the Federal 
     government and States and local governments that has existed 
     since 1906. Since that time, the Federal government has 
     accepted the obligation to share with local governments a 
     percentage of the revenues it derives from commodity uses of 
     public lands. PILT funds are spent by counties to support 
     services provided to users of public lands: emergency search 
     and rescue, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical 
     services, solid waste management, road maintenance, and 
     health and other human services. In each case, costs have 
     risen while PILT payments monetary value has diminished. The 
     shortfall must come from taxpayers pockets or decreased 
     services.
       S. 455, which passed the Senate 78-20 and the House 
     Committee on Natural Resources 31-10, would restore the value 
     of the program and bring authorized payment levels to the 
     1994 cost of supplying the above mentioned services.
       There will be attempts to amend this legislation on the 
     House floor. These amendments, while possibly well 
     intentioned, would be the death knell for this legislation 
     should they pass. NACo and its membership strongly opposes 
     any amendments to S. 455 and asks that you support the basic 
     needs of America's public land counties by voting against 
     amendments and for final passage of the legislation.
       On behalf of the Nation's local governments, we thank you 
     for your consideration and willingness to review our 
     concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Naake,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                 Service Employees
                                                     International


                                          Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1994.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the one million members 
     of the Service Employees International Union, I urge you to 
     vote for S. 455, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), and oppose 
     all weakening amendments. Since enactment, PILT has never 
     been adjusted for inflation. Consequently the program's value 
     has diminished to less than half of what it was when enacted. 
     This bill corrects that shortfall.
       PILT funds are directed to 49 states, and over 1400 local 
     units of government. The funds provide compensation to 
     states, counties, and local governments which have tax-exempt 
     federal lands within their borders. They are used for 
     essential local services including: 1) road maintenance; 2) 
     emergency services; 3) law enforcement and fire protections; 
     4) education; and 5) health and social services.
       Many of the public employees providing the essential 
     services supported by PILT are SEIU members. Unless S. 455 
     passes, both the services and their jobs are endangered.
       Again, I urge you to support S. 455 without weakening 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John J. Sweeney,
                                          International President.
                                  ____



                                    National League of Cities,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Pat Williams,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Williams: I am writing to urge your 
     positive action on S. 455, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). 
     The National League of Cities strongly urges you to support 
     this measure and to oppose any amendments. We believe this 
     legislation is essential to support the cost of municipal 
     services in lieu of real property taxes.
       PILT funds are spent by local governments to support 
     police, fire and emergency rescue services provided to users 
     of public lands; environmental compliance; highway 
     construction and maintenance; solid waste management; and 
     health and human services. The cost for these services has 
     risen, while PILT payment' monetary value has diminished. The 
     shortfall has come from either taxpayers' pockets or 
     decreased services.
       The current PILT program monetary value has been reduced by 
     18 years of inflation, to the point where its value today is 
     less than half of its value when it was passed in 1976. The 
     FY 1995 appropriation of $104 million is actually worth about 
     $50 million in FY 1976 dollars. While the Consumer Price 
     Index has skyrocketed 130% since 1976, PILT payments have 
     remained flat. This legislation would rectify this situation.
       Amendments to this legislation at this late date could doom 
     this legislation. Congress has had a version of this 
     legislation before it for over five years; there has been 
     plenty of time to make changes to the bill.
       Please support S. 455 and oppose any amendments. Passage 
     would help the nation's cities and towns by restoring equity 
     to the Payments in lieu of Taxes program.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Sharpe James,
                                       President, Mayor of Newark.
                                  ____

                                                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 assure 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,
                                  ____

                                                         Governor.


                               American Trucking Associations,

                                  Alexandria, VA, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Pat Williams,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Williams: We are writing in support of 
     S. 455, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) legislation 
     recently reported from the Committee on Natural Resources. We 
     support the legislation as reported and would oppose any 
     amendments on the House floor.
       PILT funds are spent by counties to support services 
     provided to users of public lands: in some counties primarily 
     for road construction and road maintenance, with other PILT 
     funds used for law enforcement, emergency search and rescue, 
     fire and emergency medical services, solid waste management, 
     and health and human services. For these services, costs have 
     risen while PILT payments' monetary value has diminished. The 
     shortfall must come from taxpayers pockets or decreased road 
     maintenance.
       The current PILT program monetary value has been reduced by 
     18 years of inflation, to the point where its value today is 
     less than half of its value when it was passed in 1976. The 
     FY1994 appropriation (and the FY1995 request) of $104 million 
     is actually worth about $50 million in FY1976 dollars. While 
     the Consumer Price Index has skyrocketed 120% since 1976, 
     PILT payments have remained flat. This legislation would 
     rectify this situation and provide additional funds for 
     needed road improvements.
       We urge Members of Congress to support S. 455, without 
     amendments and we appreciate the opportunity to support this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Ted Scott.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                          of County Engineers,

                                                  October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Pat Williams,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Williams: We are writing in support of 
     S. 455, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) legislation 
     recently reported from the Committee on Natural Resources. We 
     support the legislation as reported and would oppose any 
     amendments on the House floor.
       PILT funds are spent by counties to support services 
     provided to users of public lands: in some counties primarily 
     for road construction and road maintenance, with other PILT 
     funds used for law enforcement, emergency search and rescue, 
     fire and emergency medical services, solid waste management, 
     and health and human services. For these services, costs have 
     risen while PILT payments' monetary value has diminished. The 
     shortfall must come from taxpayers pockets or decreased road 
     maintenance.
       The current PILT program monetary value has been reduced by 
     18 years of inflation, to the point where its value today is 
     less than half of its value when it was passed in 1976. The 
     FY1994 appropriation (and the FY1995 request) of $104 million 
     is actually worth about $50 million in FY1976 dollars. While 
     the Consumer Price Index has skyrocketed 120% since 1976, 
     PILT payments have remained flat. This legislation would 
     rectify this situation and provide additional funds for 
     needed road improvements.
       We urge Members of Congress to support S. 455, without 
     amendments and we appreciate the opportunity to support this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                              A.R. Giancola, P.E.,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Pat Williams,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Williams: The American Road & 
     Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) applauds your 
     initiative in introducing H.R. 1181. As a national federation 
     representing the transportation construction industry, 
     including over 700 public transportation officials and county 
     engineers nationwide, ARTBA strongly supports H.R. 1181 and 
     S. 455 introduced by Senator Hatfield, the Payment in Lieu of 
     Taxes (PILT) legislation. ARTBA would oppose any amendment to 
     S. 455 as currently reported by the House Committee on 
     Natural Resources.
       PILT funds are spent by counties to support services 
     provided to users of public lands, and in many counties the 
     funds are used primarily for road construction and road 
     maintenance. While the cost for such services has escalated, 
     the PILT payments' monetary value, due to 18 years of 
     inflation, has diminished. Without the additional funds 
     provided by H.R. 1181/S. 455, road maintenance and other 
     county services will decline or taxpayer dollars will 
     supplement the shortfall in funding.
       The monetary value of the current PILT program is less than 
     one-half of its initial value when passed in 1976. Since 
     1976, the Consumer Price Index has increased 120% while PILT 
     payments have remained constant over the same period. In 
     other words, the FY 1994 appropriation and FY 1995 request of 
     $104 million is actually worth about $50 million in FY 1976 
     dollars. This legislation would rectify the situation and 
     provide additional funding for county road improvements 
     across the country.
       ARTBA fully supports this legislation without amendments 
     and we urge timely consideration of this vital bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   T. Peter Ruane,
                                                  President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                  National Asphalt


                                         Pavement Association,

                                      Lanham, MD, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Pat Williams,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Williams: We are writing in support of 
     S. 455, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) legislation 
     recently reported from the Committee on Natural Resources. We 
     support the legislation as reported and would oppose any 
     amendments on the House floor.
       PILT funds are spent by counties to support services 
     provided to users of public lands: in some counties primarily 
     for road construction and road maintenance, with other PILT 
     funds used for law enforcement, emergency search and rescue, 
     fire and emergency medical services, solid waste management, 
     and health and human services. For these services, costs have 
     risen while PILT payments' monetary value has diminished. The 
     shortfall must come from taxpayers pockets or decreased road 
     maintenance.
       The current PILT program monetary value has been reduced by 
     18 years of inflation, to the point where its value today is 
     less than half of its value when it was passed in 1976. The 
     FY 1994 appropriation (and the FY1995 request) of $104 
     million is actually worth about $50 million in FY1976 
     dollars. While the Consumer Price Index has skyrocketed 120% 
     since 1976, PILT payments have remained flat. This 
     legislation would rectify this situation and provide 
     additional funds for needed road improvements.
       We urge Members of Congress to support S. 455, without 
     amendments and we appreciate the opportunity to support this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Nick Yaksich,
                                 Director of Governmental Affairs.
                                  ____


              [From the National Association of Counties]

  Don't Be Misled by the Miller-Vento ``Dear Colleague'' on P.I.L.T.--
                        Payment in Lieu of Taxes

       On October 3, 1994, Representatives George Miller and Bruce 
     Vento sent a ``Dear Colleague'' to members of the House 
     opposing S. 455, which would modify the Payments in Lieu of 
     Taxes program to provide equity for the Nation's counties. In 
     that letter they make a number of misstatements about the 
     program, its impact and its future. These inaccuracies must 
     be addressed. Also, the ``reform'' approach advocated in 
     their letter was rejected by their own committee 28-14, and 
     subsequently, S. 455 was reported from that committee 31-10.
       Concern has been raised about the cost of this legislation, 
     and Mr. Miller and Mr. Vento cite this concern in their 
     letter. However, this bill is merely an authorization, fully 
     subject to appropriations. It does not add to federal 
     spending, but redistributes existing revenues to the 
     counties, and to local decisionmakers, to offset costs 
     incurred in supporting federal land ownership. This 
     authorization does not add to the deficit nor is in conflict 
     with deficit reduction efforts.
       In their letter, Miller and Vento write that PILT is a 
     ``controversial program'', yet not one Member of Congress, 
     from either body, testified against the legislation in 
     committee. The only ``controversy'' are proposed Miller-Vento 
     amendments. They suggest this legislation has proceeded 
     ``without adequate review''. A version on the legislation has 
     been before the Committee on Natural Resources for over five 
     years, and specifically, S. 455, has been before the 
     Committee since April. The Senate heard the bill last 
     November and passed it in April by a vote of 78-20.
       The ``Dear Colleague'' says this legislation will ``eat 
     away at limited funds currently [emphasis added] available 
     for national parks, wilderness areas and other national 
     treasures . . .''. S. 455 is subject to the appropriations 
     process, and it is too early to second guess allocations that 
     may be made by the next Congress' Budget committees for the 
     Interior appropriations bill. Miller-Vento write of 
     ``massive'' increases in the program. S. 455 will only 
     restore the PILT program to its original Congressional 
     intent, nothing more. Remember, these payments go to 
     counties for services already provided to the federal 
     government.
       The letter goes on to suggest, that if this should pass, 
     there would be ``no review whatsoever'' for five years. Does 
     this mean the Committee on Natural Resources is going to 
     abrogate its oversight responsibility for the next five 
     years? We think not. They raise concerns about the cost over 
     ten years, yet the Committee on Natural Resources has 
     authorized billions of dollars in programs in the 103rd 
     Congress, including many in recent days without the clarion 
     call for budget restraint. Besides, this is returning hard 
     earned tax money to the local communities for tax dollars 
     already spent to support federal ownership of the land.
       Miller and Vento write that PILT was ``intended to replace 
     local revenue `lost' because of the presence of untaxed 
     federal lands''. In reality, counties generally spend much 
     more supporting federal lands than they receive from PILT 
     funds. One of the greatest misstatements in the letter refers 
     to the ``supplement'' local governments receive from 
     ``federal services like law enforcement and fire 
     protection.'' In reality, counties provide the law 
     enforcement on public lands, not the federal government, and 
     in the case of fire protection, it is generally to protect 
     the federal resource, not local county property. Counties 
     also spend millions of dollars fighting fire attributable to 
     federal property.
       The ``Dear Colleague'' states that the PILT program does 
     not, ``fully recognize the often significant amounts of funds 
     that go to states [emphasis added] from activities such as 
     timber harvests, grazing, mining and other activities.'' This 
     is just plain WRONG. The PILT formula specifically reduces 
     the counties' PILT payments dollar for dollar for previous 
     year natural resource receipt payments attributable to those 
     counties. Miller and Vento argue a GAO study is needed, yet 
     neither member has moved, in the six years a PILT bill has 
     been pending before their committee, to request such a study, 
     and there is no bar to them asking for one in the future. 
     Indeed, supporters of S. 455 have expressed a willingness to 
     participate in such a study once this legislation has passed.
       Mr. Miller and Mr. Vento argue that passing this 
     legislation will ``end any serious opportunity for reform'' 
     yet the only reform proposed for the PILT program is S. 455. 
     The last minute effort of proposing amendments is nothing 
     more than a thinly-veiled attempt to kill this legislation.
       As you can see, Mr. Miller and Mr. Vento are not providing 
     an accurate picture of the PILT program, or the services that 
     nearly eighteen hundred counties in 49 states provide in 
     support of federal land ownership. As committee and 
     subcommittee chairs, they have not pursued these amendments 
     until the eleventh hour, even after having PILT legislation 
     before them for over five years!
       We ask you to support S. 455 as reported from the Committee 
     on Natural Resources and oppose the amendments of Mr. Miller 
     and Mr. Vento.
       If you have any questions, call Jeff Arnold, NACo Associate 
     Legislative Director at (202) 942-4286.


                                  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 estimates 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.

     1. Bill Number: S. 455.
     2. Bill Title: Payment In Lieu of Taxes 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 local 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 would delete a 
     provision of current law that prevents the federal government 
     from making PILT payments on certain land.

     5. Estimated Cost to the Federal Government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1995   1996   1997   1998   1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated authorization level........     25     53     78    109    137
Estimated outlays....................     25     53     78    109    137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 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 1996. 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.

  This legislation has the support of the National Association of 
Counties the National League of Cities, the American Federation of 
State, County and Municipal Employees [AFSCME], the Service Employees 
Union [SEIU], the American Federation of Teachers [AFT], the American 
Trucking Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Asphalt 
Association, The National Association of County Engineers, and the 
National Stone Association.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 455 and oppose all amendments.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I strongly favor the Senate bill, S. 455.
  I urge Members to vote in favor of S. 455, increasing the 
authorization for Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT]. This legislation is 
necessary for the sole reason of making an inflation adjustment in the 
Federal payments now made to counties for the nontaxable Federal lands 
in their jurisdictions.
  S. 455 is a compromise with H.R. 1181, legislation I cosponsored to 
increase the PILT authorization by 120 percent--the amount of inflation 
increase since 1976, the year of the original PILT legislation. The 
Senate bill phases in the authorization increase over 5 years, and I 
support this as a reasonable compromise.
  Current PILT payments are made on a per-acre basis for entitlement 
lands, which include national parks, national forests, Bureau of Land 
Management, and Bureau of Reclamation lands. The monetary value of PILT 
payments to localities has been reduced by 18 years of inflation, to 
the point where its value today is not even half of its value when 
first enacted in 1976. The fiscal year 1995 request of $105 million is 
actually worth about $50 million in fiscal year 1976 dollars. While the 
consumer price index has increased 120 percent since 1976, PILT 
payments have remained flat.
  S. 455 would correct the current PILT deficiencies. Local governments 
have the right to be compensated by the Federal Government for 
untaxable lands within their jurisdictions. Those who use public lands 
have a right to expect emergency search and rescue services, law 
enforcement, fire and emergency medical services, solid waste 
management, road maintenance, and health and other human services. I 
urge Members to support S. 455.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  (Mr. KOPETSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, but 
with, and in strong support of the amendments offered by the chairman 
of the Committee on Natural Resources [Mr. Miller]. There is plenty of 
time if these amendments are adopted this afternoon for the Senate to 
concur in these amendments, and I think it is vital that we structure 
the bill with the amendments.
  Yes, the PILT program helps my district, and I will not object to 
helping because I do not object to helping beleaguered counties who 
have Federal lands in their land services. On the surface, I should be 
one of the biggest supporters of the PILT program. But I cannot in good 
conscience support the legislation as it is currently written.
  My objection is not with PILT itself, but with the inflation 
adjustments and the ongoing in perpetuity program, entitlement program 
which we are creating here today. Certainly additional PILT outlays in 
the future will have a beneficial impact on my district, but these 
benefits come at too great a cost; namely, the loss or erosion of other 
needed programs that benefit my district and others, and the loss of 
control of our fiscal house. Madam Chairman, that price tag is too 
expensive.
  There has been a lot of talk around here about addressing entitlement 
programs, that entitlements are the real villain in deficit reduction 
efforts. The bill before us today, by adding an automatic inflation 
adjustment, would effectively become an entitlement program and make 
our budget fight in the 104th Congress that much tougher, and much more 
difficult in years to come.
  As recently as 1962 discretionary spending was a full 70 percent of 
the total Federal outlays. That has dwindled to less than 40 percent 
today, and is projected to drop to less than 30 percent in 1999. 
Entitlements today make up 50 percent of the budget, and combined with 
all mandatory spending make up over 60 percent of all spending. This 
total is only going to increase by this bill today. By the end of the 
decade, entitlements and mandatory spending will top 70 percent of all 
Federal outlays. When all spending is entitlement spending, we cede the 
constitutional power of the purse to existing statutes, and we lose our 
ability to effectively restrain the deficit.
  That is the decision we face today, whether to recklessly expand a 
program, even one I believe to be among the most worthy programs in the 
Federal Government, at the risk of deepening our already dire fiscal 
crisis.

  Madam Chairman, time and time again Members stand here and say we 
must balance the budget. Time and time again they say we must not 
create new entitlement programs. Time and time again they say we will 
not balance the budget unless all of us, all of the congressional 
districts share in the deficit reduction. And we must do that in a fair 
and equitable manner across the board.
  By voting in this billion dollar program today we are doing exactly 
what so many of us promised people back home we would not do. Tomorrow 
many will go home to the districts and people will ask: ``What did you 
do?'' Will my colleagues be willing to forthrightly stand before their 
constituents and tell them they created a new entitlement program that 
adds $1 billion in the Federal deficit with an automatic escalator 
clause in it? That is the question before Members today.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi 
for a question.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, would the gentleman 
quickly explain to the American public how someone can be entitled to 
money that we do not have? Will we not have to borrow this $1 billion?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. The gentleman from Mississippi raises a valid point. 
This money does not exist except and unless we go borrow it. That is 
how we are going to pay for this program, and American people ought to 
know that. Every Member ought to understand, there are no fees involved 
where we are going to get this. We are going to get it out of the 
income tax of hardworking Americans, out of the corporate earnings of 
corporations to pay for this money.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Since we are running a deficit, if we 
spend an additional $1 billion, we have to go borrow an additional $1 
billion, and then pay it back with interest?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. The gentleman is correct.
  Madam Chairman, the vote on the Miller amendments are a test, a true 
test of whether Members are sincere in reducing the Federal deficit. It 
is even a better test than the balanced budget amendment itself, 
because this bill is about real American taxpaying dollars, real 
deficit dollars.
  I urge Members to put their deficit reduction vote where their 
deficit reduction rhetoric is. Vote yes on the Miller amendment and 
send this bill over to the Senate and watch them agree to good 
legislation.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 455 which 
increases the payments in lieu of taxes to counties. I think this is a 
matter of fundamental fairness to counties in Western States where the 
Federal Government is the largest landlord, the largest owner of land.
  We have already heard about how we have already reduced the value of 
this program by more than 50 percent because we have made no change in 
this program since 1976. The result has been that in many counties 
there has been a downsizing of programs, of police forces, or school 
programs. Even while we add more mandates for those schools from the 
Federal level, they have had no relief from the same Government on 
paying its fair share of expenses for the land it holds on a tax-free 
basis.
  Let me just tell Members about one county in my State that is 98-
percent owned by the Federal Government. That means 98 percent of the 
land mass is not available in its tax base. How is that county supposed 
to function? How is it supposed to continue to carry out its 
responsibilities? This is a matter of fairness.
  I would agree, we can get rid of this. We can abolish these payments 
altogether. Just let the States own the lands, or let them revert to 
private ownership. Then let the land be developed, let it be used, let 
the resources be developed. Then we really could abolish all of these 
other Federal payments to local governments.

                              {time}  1350

  The worst thing we can do is for the Federal Government to continue 
to own the land and continue to tell the States and the counties what 
they have to do. We cannot keep imposing these mandates on them, and 
not give them the resources to do it.
  This is not the same as revenue sharing, which is a generalized 
program. This is a payment specifically because the Federal Government 
denies these counties the ability to use the resources, denies them the 
tax base. That is why it is so important that we make this change now. 
This is a matter of fairness to the counties.
  It is going to be up to the Committee on Appropriations that I serve 
on to actually appropriate the money. But, we cannot do it unless we 
have the authorization, and we have been locked into the same formula 
for almost 20 years now. It is time that we change that formula. It is 
time that we gave this fairness to rural counties where the Federal 
Government owns so much of their land mass.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, ladies and gentleman, let me give you a 
specific example. I have what I believe is the most beautiful district 
in the country, probably in the world, five national parks, three 
national recreation areas.
  But let me share with you one county, Daggett County, almost one-half 
million acres, 7 percent of it private, under 30,000 acres of private 
land to carry the tax base of operating this county, 690 residents, 
over 2 million visitors per year. If you think they are coming as a 
destination and staying there and bringing all kinds of tourist 
revenue, wrong--150 hotel rooms in the county. Their budget has to pay 
all of the costs that my colleagues have outlined for fire protection, 
garbage collection, search and rescue, law enforcement, public safety, 
on and on and on.
  Garfield County, all of the same problems, 3 percent private, 3,900 
residents, almost 6 million visitors, and not only do they have all of 
those problems, they also have 35 students living in Bullfrog, UT, in 
the national recreation area. These are children of the Park Service 
employees. Not only do the private residents of Garfield County have to 
pay the costs of their education, but the Federal Government will not 
even allow Garfield County to put an education facility on the public 
land. They have got to bus these students onto private land and pay the 
costs of educating these students.
  Ladies and gentlemen, there is something wrong with this picture, 
something dreadfully wrong.
  An increase in PILT will help correct it, but it is only the 
beginning.
  I urge you to support the payment in lieu of taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 455, a bill designed to 
increase the payments in lieu of taxes [PILT] to local governments. 
This legislation is urgently needed to narrow the increasingly wide gap 
between what local governments should be paid by the Federal Government 
due to the ownership of Federal property in that jurisdiction and what 
little they have been receiving over the last 18 years. When all is 
said and done, it comes down to a simple question of fairness--are we 
as a nation going to further penalize these residents by not properly 
compensating their local government for the vast amounts of untaxable 
Federal property within their jurisdictions.
  The increase in the PILT payments that will occur in this legislation 
is only the first increase in this payment since PILT was first passed 
by Congress, way back in 1976. It is unimaginable that it has taken the 
Federal Government this long to recognize such a glaring oversight, but 
I am pleased that Congress is finally recognizing this shortcoming with 
legislation that will provide a much more realistic and fair 
reimbursement.
  As the debate in Congress over unfunded mandates has grown to a 
fevered pitch, the residents of my district have let me know in no 
uncertain terms that a fair PILT payment from the Federal Government is 
one of their very top priorities. The lack of a fair and just PILT 
payment may be one of the most extreme unfunded mandates that my 
constituents must face. While the vast majorities of the rural counties 
in my district are owned by the Federal Government, and thus unable to 
generate tax revenue, the residents of these counties are still forced 
to pay for the police and fire protection, the solid waste removal, and 
search and rescue teams, to name only a few.
  Many of my colleagues from areas other than the West may not fully 
understand the undue hardship that Federal property ownership can play 
on our local jurisdictions in the West. A lack of a fair PILT payment 
puts the rural residents of my district at a distinct disadvantage 
because they are unable to develop or tax vast portions of their 
jurisdictions due to so much Federal ownership. In fact, I have one 
county in my district, Daggett County, that has only 7 percent private 
ownership of the land in the entire county. You can just imagine what 
kind of hardships that places on the Daggett County government who has 
to perform a very difficult task every year in just coming up with a 
budget to serve its citizens in a safe and responsible manner. With 
only 690 full-time tax paying residents in Daggett County, and a 
national recreation area in the county that generates approximately 2 
million visitors per year, these few residents are being forced to pay 
for the services of the many. In my opinion, this is blatantly unfair.
  Some Members of this body are supposedly opposing this legislation 
for budgetary reasons, and some have even asked me, an outspoken 
deficit hawk, how I could support this legislation. The answer is 
simple, when budget questions arise, I believe we need to address 
questions of priorities and fairness when these decisions are made. 
This legislation does not represent runaway spending, rather it 
represents a promise that Congress has made to the American people, and 
particularly westerners. For the supporters of Washington, DC in this 
House, this legislation also represents a question of fairness. Much 
like the direct Federal payment that is made to our Nation's Capital 
each year, PILT is intended to compensate local jurisdictions for the 
presence of untaxable and undevelopable Federal property within that 
jurisdiction.
  I find it just a little ironic and disingenuous when Members of 
Congress who are opposed to this legislation try and camouflage their 
true position by raising a red herring about budgetary concerns. 
Clearly, this legislation is fair and equitable, and in terms of 
priorities this funding should be near the top of Congress' agenda. We 
cannot continue to always make the pain-free decision by simply pushing 
the costs of our initiatives off on local jurisdictions. PILT should be 
a top priority for several important reasons. First of all, Congress 
has ignored this issue for almost the last 20 years and needs to 
address how inflation has wreaked havoc on the PILT payments. You 
cannot stretch 1976 dollars very far in 1994. Second, this funding 
should be a priority for those Americans who like to travel through the 
West viewing our beautiful landscape and visiting our national parks. 
It has to be remembered that the residents of these communities are 
being forced to provide the plethora of services for these visitors, 
but are increasingly unable to keep up with the rapidly growing pace of 
visitors who come to view Utah's natural wonders.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples of how an inadequate PILT 
payment has wreaked havoc in my district over the last decade and a 
half. The majority of small rural communities throughout the West have 
all been faced with this problem and have been screaming at Washington 
to fix the problem. I am glad that Congress is finally addressing this 
inadequacy and I urge my colleagues to accept the Senate language and 
pass this legislation today.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Utah is absolutely right. There is 
something wrong with this picture, dreadfully wrong, and that is the 
Federal Government owns too much land in this country. The way to solve 
this problem is by selling that land off.
  PILT is a wonderful acronym, as my good friend from Ohio has called 
it, not payment in lieu of taxes but pork in lieu of taxes. Maybe it is 
pork, maybe it is not, but the fact is that what we have got to do to 
change the policy with respect to Federal ownership of land is to put 
some pressure on the people that would not change it, and the best way 
to put that pressure on those people is from the grassroots, from those 
counties that will, if it is true or if it is not, be disadvantaged by 
not getting this increase from the 1976 formula, on the U.S. Congress, 
because that is what is wrong with this picture.
  Ninety percent of the land? For what? Why on Earth should the Federal 
Government be the owner of 90 percent of the lands in some parts of the 
West? It makes absolutely no sense. It is unjustifiable.
  If you think that the Federal Government is ever going to be a better 
steward of land ownership than private citizens who care about it, who 
use it, who farm on it, who use it for ranching, you have completely 
missed the point.
  You are absolutely right when you say that there is something wrong 
with the picture, but throwing more money on an automatic, regular 
basis with automatic cost increases to county commissioners all across 
the West will never, never solve that problem. The way to solve it is 
to divest, have an auction, sell it off over time slowly, but surely, 
and get out of the land business.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 455, 
a bill to reform the payments-in-lieu-of-taxes program established 
nearly 20 years ago. Payments to local governments under this Act, 
Public Law 94-565, have not increased during this period despite years 
of inflation. Consequently, the buying power of these funds, which are 
provided as compensation for real estate taxes not paid by the Federal 
Government as landowner, has greatly diminished.
  S. 455 would correct the inequity by changing the PILT formula to 
increase the authorized per-acre payment over the next 5 years and then 
annually index the payment for inflation. Madam Chairman, this is only 
fair. County governments in my State are strapped and the ability to 
raise revenues from the local tax base is quite limited in most of them 
because we are awash in Federal lands, and Uncle Sam will not waive 
sovereign immunity to pay his annual property tax bill.
  Of course, there is another way to solve this problem--start putting 
the public range and forest lands into private ownership, by one means 
or another, so that taxes will be paid. But that appears not to be the 
sense of this Congress. Oh no, public lands must be retained in Federal 
ownership at all costs say many Members from nonpublic land States. And 
so we find many counties in western States--but also in many eastern 
States with large national forest or park holdings--unable to expand 
their tax bases, left begging for Federal crumbs such as PILT.
  I can hear some critics say already ``Barbara Vucanovich, avowed 
fiscal conservative, supports an increase in an entitlement program. 
For shame!'' Well, Madam Chairman, I'm not ashamed to support S. 455. 
The formula is old, it does not reflect reality, and most of all 
Congress has only itself to blame for the problem. Shortly after PILT 
passed in 1976, the 94th Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act codifying a general retention policy for public lands. 
Now we must face the consequences of this policy and pay up. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the weakening amendments to this bill and an ``aye'' on 
final passage.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco], an original cosponsor of my PILT legislation 
and a great assist in this effort.
  (Mr. LaROCCO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaROCCO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I also thank the gentleman from Montana for his leadership, and the 
gentleman from Utah as well for helping us move to this point on the 
floor now.
  Now, let me speak directly to my colleagues whether they are here on 
the floor or watching the debate back in their offices, we have to keep 
this bill clean. Let us be very clear about this. We have to defeat any 
weakening amendments, and we have to get this bill out of here.
  We can do a lot to end gridlock today by passing this bill exactly as 
it has come over. It is not the bill my colleague from Montana 
originally sponsored. It is a compromise bill. But what it does is it 
is fair.
  The reason I am an original cosponsor of this bill is because it is 
fair.
  My colleagues, we have not raised the PILT payments in 18 years. My 
State is owned 64 percent by the Federal Government. Every one of the 
19 counties in my district has a large Federal presence, and they have 
not had a cost-of-living increase.
  Across this country we are going to be able to say to the American 
people we are fair and the Federal Government is treating them fairly.
  Let me make an important point about this legislation. It is an 
authorizing piece of legislation. Some of the people who have come to 
the well of the House to talk about the high cost had no problem voting 
for other authorizing pieces of legislation, the California Desert 
Protection Act which comes to mind, and that, too, is an authorizing 
piece of legislation. We will deal with the appropriations, but let us 
get this train on the track. Let us get it out of here in the closing 
days. Let us put an end to gridlock, and let us be fair to the counties 
in America, and let us be fair to the schoolkids. Let us be fair to the 
kids in the education systems back home that have been shouldering the 
burden because we have not done our work here and been able to get 
anything passed. Today we can remedy that for the schoolkids, the 
highway districts, the counties, and the property taxes back home, 
those individuals who have seen their private property taxes go up 
because we have not done this.
  Let us get this out of here. Let us defeat the amendments. Let us get 
this bill out of here exactly as is.
  So I urge the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  I was quite surprised when I saw this bill noticed earlier in the 
week that at the closing tail end of the session we are going to 
address a bill which has such severe fiscal implications.

                              {time}  1400

  It is very ironic that on the last day of the regular session we are 
possibly going to pass this bill which, over the short run, will cost 
$400 million; putting payments on automatic pilot, it is going to cost 
well over $1 billion.
  We are going to pass this today, we are all going to fly home to our 
districts tonight and tomorrow we are going to end up in your back 
yards telling you how we are going to cut Federal spending, how we are 
going to balance the Federal deficit, how we are going to rein in 
entitlement programs and programs that are on an automatic cost 
increase.
  What we are doing today, my friends, is ludicrous. If in fact the 
payments to these communities had not been raised since 1972, let us 
look at it and raise them. But to raise them and then put into the 
Federal statutes the fact that every year, without anyone looking at 
it, they are going on automatic pilot, if we have not learned anything 
in this Congress or the Federal Government, that is the thing we should 
not do.
  Long before I got here, the Federal pensions were on automatic pilot, 
other social program payment increases on automatic pilot.
  Whether or not we come to Washington, whether or not do anything, the 
costs continue to go up.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very important point. You know, 
part of the budget negotiations last year where we had an entitlement 
review commission, the gentleman from Utah on this side of the aisle 
who just spoke is championing entitlement review. Yet here we are, we 
have fully indexed open-ended entitlement that has nothing to do with 
whether or not Garfield County needs the money more than another 
county, whether they have more needs or not, more burdens because of 
Federal lands.
  We are not channeling the money to the areas that need it. It is 
simply like, in fact, throwing it out of an airplane, we just throw 
$99.3 million out of an airplane across these United States and nobody 
has to show how they use it, how they account for it, what are the 
benefits they are getting from Federal lands in those States from 
mining activities or budget for it, whatever, for mining activities or 
what have you.
  You know, the formula was rigged from the beginning. All we are 
asking for is the right--not denying them an increase--but the right to 
get a handle on this and get a chance to review it. Yet that is 
resisted because the Senate says it is take it or leave it. We have 
tried to do the reform bills; in the Senate they will not entertain it, 
they will not entertain reform discussions, they will not entertain 
legislation from this House. They will only entertain a fee increase.
  So the gentleman is right, that is how we end up here on the last day 
of the session.
  I thank the gentleman for his point.
  Mr. KLECZKA. The gentleman from California is exactly right. The 
payment involves so much per acre, and if that community had no fires, 
no extra police cost or anything, they get a fat check from the Federal 
Government.
  So let us look at the formula: If you have these costs, I think the 
responsibility of the Federal Government is let us offset some of those 
costs with the local taxpayers. But just to send you a blank check, one 
that will increase every year, is the wrong thing to do.
  What is really ironic about this legislation is that the people who 
are supporting it today are the very same people who signed the A-to-Z 
petition, on the A-to-Z legislation. The same people who are coming to 
the well today to support this boondoggle are the members of 
Porkbusters caucus.
  So after this rollcall today, I am going to make those comparisons 
and we will send those back to those fellows' and ladies' districts, 
show the taxpayer that, yes, they are a Porkbuster but that is for the 
program in my district, not in their district.
  So let us put our voting card where our mouth is. Let us vote for the 
Miller amendment. If it is not adopted, vote against this boondoggle.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I have another suggestion, we might put the rhetoric 
where the facts are. This is not an entitlement. This is an 
authorization. This has to go to Appropriations every year.
  The fact that the gentleman stands up here and says this is 
entitlement is not true, is not true, and I do not think the gentleman 
ought to be doing that, he or the chairman, either one. This is not an 
entitlement. It is an authorization. The COLA the gentleman talks about 
simply raises the authorization. The money is not there, and the 
gentleman knows it is not there.
  It is sort of interesting that he invokes the National Taxpayers 
Union. They argue there ought to be a review, there should have been a 
review. How long has it been since we had a review?
  We have had plenty of time to do this.
  Talk about bringing it up at the last day, that is why it is here, 
because we have not talked about it in the committee. That is why it is 
here. But it is not a entitlement, it is an authorization. You have to 
go to the Appropriations Committee to get any of the funds that come 
forward.
  It is sort of interesting that the people who are promoting it using 
the National Taxpayers Union, they have an F on the National Taxpayers 
Union. I do not know why they invoke this all of a sudden.
  Let me talk about some of the people that are for it: National League 
of Cities, American Federation of State and County Employees, National 
Association of Counties, American Federation of Teachers, Service 
Employees International, Sierra Club, National Asphalt Association, and 
others.
  This is a fairness question.
  The gentleman talks about a windfall to western States. How about 
having 50 percent of Wisconsin being in Federal ownership, where there 
is no activity, no tax? How about that? My counties, 98 percent on some 
of them, down to 80 percent. But we are expected to provide services, 
we are expected to have an economy, we are expected to have some kind 
of a trade-off. We have asked, let the clients go back to the States; 
they have not had these costs. We are not talking about parks, we are 
not talking about wilderness; we are talking about the lands that were 
left there, the BLM lands, these are the lands we re talking about.
  If there is any kind of fairness doctrine, there ought to be some 
sort of a trade-off.
  I urge support for this bill and opposition to the amendments.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, cost is not to be a concern of the Members. If this 
bill was fully appropriated next year, it would cost $130 million 
nationwide. It could cost as much as $255 million in 1999.
  Now this year, authorized out of the Committee Natural Resources has 
been $5 billion, $5 billion.
  The people who are complaining about $132 million authorized out of 
the Committee on Natural Resources this Congress, $5 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Deal].
  Mr. DEAL. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill which increases the 
authorization for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. I realize that 
this program has some problems with it. And I will be right beside 
other Members of the House asking for a review of this program. 
However, if we do not pass this bill as passed out of both the 
committee and the other body, then our local governments will not get 
the much-needed support that they need.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a perception that the PILT Program only 
benefits Western States. As a Member who represents one of the Original 
Thirteen Colonies, I want to say that this is not true. Currently, 
1,700 counties in 49 States benefit from this program. In my district 
alone, 19 out of 20 counties depend on PILT. In fact, Federal land 
covers more than 65 percent of Rabun County, GA. To my fellow 
southerners I would say this: If your district includes national parks, 
forests, wildlife refuges or BLM land, then a vote in support of this 
bill is a vote in support of your local governments.
  Once again, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill and a ``no'' vote on 
all amendments.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I see the gentleman from the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, 
the ranking member, Mr. Regula, in the room, and I would like to take 
this opportunity to engage in a dialog, ask a couple of questions.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield to me in order to 
ask some questions?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, do the counties in question get any other funding other 
than the PILT payment in lieu of taxes from the Federal Treasury?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, they do, they do.
  Mr. REGULA. Is it correct that out of revenues from timber, mining, 
recreational use, that 25 percent of those revenues go to the counties?
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is correct. As he knows, that 
is because of his involvement in those programs during his service on 
the Subcommittee on Appropriations, those are shared; not only is the 
revenue shared, but obviously then the wage base and others credited 
for those activities are generated in that area.
  Mr. REGULA. I heard some testimony earlier about the fact that the 
counties have to provide funds to rescue people and so on. But in the 
case of firefighting, is the cost of firefighting paid out of the 
Federal Treasury?
  Mr. MILLER of California. The cost of firefighting is paid out of a 
revolving fund within the jurisdiction of the gentleman's committee. As 
the gentleman knows, we have seen now more and more the cost of 
firefighting is going up higher and higher because we are trying to 
protect lands where the private people built right up alongside the 
national forests, along the BLM lands. That is causing more and more 
expensive fire suppression to take place. This is a burden that all 
Federal taxpayers pay for the benefit, again, of private and locally 
owned lands.
  Mr. REGULA. Is there any form of means testing? In other words, would 
a wealthy county on a per capita basis get the same amount as a very 
poor county?
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is exactly the problem with this 
program and this formula. It is an entitlement for an acre of land, 
whether that acre of land generates a burden or a benefit. You simply, 
by the status of that acre of land being in Federal ownership, money is 
given to these counties.
  As I said, we do not try to target the money. We have spent the last 
decade in this Congress trying to target resources to those most in 
need, whether it is industries, families on public assistance, school 
children, or people on school lunch.

                              {time}  1410

  We tried to target it to keep down the cost to the Federal 
Government, but in this one we do not do that. We simply give the money 
on the fact that this acre is in Federal ownership, and there is no 
processing, there is no prioritizing of that effort, and I appreciate 
the question from the gentleman.
  Mr. REGULA. I notice one of the amendments is a proposed review of 
the program. It went in place, I think, in 1976. Has there been any 
review or analysis by GAO since that time to determine the financial 
impact, as well as the financial need?
  Mr. MILLER of California. There has been. The gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has held hearings on this program. There has been 
a whole series of questions raised about how these moneys are 
appropriated to individual lands, why some lands are included, why 
other lands are not included, why are minerals counted one way in some 
areas and not counted in others, and again there is no relationship to 
any burden generated by these lands and the payments that are given 
either to the States or not and whether or not the States are even 
using these lands, I mean these moneys received, that are related to 
either the burdens or the losses in property taxes. In some instances 
we know that the revenue that we send to the States far exceeds what 
would be generated if those lands were private land holdings. They 
would not generate hardly any property taxes at all. It far exceed 
that, and that is why we are asking for the opportunity to have a 
review of this program and have a chance to reform it. But the Senate, 
just as the gentleman knows from his experience in the grazing 
legislation and mining, the Senate refuses to let us engage in the 
discussion of reform, and so we are left with the program that has lost 
all rhyme and reason as to its existence.
  Mr. REGULA. Two more questions:
  To the gentleman's knowledge is there any other discretionary program 
that is indexed? It seems like we have been moving away from indexing.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No. I cannot currently recall any other 
discretionary spending. As the gentleman knows, most discretionary 
programs have to go in. There is a cap on their authorization level. 
They have to come back to the authorizing committees, go through a 
periodic review every 2 years, or every 5 years, to find out if this 
program is being run wisely or not, is the taxpayer still getting the 
benefit that they sought. This indexing in this program means that they 
never again have to come around and seek that kind of renewed 
authorization because they then have a fully indexed entitlement that 
we cannot get at again.
  Mr. REGULA. If this is an authorization and therefore the money that 
would be appropriated for this program would have to be done so at the 
expense of other park or forest activities, would that be correct?
  Mr. MILLER of California. No question, and the problem we have here, 
and why this is different than a park, or a wilderness area, or 
historical site, is they very often have an advocate over here in the 
House or what have you. But here we have a program, as we have already 
seen, where we have a large bloc of Senators that think that it comes 
to them as a matter of their birthright, and so that means that in fact 
this spending will in political reality, in terms of the gentleman's 
committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, will come out of 
those other programs. There is no question about it at all because 
there is no other coalition or group that can defend those budgetary 
decisions against this increase in PILT. In fact the only thing that 
has kept that from happening is the cap on the authorization.
  Mr. REGULA. One last question, and that is has the gentleman's 
committee given any consideration to turning some of these lands that 
do not have unique recreational values back to the States either 
through a purchase or some type of arrangement? It seems like some of 
the States have an inordinate amount of Federal land.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Those discussions are going on all of the 
time. As a matter of fact, there is legislation that is trapped in the 
Senate now dealing with the trades of Federal lands for private lands 
for State lands. That is almost an ongoing process that happens all the 
time in the interaction between States, and municipalities, and private 
parties engaged in swaps and trades of lands, and clearly I am one who 
believes that. I think we ought to have a wholesale review of the 
status of Federal lands. I do not think we necessarily should be locked 
into that pattern, but I will tell the gentleman, ``The more money you 
push behind these Federal lands, more likely you are to be locked into 
those patterns.''
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Utah for a question.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, ``Isn't the same 
question that you referred to the gentleman from California regarding 
will it come out of other areas, wouldn't that also apply to the 
Presidio? Wouldn't that also apply on California desert? Wouldn't that 
also apply on the headwaters, all of those? Doesn't that also apply in 
the same way that the chairman has--''
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 
the answer is quite clearly yes. The difference is that here we have 
built up an open-ended entitlement with enough Senators that can match 
this, the political power of this program, against anything else. So it 
really takes a second class, those other programs take a second class, 
out. That is the political reality of what is going to happen in the 
Committee on Appropriations when we sit down a $1,300,000,000 program 
in their lap over the next decade.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], and I say to him, ``You were here, I think, when this went in 
in 1976.''
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HANSEN. I ask the gentleman, ``Isn't it clear this was here to 
replace property taxes? As I go back and read this thing, that is what 
I read. I didn't read anything in here about other things that they 
would bring in. Realizing that many of these counties have 2 and 3 
percent of their county that are in private property, and all the rest 
is in Federal Government, of course they can pick up a little bit here 
and there, but I would like to point out that they have such an 
infinitesimal amount coming in that they almost have to have gone, but 
isn't that a true statement, it was there to replace property taxes?''
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is correct, and I 
think we really need to look at the whole package of the land 
transfers, the land swaps, the means testing. The wealthy counties may 
need less, and the poor ones more, and I do not think we have really 
evaluated all those things, and the gentleman is correct that in 1976 
it was just what the title says, payment in lieu of taxes.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that and also would like to 
add something to what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
pointed out on the idea of land transfer. Fourteen years on the 
committee; land transfers do not happen. I do agree that maybe we 
should take an overall look at it and try to come up with some way to 
adjudicate the land either to the local or the private.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Montana [Mr. 
Williams] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was part of the original effort to create payment in 
lieu of taxes over 20 years ago: I drafted the original legislation for 
my predecessor, John Blatnik--for whom I was administrative assistant--
in 1972, and it was enacted in my first term in Congress.
  The idea of payment in lieu of taxes is a matter of fairness, a 
gesture of fairness, to local governments, to the people who live near 
areas of huge public land tracts. If we are going to maintain trust in 
the public compact under which we reserve lands for use by all the 
people and the respect for public lands, then I think we have to make a 
payment to local governments to compensate them for the costs they must 
incur in service to those who use public lands, from which no revenues 
are derived to the benefit of local government.
  Take Cook County in my northeastern Minnesota district. That is the 
area that juts out into Lake Superior. Its population: 3,600 people. 
Its land surface: some 900,000 acres, 94 percent of it in public 
ownership. Six percent of the land has to generate the tax revenue 
needed to sustain all the economic activity of 3,600 people in the 
winter, and about 15,000 people who come up there at one time or 
another during the summer. When there is an accident involving someone, 
for example, who comes up from my good friend Mr. Vento's district in 
St. Paul, it is the Cook County commissioners who have to maintain the 
ambulance to scrape the victims off the highway, and bring them into 
the Cook County hospital. The county board and the hospital do not get 
any additional funding to provide those services or any of the other 
services they are called upon to perform on behalf of the non-Cook 
County residents who are traveling to public lands within the county.

                              {time}  1420

  We have not adjusted this formula in 20 years. I think it is time to 
do so, and it is long overdue time to include a cost-of-living 
escalator in the formula. We ought to proceed with this legislation, 
which is not an entitlement, it is subject to the appropriations 
process. Most importantly, this is a matter of simple, basic fairness 
to people whose livelihoods are affected by lands that are not 
available for private development and who still have to perform public 
services for all those who come to enjoy those public lands.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the PILT reform bill, before us today, will 
simply compensate counties for the taxable revenues they forego by 
having tax-exempt Federal lands within their boundaries. The 
authorization of PILT has been at the same level since 1976. These 
payments are now worth less than half of their original value when 
adjusted to inflation.
  This PILT money goes a long way toward helping distressed communities 
cope with Federal mandates and inflationary losses. New Mexico is 
heavily reliant on PILT funds to make up the lost taxable values of 
Federal lands. They rely on PILT payment to provide the basic 
necessities such as law enforcement, fire and emergency medical 
service, as well as road maintenance.
  I believe that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make 
full restitution to these communities. But for those of you who do not 
agree, I have an answer.
  Why don't we just transfer the public lands to the States. This would 
once and for all solve the complaints about so-called wasted taxpayer 
money and fat subsidies to ranchers, miners, and the timber industries. 
It also would save the American taxpayers millions of dollars by 
decreasing the public expenditures for bureaucratic management and the 
need to provide PILT payments each year.
  At the same time, giving these lands to the States addresses our 
concerns that the Federal Government is not sympathetic to our local 
needs. These lands could go on the tax rolls so local communities could 
support their own education, transportation, law enforcement, and other 
economic development needs.
  Over 60 percent of New Mexico is owned by the Federal Government. We 
should be treated like every other State east of the 30-inch rainfall 
belt.
  Until Congress allows this transfer to occur, we should, at the very 
least, provide adequate PILT compensation and pass S. 455.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following tabular 
information:

                           SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND RECEIPTS FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ON A STATE-BY-STATE BASIS                           
                                                               [For fiscal years 1991-93]                                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year 1991                    Fiscal year 1992                    Fiscal year 1993         
                   State                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Cost            Receipts            Cost            Receipts            Cost            Receipts    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................          $122,000          $363,175          $139,000        $2,046,504          $166,000        $1,617,663
Alaska......................................        67,773,000         1,171,830        73,836,000         8,972,740        88,102,000         8,387,603
Arizona.....................................        40,640,000         1,871,741        48,130,000         2,004,133        57,429,000         2,026,364
Arkansas....................................         1,013,000         1,867,719           972,000         3,213,498         1,160,000         4,331,281
California..................................        61,529,000        66,575,118        63,392,000        58,164,234        75,640,000        54,784,855
Colorado....................................        78,728,000       113,459,230        84,804,000        95,966,587       101,189,000        84,741,025
Connecticut.................................            18,000  ................            17,000  ................            20,000  ................
Delaware....................................            10,000  ................            10,000  ................            12,000  ................
District of Columbia........................        92,799,000  ................        93,925,000  ................       112,072,000  ................
Florida.....................................         1,087,000           153,273         1,080,000           153,105         1,289,000           477,710
Georgia.....................................           789,000  ................           822,000               437           981,000               218
Hawaii......................................            38,000  ................            38,000  ................            45,000  ................
Idaho.......................................        52,951,000         6,680,792        61,184,000         7,230,068        73,005,000         7,243,439
Illinois....................................           332,000            82,194           317,000           108,816           378,000           354,653
Indiana.....................................           165,000  ................           220,000  ................           263,000                30
Iowa........................................           133,000  ................           133,000               415           159,000             1,118
Kansas......................................           352,000         3,980,851           613,000         4,316,051           731,000         6,552,657
Kentucky....................................           623,000           588,463           618,000           952,238           737,000           439,748
Louisiana...................................           168,000         8,317,630           165,000         8,392,841           197,000         7,811,596
Maine.......................................            91,000  ................            98,000  ................           117,000  ................
Maryland....................................            41,000               202            45,000            25,281            54,000            29,688
Massachusetts...............................            55,000  ................            56,000  ................            67,000  ................
Michigan....................................         1,169,000         2,138,047         1,184,000         2,843,767         1,413,000         2,388,422
Minnesota...................................           850,000            32,494           713,000           119,209           851,000            74,783
Mississippi.................................         2,223,000         3,169,638         2,484,000         2,169,844         2,964,000         3,690,904
Missouri....................................           890,000         4,420,618           895,000         2,714,318         1,068,000         2,197,423
Montana.....................................        37,545,000        51,065,757        39,386,000        48,175,162        46,996,000        54,915,490
Nebraska....................................           355,000           346,792           347,000           317,976           414,000           264,056
Nevada......................................        47,761,000        16,205,889        50,622,000        18,169,840        60,403,000        26,833,274
New Hampshire...............................           223,000  ................            93,000  ................           111,000  ................
New Jersey..................................            42,000  ................            44,000  ................            53,000  ................
New Mexico..................................        49,831,000       231,136,274        48,069,000       228,301,735        57,357,000       305,486,571
New York....................................            43,000             2,194            42,000             7,131            50,000            20,744
North Carolina..............................         1,324,000  ................         1,318,000             1,783         1,573,000             5,469
North Dakota................................         1,821,000        28,377,713         1,835,000        22,967,223         2,190,000        18,359,344
Ohio........................................           175,000           348,330           216,000           474,110           258,000           493,614
Oklahoma....................................         7,595,000         6,899,039        12,972,000         5,204,055        15,478,000        10,545,846
Oregon......................................       130,935,000       161,139,265       140,042,000        18,263,808       167,100,000        20,666,075
Pennsylvania................................           218,000            26,506           220,000            52,532           263,000            55,313
South Carolina..............................           136,000  ................           176,000  ................           210,000             2,067
South Dakota................................         1,391,000         1,136,116         1,352,000         1,095,852         1,613,000         1,162,677
Tennessee...................................           477,000  ................           483,000               253           576,000             3,246
Texas.......................................         1,408,000         3,963,221         2,019,000         3,112,393         2,409,000         4,408,300
Utah........................................        38,930,000        68,678,136        43,771,000        61,241,011        52,228,000        74,557,527
Vermont.....................................           241,000  ................           246,000  ................           294,000  ................
Virginia....................................         9,407,000            83,418        11,705,000           218,715        13,967,000           454,119
Washington..................................         4,150,000           537,923         7,239,000         1,990,683         8,638,000           592,747
West Virginia...............................           963,000           595,628           808,000           872,169           964,000           965,510
Wisconsin...................................         2,078,000               360         2,440,000            14,277         2,911,000             7,456
Wyoming.....................................        45,593,000       407,148,111        48,407,000       376,882,975        57,760,000       416,628,383
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals................................       787,231,091     1,192,563,778       849,742,092       986,748,861     1,013,925,093     1,123,579,201
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], former county commissioner.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have been a county commissioner 
representing a county more than half owned by the Federal Government. 
But that is not as material to this debate, because my counties in 
total get about 3/100ths of 1 percent of this money. So I am not here 
to argue that this is going to be a tremendous windfall for my 
counties. But I am here to argue the equity of this issue.
  We heard this is an entitlement. Here is what CBO says:

       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.

  If it was an entitlement, they would apply. This is not an 
entitlement. This has to be appropriated.
  Let us look at Harding County in eastern Oregon. I am really puzzled 
by the remarks about all these mineral receipts that flow to the 
county. Harding County gets no mineral receipts. It gets no timber 
receipts. It is a county that is owned 76 percent by the Federal 
Government. It has to maintain 2,000 miles of roads and because of the 
problems with our mining law, a huge heap leach mine is being built 
there, which is going to more than triple the population in one part of 
that county with no money coming from the Federal Government, no 
sharing of receipts from the Federal Government, nothing, zero.
  We are saying that people of Harding County should just eat that so 
the Federal Government can give away the land to a Canadian mining 
company to extract public resources.
  This is great, but we cannot give Harding County a few more pennies 
per acre under this bill. We cannot afford that. I believe we can 
afford it. Equity calls for it, and we should move this bill without 
amendment, because an amendment is simply a killer. Any amendment and 
this is dead for this Congress.
  If we want to adjust the formulas later, let us address that in the 
next Congress.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hamburg].
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of S. 455 to adjust 
Federal payments made to counties in lieu of property taxes, for 
federally owned lands.
  These payments are critical for paying the costs of providing public 
services in many rural counties across the county and in my district in 
which significant properties are federally owned.
  There is no question that the public interest is well served by 
Federal ownership of property. Our Federal forests, wilderness areas, 
and national parks all promote important public interests which are not 
achieved through private ownership.
  We must not forfeit those benefits.
  But there is no reason that the counties in which these lands are 
located should bear the burden of meeting public expenses with Federal 
payments in lieu of taxes without the adjustment for inflation 
authorized by this legislation.
  Payments in lieu of taxes are subject to appropriation each year. 
This is not an entitlement program which will lock us into increased 
deficit.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 455 without amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Foley], the Speaker of the House.
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope that Members will recognize the 
importance of this legislation to so many Members on both sides of the 
aisle and to people in every part of our country. This legislation that 
has an immediate opportunity to consider, to consider, not necessarily 
to provide, some adjustments in the payment in lieu of taxes position.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
and, of course, the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], but I believe that the reality is that any amendments, any 
amendments adopted to this bill doom it.
  There is no practical possibility for this legislation to go to 
conference at this stage, and be reported back to this House for 
further consideration. So the practical consequence, I know it is not 
the intention, but the practical consequence of adopting any amendment, 
is to kill the legislation. And since it is authorization legislation 
only and it involves the interests of so many districts in this country 
where there are large Federal holdings, I hope that Members of Congress 
in both parties will reject amendments of any kind and adopt this 
language as it comes to the House.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Speaker for his support of 
this legislation and for recognizing that acceptance of any amendments 
would ``doom,'' in his words, the legislation, because this is, after 
all, the final day of this session of Congress.
  May I inquire of the Chair how much time each of the three of us have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has no time 
remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen].

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and ask to be 
informed when that minute has expired.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation has the support of not just 
westerners. The mayor of Newark, NJ, has written in support of this 
legislation on behalf of all of the urban mayors on all of the National 
League of Cities.
  This legislation is supported by the National Association of 
Counties, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
Employees, the Service Employees' Union, the American Trucking 
Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 
the National Sheriffs Association, the National Asphalt Association, 
the National Association of County Engineers, the National Stone 
Association, the Service Employees Union, the American Federation of 
Teachers, all of whom recognize that if this legislation is amended 
this afternoon, it is, in the words of the Speaker of the House, 
doomed.
  If Members support 20 cents an acre, plus, as a payment to your 
counties for the Federal land, because that is what they now get, two 
dimes an acre, if Members would like to see that increased, please 
support this legislation without amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the Speaker of the House, 
pointing out how important it is that no one amends this. That clock is 
running. We will not have a chance to do it. This is the last good 
chance we have.
  The counties rely upon this PILT payment to provide services to help 
the Federal Government manage the Park Service, the national forests, 
the Corps of Engineers, recreation, fish and wildlife. I really 
believe, Mr. Chairman, and those of us who come from States that are 
largely owned by the Federal Government, we all realize that local 
governments are efficient providers of services on Federal land. They 
do a good job. Combined with their very small, infinitesimal tax base, 
they do a tremendous job to all the rest of us who go out and visit 
those areas.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense at all to destroy this partnership. 
The way we are stuck together, we are destroying this partnership. What 
we want to do is enhance it so those from the east can come and enjoy 
our areas, so we can all enjoy them together. Now we have a chance to 
enhance that great partnership between the local small, rural areas of 
the West. Let us not cut them off at the knees at this point. Let us 
stay with them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is recognized 
for his remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, the companion bill to this in the House 
is my bill, cosponsored by so many Members on both sides.
  I want to say first, Mr. Chairman, that this is a compromise on my 
legislation, but I am willing to accept it. However, if we compromise 
it further, it is dead, because this is the final day.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not, as has been said, an entitlement. The 
people that say that, I think, recognize it is not an entitlement. The 
money is not on automatic pilot. It has to be appropriated. The 
Committee on Appropriations will have to make the choice.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with my colleagues, the subcommittee 
and full committee chairman, that we ought to have a review of how 
money goes out from the Federal Government for these land payments, but 
I have had a bill in three Congresses. The Committee on Natural 
Resources had a chance to amend the bill in three Congresses. We have 
only had two hearings and one mark-up in all that time.
  Here we are on the final day, finally trying to take a compromise so 
we can move our counties from the two dimes, the 20 cents per acre they 
get in payments, to a little more. They have not gotten any more for 
the 20 years of the life of this program.
  Help your local property taxpayers. Help your counties. Help your 
State. Support this legislation with no amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Wiliams] 
has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and in 
defense of reason and judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to, at the outset, say that I regret that in 
committee we did not spend more time working on this. I think most 
Members are aware that our committee, the Committee on Natural 
Resources, probably holds more hearings and processes more bills than 
most of the committees in the Congress.
  We tried to resolve this issue at the hearings we had. We pointed out 
that there are 11 different programs that fund local governments, 11 
programs that deliver money, revenue from the Federal Government, to 
the State and local governments that come from that public land that 
surrounds these communities within such States.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, there has been a suggestion here that there 
has been no increase for inflation since 1976 with regard to PILT in 18 
years, but the sharing of revenue since 1976 from the Federal lands has 
gone from $103 to $230 million estimated in this year, 1994, so there 
has been over a doubling of the revenue being produced from the land.
  My colleagues talk about the fact that they have to provide various 
services. My colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, my friend Mr. 
Oberstar, referred to my constituents visiting the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area and other areas in northern Minnesota and the services they 
receive. This is nothing different than the same type services which 
translate into municipal overburden that other urban areas face, the 
same sort of thing, providing services in turn for many others.
  Mr. Chairman, back in the 1970's when this program was conceived and 
put forward, there were programs like revenue sharing. There were 
programs that helped local government. I think my colleagues know about 
the demise of those programs, the withdrawal of those programs, because 
we did not have the revenue to fund them.
  Now, of course, the suggestion is, do not amend this bill, do not 
modify it. I would suggest to my colleagues that almost every measure 
that comes from the Senate is not perfect. In fact, the fact is, that 
very often we do modify those programs and try to send them back and 
come to an agreement.
  They say in this case we cannot do that, we have to suspend good 
judgment, we have to suspend reason, we have to give in to the Senate. 
The Senate is portrayed here as being unwilling. The guardians of 
gridlock want what they want and they are not going to accept any 
change.
  The fact is that the amendments that will be offered will offer the 
opportunity to give exactly the same number of dollars for 2 years, but 
will not put this authorization in the law permanently, will not lock 
in an automatic cost of living increase which will not be possible to 
change. There is no incentive to make any changes beyond that.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that we will have no 
leverage. Mr. Chairman, we have sought a lot of reform. There are a lot 
of bills that need reform. This Congress has attempted, through the 
Committee on Natural Resources, to reform them.
  How about the 1872 mining law? It has been 122 years since that's 
been changed. We made a valiant effort this term that would need to be 
in place without the type of substantive reform that is necessary. The 
special interests said no. The grazing reform law under PRIA has been 
in place for 16 years, and of course by Executive order. We tried to 
reform that in this Congress and the Senate said no.
  The Senate said no to mining reform. We tried to reform the BLM 
reauthorization process. It has been 14 years since that has been 
reformed, and the Senate said no. We tried to reform the Engle Act, and 
the withdrawal with regard to military lands, since 1958, that has been 
36 years, and the Senate said no.
  We tried to reform the Communications Act to try to raise more money. 
To raise money for all of these programs, incidentally, would have 
helped to reform and improve the type of revenues that can be raised 
from those that are using the public lands, and returned to the 
counties and States. They would have been beneficiaries from all of 
these programs and the changes that we are talking about in terms of 
sharing dollars, yet the Senate has said no. Here we are in the last 
week of the session and the Senate is saying ``We want this, we want 
you to pass it, but we are not going to accept any changes to it.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit to my colleagues that that is unfair, 
that is unreasonable. We need to have an opportunity to, yes, address 
this in a fair manner, to provide for some substantial adjustment, and 
relief, but to come back to be certain, to deal with a sound policy. 
Counties that do not receive the types of revenues that we have 
discussed today, the oil revenues, mineral revenues, the other types of 
mining and timber revenues and so forth, should have an opportunity to 
achieve this reform.
  There are some poor counties that receive little revenue. The fact is 
that some counties are so poor that the money they get from PILT even 
today, even today the money they get is greater than the property taxes 
that they can collect from adjacent lands.
  There are many flaws in this particular bill, Mr. Chairman. This bill 
goes forward to, for instance, provide for and maintain such flaws. 
There is no possibility to amend or change those today. Say the 
proponents, send this to the President. This bill goes forward without 
a comma change.
  When we transfer Federal, public lands to the State, and perhaps even 
to private hands, eventually, it would continue to pay payment in lieu 
of taxes to those that would be paying private taxes on those same 
lands. In other words, it personifies and creates new loopholes. There 
is not a single correction in this bill of any of the defects that 
exist today. In fact new inconsistencies are established.

                              {time}  1440

  Were these problems pointed out? Were they debated? Were they 
discussed in the hearings?
  Yes. The administration, in fact, came out opposed to the increase in 
PILT. Past administrations have sought to completely zero fund it in 
the 1980's. And the House resisted that. I shared it continuing the 
funding for PILT. I am not an absolute opposed opponent of PILT, but I 
do want fairness and equity. I want us to represent the taxpayers. That 
is why we need to defeat this bill or amend it today.
  Mr. Chairman, unless it is amended, I will continue to oppose S. 455, 
a bill to increase the authorization for appropriations for the so-
called Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, or PILT.
  Under the PILT program counties and other local units of government 
receive payments with respect to certain types of Federal lands located 
within the jurisdiction of the local governments. These include 
national parks, national forests, public lands managed by the BLM, 
Bureau of Reclamation lands, and some others. Other Federal lands, such 
as military bases and some National Wildlife Refuge lands, don't count 
for PILT purposes.
  Under current law, full funding for these payments means 
appropriations of about $100 million annually. But, this Senate bill 
would phase in an authorization increase to more than $250 million 
annually. A quarter billion dollars a year permanently. After that, it 
would index the payments to the Consumer Price Index, so that before 
too long they might well be closing in on a half-billion dollars every 
year.
  History shows that full appropriations are always provided for PILT, 
so this is more than just an empty authorization.
  The second year of the increases in this bill would take PILT to over 
$150 million annually.
  By comparison, in just that first year of authorization $150 million 
is more than 80 percent of the National Park Service construction 
budget and 14 percent of its operating budget.
  It is over 75 percent of the forest research budget, over 90 percent 
of the Forest Service's State and private forestry program, and almost 
75 percent of the Forest Service construction budget.
  So, under the bill, PILT would equal 90 percent of the budget of the 
National Biological Survey, 100 percent of the budget of the Bureau of 
Mines, 136 percent of the budget of the Office of Surface Mining, and 
over 80 percent of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. It would be 
more than 64 percent of the entire land acquisition budget of the four 
Federal land managing agencies combined.
  Remember, all of these other programs are funded from the same 
appropriation bill--so they will be in direct competition with PILT for 
the scarce money available under the budget caps.
  In short, this is a big-money, big-spending bill. It is not one that 
the House should be rushing to rubber-stamp a defective Senate work 
product in the final days of the session.
  Like Chairman Miller, I oppose the bill as it now stands, and I think 
it is very important that other Members who oppose such a massive, 
permanent, and open-ended increase have the chance to offer amendments 
to the bill. There will be little opportunity for any change in policy 
once signed into law and the defective policy would change the way the 
money is allocated. Even the $100 million being expended today would be 
spent in the future on a perverted basis. State and even private lands 
would count toward PILT payments.
  It is true that because the PILT authorization level has not been 
increased since 1976, inflation has had the effect of considerably 
diminishing the purchasing power of the payments the local governments 
receive under this program.
  At the same time, however, we have to keep in mind the realities of 
the Federal deficit and the importance of holding down spending.
  Also, since the PILT program has not been thoroughly reviewed since 
1976, I strongly believe that we need to step back and view the PILT 
program in a broader perspective.
  I am not unalterably opposed to PILT. I recognize its virtues, 
especially its relative stability and predictability. In fact, when 
previous administrations tried to zero fund the program, I stood with 
my colleagues to fund the program.
  Because the PILT payments are related to entitlement land acreages, 
which don't fluctuate very much, they have a higher degree of stability 
than other payment programs based on how Federal lands are used, such 
as stumpage fees, mineral receipts, grazing receipts, and the like.
  Often, the linkage in other programs between land uses and payments 
has the effect of thrusting local governments into the midst of debates 
about how the Federal lands are to be managed.
  In my view, it would be better, if possible, to combine changes in 
PILT and other laws that would bring greater financial stability to 
local governments and at the same time keep them from being hostages in 
fights over management decisions such as timber sales, mineral leases, 
and the like.
  Furthermore, while updating the PILT formulas to reflect the effects 
of inflation is important, other changes in the PILT Act may well be in 
order as well.
  For example, under the current law, there are few if any restrictions 
on how PILT payments can be used. The law merely says that they must be 
used for governmental purposes.
  What a governmental purpose might be is pretty much left up to the 
local governments that gets the money. I expect that some of them have 
used PILT funds to lobby Congress in favor of increasing PILT payments. 
Yes money is fungible--but whereever the money is from, its paying big 
dividends.
  In fact, there is one county in New Mexico that, in the last few 
weeks, adopted an ordinance claiming that all the Federal lands in the 
county really belong not to the people of the United States, but to the 
State or maybe to the county in that State. According to the press 
accounts, the purpose of that ordinance is to lay the foundation for a 
lawsuit aimed at moving those lands into State or county ownership.
  I expect that the county will claim that bringing that lawsuit--and 
forcing the taxpayers of the whole Nation to bear the costs of 
responding to it--is a governmental purpose, for which they can use 
their PILT payments.
  I can see why they would want to, since on September 27--just last 
month, Mr. Chairman--the taxpayers of the Nation sent that same 
county--a single New Mexico county--a nice PILT check: A check for 
$927,731, as a matter of fact--nearly $1 million. That certainly will 
help them with their legal costs! Yes money is fungible.
  Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, that payment of nearly a million dollars 
to a New Mexico county was more than received by several entire States, 
including my own State of Minnesota.
  It seems to me that this question of just how PILT payments can be 
used is something that deserves careful scrutiny. There is no 
requirement in law other than any government purpose. The advocate may 
paint a warm fuzzy portrait as to the uses but the law in no shape, 
form, or manner limits the use of the money.
  Because of our concerns about the cost of the bill and the need for 
more scrutiny of the PILT program, in the committee, Chairman Miller 
and I supported a substitute to combine a temporary increase in the 
authorization level for the PILT program with a requirement for a study 
of PILT and related programs. It needs review, it needs attention. PILT 
shouldn't be placed on auto pilot. The temporary increases would be the 
same as the first two increases provided for in the Senate bill and 
provide us with the responsibility to react and rewrite sound PILT 
policy.

  While the committee didn't adopt that substitute, I still believe it 
represents a reasonable compromise, and I strongly urge the House to 
adopt it when it is offered later today.
  I am confident that the House will see the virtue and wisdom of the 
compromise contained in the substitute, and vote to adopt it. There 
also may be an amendment to delete the indexing of future PILT 
payments.
  There are also other amendments that while not provided for by the 
rule would nonetheless make necessary improvements in the bill. The 
Senate bill would also, for the first time, authorize PILT payments for 
formerly Federal lands exchanged to a State. The effect of that would 
be that the Federal Government would pay PILT not only for the lands 
the United States gets from a State, but also would pay PILT for the 
lands that the State gets--and those PILT payments would continue even 
if the State later transfers the land and the land goes onto the tax 
rolls.
  Furthermore, since the provision I've just described is not clearly 
limited to future exchanges, we can expect the States to argue that it 
applies to all the lands that have been exchanged to a State since PILT 
was enacted in 1976.
  Obviously, this part of the bill has serious shortcomings, in terms 
of simple fairness and equity for the Nation's taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, some will argue that the House should not consider 
amending this S. 455 because the little time remaining in this session 
means the Senate will not be able to consider any House amendments this 
year.
  Of course, now that the Senate has decided to return after the 
elections, that argument should no longer have any weight.
  But, anyway, we should be careful and we have the time to be careful. 
PILT payments for fiscal 1994 have already been made. The money for the 
fiscal 1995 payments has been appropriated. My substitute would provide 
for increases in fiscal 1996 and fiscal 1997, and there will be plenty 
of time next year to consider PILT levels for the years after 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to listen carefully to this debate, 
and to join me in seeking to improve this badly flawed bill--or, if it 
is not improved, in voting to kill it so the House can reconsider this 
matter in a more thorough, deliberative way next year.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple issue of fairness--
fairness to rural counties with large amounts of Federal land. A 
collection of laws provide counties revenues from their Federal lands, 
but since these laws are mostly based on extractive uses of those 
lands, contributions to counties can fluctuate widely from one year to 
the next. Payments in lieu of taxes serve to balance these fluctuations 
and make consistent the revenues counties derive from these Federal 
lands. As well, it makes counties less dependent from one year to the 
next on revenues from the extractive use of those lands.
  This legislation is supported by a broad array of groups and, at this 
late date, nothing short of the precise text included in S. 455 will 
give us a law this Congress. I and many of my colleagues have for years 
examined the issue of how to provide mechanisms that will allow our 
rural counties to gain their fair share from the Federal lands within 
their boundaries. Admittedly, this payment should not be the foundation 
upon which most counties balance their budgets--there need to be other 
mechanisms that provide revenue to benefit county services. But, it 
must be recognized, these counties are not able to derive direct tax 
benefits from these lands because they cannot be taxed as private lands 
would be.
  My district contains significant acreage managed by the Bureau of 
Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. 
There has been no change in the formula that provides these counties 
with revenues for 20 years. The legislations supported by Mr. Williams 
and Mr. Hansen would simply update the formula to reflect changes in 
inflation over that period of time. The Federal Government cannot deny 
its part in the prosperity of these counties. Grants and loans counties 
receive from the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, or the Department of Health and Human Services 
benefit these counties tremendously. It is this cooperative 
relationship that enables us to educate our children, provide 
affordable housing for our citizens, and provide valuable health 
services to our elderly. We have an obligation.
  I am not alone in my view of this legislation--the Sierra Club and 
the Nature Conservancy share the view of many of our rural counties and 
many in this body. The Sierra Club in its testimony before the Senate 
cited its importance to rural counties. ``We do not at the Sierra Club 
think that local governments should be punished for the presence of 
Federal lands * * * and that is in fact what is happening today.'' And 
it continues, ``S. 455 begins to address a chronic shortfall of 
funding, particularly for areas where Federal holdings make up a large 
part of the land base.''
  In closing, this is a fairness issue. Bringing current value to 
Federal lands is not an entitlement, it is just compensation. These 
funds are all subject to appropriation and do not obligate Federal 
spending. This is why this bill does not violate our Budget Acts. The 
substitute offered by the gentlemen from California is not a 
significant change from the bill we have before us. However, it would 
mean that changes to the Federal payment in lieu of taxes formula would 
once again not happen. This response from the chairman amounts to too 
little, too late and should be rejected.
  I urge passage of S. 455 without change.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, as a proponent of increasing the PILT 
authorization, I rise in support of the substitute amendment offered by 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, 
George Miller.
  Let there be no mistake about. I support increasing the amount 
authorized for PILT. Just last week, the Interior Department released 
$433,096 in PILT payments to 11 southern West Virginia counties that 
have Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers lands located within their jurisdictions.
  However, this amount of compensation may or may not be equivalent to 
the tax rate for private property in those counties because it is 
difficult to make comparisons. In West Virginia, each county uses a 
different figure per $100 of appraised value of timberlands in devising 
its property tax rate. In addition, the appraised value depends on the 
class as well as the grade of the timber. These factors are not part of 
how PILT payments are calculated.
  This is one reason why I support the Miller substitute. It provides 
for the same increase in the PILT authorization for the next 2 years as 
does the pending legislation. In the meantime, the General Accounting 
Office would review the program to provide the Congress with the type 
of information we do not currently possess to make an informed 
determination as to what other changes are necessary in the program.
  In other words, I believe we should examine whether PILT payments 
should reflect the different values of timber on Federal lands, where 
timber exists on those lands, in the same manner as are private 
property tax rates in West Virginia. If they did, perhaps the counties 
in my area, as well as others, would see an increase in PILT payments.
  Today, this is not the case. Under the existing program, over 75 
percent of the total PILT payments go to 10 Western States. And, under 
the existing program, the same value is placed on an acre of desert 
land located in the West as is on rich hardwood timberlands located in 
West Virginia. This does not seem fair.
  Another reason why I support the study approach in the Miller 
substitute again relates to what I see as the overall need to review 
all types Federal landownership-based payments to the States and 
counties. Let me be specific.
  For Federal onshore oil and gas leases on public domain lands, after 
the deduction of certain administrative expenses, 50 percent of all 
receipts collected from rents and royalties are returned on a monthly 
basis to those States where the leases are located. As such, the 
Federal Government returns to these States almost 50 cents on every 
dollar paid in rents and royalties collected from oil and gas 
operations located on Federal lands.
  However, for the same type of leases on acquired Federal lands, such 
as those purchased pursuant to the Weeks Act of 1911 and the Bankhead-
Jones Act of 1937, the State or local share of receipts is only 25 
percent. These are the types of Federal lands we have in the East. In 
effect, the local share of a Federal oil and gas lease in the East is 
only 25 cents on every dollar paid in rents and royalties.
  These Eastern Federal lands are known as federally acquired lands, 
rather than what are known as public domain lands which are located in 
the Western States. This nomenclature overall has no meaning except 
with respect to mineral activities. And, in this regard, this 
antiquated quirk in Federal law favors the West over the East. In my 
view, this discrepancy should be reviewed and remedied, and that is 
something that the GAO would look at as part of its study under the 
Miller substitute.
  The final reason that I support the Miller substitute again has to do 
with equity and fairness. Today, the American taxpayer subsidizes a 
number of activities that take place on Federal lands for which the 
taxpayer receives nothing in return. The taxpayer, the owner of our 
public lands, gets nothing in return from the extraction of gold and 
silver on these lands under the mining law of 1872. The law does not 
allow for royalty payments to be made. And certain Western interests 
continue to stymie the enactment of reasonable mining law reform 
legislation.
  My colleagues, the question begs an answer. Can we continue to award 
75 percent of all PILT payments to just 10 Western States when they 
are, for the most part the very same Western States that want to 
continue to deprive the public from receiving 1 red cent in return for 
the production of billions of dollars worth of federally owned gold and 
silver?
  Let us vote for fairness, for equity. I urge a vote for Miller and 
Vento.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, PILT payments, or payments in lieu of 
taxes are of significant importance in my State of New Mexico.
  Because of a strong Federal land ownership presence in New Mexico, we 
have the distinction of being the No. 1 recipient of PILT payments in 
the Nation.
  PILT payments to New Mexico counties total approximately $10 million 
per year.
  While these payments provide a critical source of revenue for the 
local communities into which they are sent, the authorization levels 
for PILT payments have not changed since the program was begun in 1976.
  Inflation, economic growth, and consumer prices have changed in the 
last 18 years. The level of services constituents expect from their 
county governments has certainly increased.
  However, the same, small, insufficient payment structure has remained 
unchanged.
  In the past several months, I have received letters from county 
officials in nearly every county in New Mexico. Every single letter 
highlights the same point: We must pass PILT legislation this year to 
provide relief to counties staggering under the weight of a high demand 
for services with an insufficient tax base and Federal PILT payments to 
meet their needs.
  As Mr. Williams and others have so ably explained, the only option 
for doing that this year is to pass S. 455 without amendments so that 
we can send it back to the Senate and then to the President before time 
runs out for this session of Congress.
  But PILT is about more than economics: It is about basic fairness.
  Many counties in New Mexico and other States across the country 
contain only small percentages of private land from which local tax 
revenue can be collected.
  For counties with 60, 70, even 80 or 90 percent public land, PILT 
payments represent one of the only means of securing the necessary 
funding for the provision of the local services their constituents 
expect.
  Without this funding, many counties would simply not be able to 
provide even the most basic services.
  S. 455 is supported by the National Association of Counties, the 
Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club, among others.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this basic fairness 
legislation by passing S. 455 today and ensuring that it becomes law 
this year.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of both of S. 
455, a bill that is going to bring some equity back to local units of 
government.
  Like many of my colleagues from the West, my district is 75 percent 
Federal land, all of which is immune from taxes, depriving county 
governments of a viable tax base. This places an unfair burden on 
counties that provide vital services on Federal lands such as road 
maintenance, law enforcement, solid waste and search and rescue 
operations.
  Let me give few reasons in my district why we need to increase the 
PILT authorization. Grant County in my district is 60 percent federally 
owned. In 1976, PILT was 22 percent of the county budget. Today, PILT 
payments have fallen to a paltry 9 percent of the county budget.
  Or how about Klamath County, which is 50 percent Federal land. Since 
1976, the cost of police protection in the county has risen 454 
percent. Or Lake County, with 76 percent Federal land--they have 
trimmed 20 teachers from their schools in the last several years. 
Students cannot even get a foreign language or even a calculus course. 
Lake County would like to use PILT funds to supplement their 
educational system so their students will be able to compete.
  Another example is Harney County, which happens to be where I am 
from. Harney County is 76 percent owned by the Federal Government and 
has over 2,000 miles of county roads to maintain. PILT pays the county 
a meager 6.4 cents per acre.
  It's been 16 years since our counties have had a cost-of-living 
increase. It's time we give them a raise. This House has voted itself 
several pay raises in the 16 years our counties have waited for a 
simple COLA.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 455 and oppose any weakening 
amendments.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of S. 
455, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, otherwise known as PILT, and in 
opposition to amendments aimed at gutting this essential legislation.
  I represent several mountain counties in the Sierra-Nevada mountain 
range in northern California. Federal land ownership in these counties 
is pervasive. For example, 97 percent of the county of Alpine is owned 
by the Federal Government.
  I would submit, as their representative, that the residents of these 
counties would gladly welcome these lands back into private ownership 
and say goodbye to the intrusive bureaucrats who run our land 
management agencies.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those who are working against this 
legislation, disguised as budget hawks, are the same members who 
continue to vote to authorize more land grabs by the Federal Government 
and who are ranked among the biggest spenders in Congress. Furthermore, 
Congress not only continues to purchase more land, but at the same time 
tighten restrictions on the use of both private and Federal lands.
  The American people have had enough of unaccountable bureaucrats 
running over their constitutional rights. A majority of Congress, 
responding to these concerns, has been seeking to gain more authority 
over land management bureaucrats and validate the rights of private 
property owners. This bill represents another important milestone in 
bringing sense and fairness to our public land policy.
  S. 455, simply says that if Congress thinks it is in the public 
interest to own vast amounts of land, it has to pay for it. Why should 
the residents of counties like Tuolumne or Calaveras shoulder the cost 
of road maintenance, emergency services, law enforcement, and waste 
disposal for the millions of visitors to the Federal lands in the 
Sierras each year?
  It is only fair that the Federal Government reimburse the loss of 
revenue a county sustains when land is taken from private hands, and 
taxes are no longer collected.
  In the long run, Mr. Chairman, I hope that passage of PILT will 
result in Members of the House taking a closer look at land 
acquisitions in the future and carefully assessing their consequences. 
Currently, these acquisitions merely amount to unfunded mandates.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to reject all 
gutting amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of S. 455 is as follows:

                                 S. 455

       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 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.

       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, 1994.
       (2) Limitation.--The amendment made by section 2(b)(2) 
     shall become effective on October 1, 1998.
       (b) Transition Provisions.--
       (1) Fiscal year 1995.--During fiscal year 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 1996.--During fiscal year 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 1997.--During fiscal year 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 1998.--During fiscal year 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 CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those amendments 
printed in House Report 103-830. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not 
be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 103-830.


   amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. miller of 
                               california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Miller of California:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Supplemental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1994''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) since 1907, Congress has enacted a variety of laws 
     under which the United States makes payments to States and 
     local governments based in various ways on the location, 
     management, or use of Federal lands;
       (2) in 1970, the Public Land Law Review Commission found 
     that ``existing revenue-sharing programs do not meet a 
     standard of equity and fair treatment either to State and 
     local governments nor to the Federal taxpayers'' and 
     recommended that these programs be replaced with a system of 
     payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (``PILT'');
       (3) in 1976, Congress enacted a PILT program, based 
     primarily on the location rather than the management or use 
     of Federal lands, in addition to, but not as a replacement 
     for, other payment programs;
       (4) local governmental units eligible for payments under 
     the PILT program vary considerably in terms of the rates of 
     taxation of non-Federal lands, the services provided to and 
     received from the United States because of the location of 
     Federal lands, and the level of payments received from the 
     United States under programs other than the PILT program;
       (5) since 1976, inflation has eroded the purchasing power 
     of PILT payments, while other developments have greatly 
     affected the other payments to States and local governments 
     that are related to the management and use of Federal lands; 
     and
       (6) under the circumstances described in these findings, it 
     is appropriate to authorize temporary increases in payments 
     under the PILT program, and to provide for later 
     consideration of a restructuring of both the PILT program and 
     other payment programs, along lines suggested by the Public 
     Land Law Review Commission.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize a 
     temporary increase in PILT payments, while requiring a review 
     of payment programs and the submission of recommendations as 
     to whether the PILT program and other payment programs should 
     be revised to more fully achieve the goals of equitable 
     treatment of both payment recipients and the Federal 
     taxpayers.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``PILT Act'' means chapter 69 of title 31, 
     United States Code;
       (2) the term ``unit of general local government'' has the 
     same meaning as in the PILT Act; and
       (3) the term ``supplemental PILT payments'' means payments 
     made under this Act.
       (b) Supplemental Payments in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.--
     (1) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary for supplemental PILT payments pursuant 
     to this Act to be made for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to 
     units of general local government qualified to receive 
     payments under the PILT Act.
       (2) Payments authorized by this Act shall be calculated in 
     the same manner as payments under the PILT Act, except that 
     solely for the purpose of calculating payments authorized by 
     this Act--
       (A) the phrase ``93 cents for each acre of entitlement land 
     for fiscal year 1996, and $1.11 for fiscal year 1997,'' shall 
     be substituted in subparagraph (A) of section 6903(b)(1) of 
     title 31, United States Code, in lieu of ``75 cents per each 
     acre of entitlement land''; and
       (B) the following tables shall be substituted for the table 
     at the end of section 6903(c)(2) of title 31, United States 
     Code--
       (i) for fiscal year 1996:

If population equals--                       the limitation is equal to
                                                 the population 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

       (ii) for fiscal year 1997:

If population equals--                       the limitation is equal to
                                                 the population times--
 5,000...........................................................$74.00
 6,000........................................................... 68.50
 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

     SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT.

       (a) Deadline and Recommendations.--(1) No later than 
     January 1, 1996, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to the Congress a report concerning the results 
     of the study described in subsection (b) of this section.
       (2) The report required by paragraph (1) shall include 
     recommendations for revisions of the PILT Act and other laws 
     that would--
       (A) provide reasonably predictable payments that are at 
     least as stable as receipts from taxes on non-Federal lands; 
     and
       (B) provide an equitable payment system to compensate units 
     of local government for the net costs incurred by such 
     governments as a result of the presence of Federal lands that 
     are not within the local tax base.
       (b) Study.--In preparing the report required by this 
     section, the Comptroller General shall--
       (1) review the authorities and resulting payments under the 
     PILT Act and other laws providing payments to States and 
     units of local government related to the presence of Federal 
     lands within the jurisdiction of recipient units of 
     government, including the extent to which such payments 
     differ because of disparate treatment of lands classed as 
     public domain and those classed as acquired lands;
       (2) assess the adequacy of agency auditing and monitoring, 
     and of the funding for such auditing and monitoring, of the 
     reports required by section 6903(b)(2) of title 31, United 
     States Code;
       (3) compare the payments under the PILT Act and other 
     studied laws with--
       (A) the net costs imposed on recipient units of local 
     governments by the presence of Federal lands;
       (B) the tax payments private landowners would likely have 
     paid to recipient units during the same period; and
       (C) services provided to local units of government by 
     Federal land-managing agencies;
       (4) examine how payments under the PILT Act and other 
     studied laws affect and interact with the rates of taxation 
     imposed by local units of government on non-Federal lands, 
     including the extent to which total Federal payments are 
     affected by State laws providing for the distribution to 
     independent entities (other than units of general local 
     government);
       (5) assess the cost and equity of expanding the categories 
     of lands that would be included in the ``entitlement lands'', 
     as such term is used in the PILT Act, including (but not 
     limited) to Indian trust lands and acquired lands included in 
     the National Wildlife Refuge System;
       (6) identify the extent to which the States make payments 
     to their political subdivisions that are related to the 
     presence within such subdivisions of State-owned lands; and
       (7) examine alternatives to the current system of payments 
     under the PILT Act and other laws, including (but not limited 
     to) methods used by States to make payments to their 
     political subdivisions related to the location of State-owned 
     lands within such subdivisions.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] will be recognized for 10 minutes and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN, I would hope that the House would accept this amendment 
in the spirit in which it is offered, and, that is, to provide, 
recognizing as the gentleman have said, that this program has not been 
raised since 1976, that this amendment would allow them the same amount 
of funding over the next 2 years as they receive under legislation 
reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. But in that 2 years' 
time, what we are asking is that GAO do a study and we get an 
opportunity on a comprehensive basis to review this program. Why do we 
need that 2-year timeframe? Because if we do not stop the funding at 
that time, if we do not put some financial barrier at that time, we 
will simply be going on as we have in the past, and, that is, with the 
Senate's complete and total unwillingness to allow reforms to be 
considered in the legislative dialog back and forth between the Senate 
and the House.
  What we have seen and the reason we are here today is because every 
time we have tried to initiate a discussion about the reform of this 
program with the Senate, there has been no discussion, only an increase 
in fees that they have talked to us about. So we are here because again 
the Senate, the Senate is saying no reform, send us the money. We are 
saying under my substitute, ``We are prepared to send you the money for 
2 years. If we have not achieved the reforms, then in fact the money 
stays at that level and does not continue to escalate up as it does 
under the committee bill.''
  We think this is fair, we think this provides an increase. It also 
provides the taxpayers an opportunity to see how their moneys are being 
used. This is the only indexed discretionary spending program we have 
in the Federal Government. I appreciate that the mayor of Newark is for 
it. But the mayor of Newark ought to know that when we underwent the 
comprehensive review of the nutrition programs in his school districts 
that we had to because of a lack of Federal funding try to target that 
spending to the most vulnerable children, to those where we could have 
the best opportunity at having a positive impact, we could not give 
everybody a school lunch, we could not give everybody school milk, we 
had to focus on the vulnerable populations. And I hope that the mayor 
of Newark understands that when we redid the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, we had to try to refocus the dollars we have on the 
areas most in need, because we did not have an open-ended entitlement, 
we did not have an indexed program. We had 5 years. And we will be back 
again to review that program. That is how we do it in the Congress. 
Except for PILT.
  PILT, with no review of the program, no changes in the program, no 
seeing whether or not the benefits match the burdens, no seeing whether 
or not this is equal to the property taxes that the States collect or 
the counties collect in the local region. We just send them the money.
  With this program being indexed as it is today, we preclude the 
opportunity to have the kind of discussion that this Congress should 
have about this kind of a program, whether or not this program that was 
conceived in 1976 still makes sense in the 1990's. Can we still talk 
about those lands that do not receive it compared to those that do? Can 
we have a discussion about the increased revenues that the Federal 
Government shares with these counties now, that have doubled in the 
time that this program has been in existence? But we do not get to take 
back PILT moneys because we are helping to make the counties whole with 
these other revenues. No, they want it both. They want to double dip. 
They want to double dip out of the Federal treasury.
  I appreciate the people for this program. We owe it to the people 
that we represent to have that kind of review. But as the gentleman 
from Minnesota pointed out, you could not get that kind of review in 
the mining law, you could not get that kind of review in the grazing 
reform laws. Why? Because the Senate will not allow it. And after 120 
years, the Senate just killed again the mining review. What did we want 
for the public? We wanted a 3-percent royalty. But some of the richest 
corporations in America said, ``No, you get nothing. We get the gold 
and the taxpayer gets the shaft.''
  That is what PILT is continuing, that same mentality, and it is not 
fair to the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of my 
time be allocated to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will be recognized 
for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr Chairman, the Miller amendment we are just seeing come up was 
defeated before in committee 28 to 14. This amendment only gives a 
temporary increase and then the PILT payment goes right back to the 
current levels. Let us get this over with. This is a very small band-
aid approach to a very large program.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] implies that the PILT 
program is controversial and needs serious review. No Federal agency or 
private organization has suggested that the PILT program is flawed or 
needs changing. This is a simple program based on a formula of Federal 
acres and population that is designed to compensate for lost property 
tax. We have got it so confused with everything else. Keep in mind, it 
was to compensate property tax. That is all. The Miller amendment will 
effectively kill PILT reform for this Congress and I hope everyone 
realizes that. Counties, Governors, and many other national groups 
strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld], who has worked along with me for several 
sessions of Congress to try to improve these PILT payments.
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Montana [Mr. 
Williams] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the 
amendments restricting PILT payments to counties.
  The payment in lieu of taxes program, or PILT, was designed to 
compensate local government for lost tax revenue due to Federal 
ownership in land. While costs to operate rural counties have continued 
to rise, the PILT program has not been adjusted for inflation in the 18 
years it has existed. This is unacceptable and what this legislation is 
merely about.
  I want to give my colleagues an example of what the PILT program 
represents. In Skamania County, one of the counties that I represent in 
Washington State, the Federal Government owns nearly 80 percent of the 
land. This means 80 percent of the county's land base is outside its 
tax base. As a county commissioner, how do you provide services for the 
people when most of your tax base is exempt? Now, once you figure that 
one out, tell me how you would provide the additional services from 
search and rescue to road maintenance and construction needed to handle 
all of those invading your county to use the Federal lands.
  I would submit to the gentleman from California who spoke of the need 
to remember the children, that in these same counties where 
unemployment has officially hit 26 percent, 27 percent, the domestic 
abuse rate has risen enormously and the PILT payments are an essential 
part of protecting those children and those families.

                              {time}  1450

  PILT program funds help county government meet those needs. They are 
an extremely important source of revenue for counties which are 
continually asked to provide increased services despite diminishing 
budgets.
  Without adequate PILT payments, the Federal Government is not just 
failing its responsibility to ensure that counties are not penalized 
for having Federal land, but imposing another unfunded Federal mandate 
on local governments.
  When PILT was enacted it was based on a partnership between Federal 
and local governments. This concept is as valid today as when it was 
passed in 1976. But the lag of payments behind inflation has produced a 
hardship on the local communities, the same communities that are 
struggling to respond to new Federal timber policies.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, oppose the amendments 
being offered, and if changes are needed in the underlying structure of 
this concept, let us tackle them next year earlier in the session so 
that we do not run the risk of killing this very valid assistance to 
the families and the children and the counties and local governments.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Miller 
substitute which effectively kills S. 455, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes 
Act.
  Make no mistake about it, the only way a PILT increase can become law 
this session is to pass this bill without amendment today. Amending 
this bill is nothing more than a vote against PILT, rural communities, 
and for unfunded mandates.
  PILT payments simply compensate local communities throughout the 
country for property taxes lost due to Federal land ownership which is 
non-taxable.
  This money goes to local communities for emergency law enforcement, 
medical assistance, waste disposal, and countless other services for 
local communities and the thousands of visitors who come to our public 
lands every year.
  Since enactment, PILT has never been adjusted for inflation. The 
program's value has diminished to less than half of what it was. This 
hardly makes up for the millions of dollars of foregone property tax 
revenues that are supposed to go to these counties.
  PILT in its current form simply cannot supply our local counties with 
the resources to comply with the unfunded mandates this Congress hands 
down to them every year.
  If the proponents of this substitute really want to do something 
fiscally responsible for a change, they should help us stop the Federal 
Government from consuming more private property which is costly and bad 
for rural America.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this substitute and an aye vote for 
an unamended S. 455.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  (Mr. KOPETSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I support the PILT program. The issue 
before us is how much of an increase and for how long.
  If this were a bill to give automatic increases forever to monies for 
public health programs for the counties, Members would say no, we 
cannot afford it. If it was for moneys forever for Chapter 1 reading 
programs for local school districts, Members would say no, we cannot 
afford it. If the moneys were for local government water treatment 
facilities forever, Members would say no, we cannot afford it.
  All the Miller amendment says is that in the next 2 years we ought to 
review the program, see how much of an increase and in what form it 
ought to come. Next session, the 104th Congress is going to have to 
deal with deficit reduction. This program, like every other program 
ought to be on the table for discussion and review in terms of how to 
best reduce the deficit and put monies out there in the local 
governments where they are richly deserved.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
is the same old deal that we have seen before by the same people who 
believe that grazing fees are not high enough, that we are not paying 
enough for mineral leases and so forth. But these were all contract 
deals that were set by the Federal Government in the beginning, and 
right now, once again to use my own State as an example, my State is 
now affording the Federal Government $200 million more in revenues from 
grazing fees, from mining leases, from forest trees and some of the 
rest of that than they are getting in PILT payments, which is about $20 
million. So there is no equity insofar as what the value of production 
on these lands would return to local government institutions.
  That is what PILT was designed to do. It was to level the playing 
field. But we are subsidizing operations all over the rest of the 
United States that have and own most of their lands because when they 
came into the Union every State got its private lands or got its lands 
and was able to privatize them. But in the West, because of the lack of 
30 inches of rain, we have huge public lands, and it is going to go on 
forever until we get somebody who can really understand what it is all 
about rather than to put us all in reform school every week.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  In considering this substitute, Members should remember two important 
points--
  First, a vote for this substitute is a vote for PILT increases. The 
substitute provides for exactly the same increases in the next 2 years 
as would be authorized by the Senate bill. So, if you agree with the 
proponents of the bill that PILT increases should be authorized--this 
substitute authorizes them.
  Second, however, a vote for this substitute is a vote for a careful, 
measured approach instead of the massive, permanent, and open-ended 
spending increase that would come with the bill as passed by the 
Senate.
  The substitute combines a 2-year increase in PILT payments with a 
provision for a thorough study of the PILT Program and related programs 
by the General Account Office, to lay the foundation for a 
comprehensive review of the program by the Natural Resources Committee 
next year.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the careful approach. It is the responsible 
approach.
  The PILT Program has not been thoroughly reviewed since 1976, and I 
strongly believe that we need to step back and view the PILT Program in 
a broader perspective.
  This substitute is not an attack on PILT. As I have said before, the 
PILT Program has a number of virtues, especially its relative stability 
and predictability as compared with other programs under which the 
Nation shares with the States and local governments the receipts from 
stumpage fees, mineral receipts, grazing receipts, and the like.
  In fact, I think we should seriously consider making changes not only 
in PILT but these other laws that could mean greater stability for 
local governments and at the same time keep them from being hostages in 
fights over such management decisions as timber sales, mineral leases, 
and the like.
  Ths study required by this substitute will give us the information we 
need to decide whether those kinds of changes, or other changes, should 
be seriously consider next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the argument will be made that the House 
cannot vote for any amendment to this Senate bill because that will 
kill PILT increase.
  Of course, the substitute provides for PILT increases. But the claim 
will be that with so little time remaining in this session, the Senate 
will not be able to consider any House amendments this year.
  Of course, now that the Senate has decided to return after the 
elections, that argument should no longer have any weight, assuming 
that it should ever have any weight.
  But, anyway, we should always take the time to be careful. And, there 
is no hurry, because the PILT payments for fiscal 1994 have already 
been made and the money for the fiscal 1995 payments has been 
appropriated.
  We will not be making more PILT payments until 1996, and the 
substitute provides for increasing those payments in both fiscal 1996 
and fiscal 1997. There will be plenty of time next year to consider 
PILT levels for the years after 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for the careful approach and the 
responsible approach--which means a vote for the substitute.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, the remainder 
of my time.
   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee, our 
good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], in his words 
admitting that he has not been as attentive and admitting his 
transgressions on this.
  You see, this is the problem, my friends, for three Congresses we 
have tried to do this, and now here we are in the final hours of the 
last session of this Congress, and now they offer their amendments. It 
kills the bill. No wonder they waited until the end. This is the same 
amendment that we are about to vote on, by the way, that was offered in 
the Committee on Natural Resources and lost 2 to 1, exactly 2 to 1, 28 
to 14 on a bipartisan vote.
  Here is what the amendment would do: It would give your counties a 
20-percent increase in PILT payments this year, a 20-percent increase 
in payments the next year. What the bill would do is provide those 20-
percent, approximately 20-percent, increases for 5 years. But there is 
another critical difference, my colleagues. After the second 20-percent 
increase under the Miller-Vento amendment, they then cut your counties 
40 percent. They take 40 percent. They take the entire increase back.
  Now, you are going to be sitting maybe in this Congress, in 1997, and 
your county commissioners are going to be calling and writing and 
saying, ``Wait a minute, the Federal Government just took 40 percent of 
our money back.'' If this amendment passes, that is what is going to 
happen.
  Do not vote to create that kind of fiscal instability for your 
counties and for your States.
  Now, should there be a review, as both the chairman of the full 
committee and chairman of the subcommittee are asking for, with regard 
to all of this type of money that is going out, absolutely, and the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and I suggested, recommended to the 
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and the chairman, 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], in the committee that we were 
prepared that day to sign a letter to GAO to ask for the review that 
they now mandate in this amendment.
  My colleagues, we think there ought to be a review, and the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and I stand ready right now to sign the letter 
asking GAO to make this review. So that part of the amendment is OK. 
The part we will not accept is cutting your county commissioners' money 
by 40 percent in the year 1997.
  Please, vote against this amendment. It kills this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ 
minutes, the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not accept this amendment, what we have done 
is we have, in fact, created an entitlement program, because if you 
look at the history of this program, while many, many other programs 
dealing with the West, dealing with natural resources and elsewhere, 
have not been fully funded as authorizations have been approved, it is 
true in education, it is true in health, true in housing, this program 
has always been fully funded.
  As we went through the 1970's and 1980's and reforming government, we 
went through cuts, and we had 2-percent cuts, 3-percent cuts, and the 
fact is this program has been fully funded.
  If you do not take the Miller amendment, you are setting it on 
automatic pilot with no reviews, with no checks, with no reforms. You 
are empowering the guardians of gridlock in the Senate. You are saying 
to those Senators who have invested their careers in killing reform as 
they did this morning with the lobbying reform, as they did yesterday 
with lobbying reform, as they did last week with campaign reform, as 
they have with concessions reform, as they have with grazing reform, as 
they have 120 years in mining reform, a they have with concessions 
reform in the national parks over the last 30 years, you are telling 
the guardians of gridlock in the Senate they can have the money and 
none of the reform. It is not fair to the taxpayers. It is not fair to 
the taxpayers, whether they live in the West or they live in the East.
  You cannot take a program like this and simply put it on automatic 
pilot for a 150-percent increase at a time when Members are here on 
discharge petitions over A to Z, they are sitting on entitlement-reform 
panels, beating the hell out of the Congress for not meeting its 
responsibilities, but in the last day of this session, they have 
decided that they will increase the spending on this automatically 
150=percent to a $1.3 billion program, and they cannot tell you where 
the money goes, they cannot tell you if it goes to needy counties, poor 
counties, counties that are overburdened. They cannot tell you if it is 
equal to the property taxes that they say it replaces. It does not. And 
in other places, it more than does. They cannot tell you why some lands 
are increased and some lands are not. And they cannot tell you why this 
bill now as the Federal taxpayers are going to have to pay for even 
those lands that are put into private ownership and into State 
ownership. They now have an entitlement to the Federal Treasury.
  It is not fair. You ought to accept this amendment so we can have 
some reform, because if you want the public's money, you ought to take 
a little bit of the public interest along with it.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the Members of the body that 
they should refrain from making reference to, and characterizing the 
actions of, the other body.

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, was that comment talking about the 
``guardians of gridlock''?
  The CHAIRMAN. It was indeed.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, the remainder of my time, 
to the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line, of course, is 
that if we move toward fairness, if we move toward equity, if we move 
toward moving this bill, then this amendment and the second amendment 
must be defeated. There is clearly no way that this will function 
otherwise.
  It is sort of interesting, the gentleman who just spoke, worked up 
about expenditures, over there on the floor on the card is $3 billion 
authorized for California. The gentleman seemed to think that is all 
right.
  Now, we have 49 States to participate in it, but it is not 
California, so it does not matter; $3 billion you have over there, but 
that is fair though, is it not, Mr. Chairman?
  You know, if the subcommittee chairman's argument would have come a 
year ago, it probably would have been useful. I recognize what the 
chairman is saying, but it is not useful now. It is simply a delaying 
tactic. We went through this in the committee.
  It is a little too bad that the leadership does not represent the 
committee; 28 to 14 voted on this.
  So we need to take a look at what we are doing here in terms of 
obligations. This is simply not just a spending measure. It is a 
fairness measure. It is an equity measure, and it is one we ought to 
pass without amendment.
  I urge my associates to vote against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 262, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 502]

                               AYES--160

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (TX)
     Armey
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gordon
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickle
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Studds
     Synar
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--262

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Waters
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Applegate
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Chapman
     DeLay
     Gallo
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     McCurdy
     Ravenel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1529

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. DeLay against.

  Ms. ESHOO, and Messrs. PETERSON of Minnesota, FARR of California, 
TAYLOR of Mississippi, SWETT, and ORTON changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. YATES, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mrs. 
LOWEY, Mr. HOKE, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, Mr. NADLER, 
and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1530

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 103-380.


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 4, strike lines 1 
     through 12 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very simple. It would delete from the 
bill a provision that would link future PILT authorizations to future 
changes in the prices of goods and services, as shown by the Consumer 
Price Index.
  Mr. Chairman, the PILT authorization that we have before us will 
increase by $468 million in 5 years. Based on inflation, it will 
increase beyond that to $1.3 billion in the next 10 years.
  I would remind my colleagues, this is at a time when we are committed 
to a policy path of reducing the deficit over that time by cutting 
domestic discretionary spending. These authorization levels that are 
anticipated in this bill, as had been pointed out earlier, are not just 
any old authorization.
  Mr. Chairman, these authorizations have been consistently fulfilled. 
This is a situation where the authorization process works, where it 
actually has limited the amount of spending under PILT.
  The authors of the amendment are right in the sense there needs to be 
an adjustment. There has been no adjustments since 1976. Of course, I 
point out that there have been many other programs that we have offered 
as reform this year that have had a life much longer than that 
affecting public lands that have been summarily dismissed by the 
Congress and especially by the other body.
  The fact is that this PILT program is not a perfect program. There 
are many problems with it. The public lands commission that met pointed 
out that the stream of revenues coming from the public lands should be 
used, and I think logically would be used, to offset the PILT payments 
so that we would have a maintenance of a constant source of income for 
those counties that have and those States that have lower receipts from 
public lands.
  That is not part of the PILT package that we have before us. The only 
chance that we have to revisit this issue is if there is some leverage, 
if there is some force to, in fact, recall or bring this issue back 
before the Congress.
  Certainly, one further impediment is the fact that we don't limit the 
cost-of-living adjustment. If we don't change or stop the cost-of-
living adjustment in this PILT program it will be very, very difficult 
to change in the PILT program in the future.
  I think the Members know that. The argument is not so much against 
this amendment. It is against the fact that the other body, the Senate 
will resist all change, we have to suspend reason. We have to suspend 
judgment because the other body is not capable of dealing with even one 
amendment from the House.
  Repeatedly we have been faced with measures that are before the House 
and before the other body where they are not able to make any 
modifications. It is sort of a slam dunk legislative process. Bring it 
over here and we have to take what we get. We cannot make any 
modifications.
  I am appealing to my colleagues, I think this issue is important 
enough, even in the U.S. Senate, for them to take one small, one small 
adjustment. That adjustment is to reduce or to eliminate the cost-of-
living adjustments so that we have some real chance of revisiting this 
issue in the years ahead and dealing with a policy that is admittedly 
flawed and, I think, recognized by many that are fair-minded in this 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to my colleagues to support this Vento 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may divide 
my time with the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that this particular amendment 
was not offered in committee, when there was ample time to do it. It 
was not offered. It is kind of like the 5 years we have had to do some 
reform on PILT, and we have not done it. I say to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, this is the chance to get this job done. This is a 
killer amendment.
  If we want to kill PILT, vote for this. If we want to see it go on 
and accomplish what we have been working for, this is an amendment to 
be carefully looked at and to kill this amendment so we do not kill the 
bill.
  I have a hard time with this, as I look at it. The fiscal concerns 
that we see coming from some of our friends are the same folks that, as 
the gentleman from Idaho pointed out, have authorized $5 billion in new 
spending in this same area.
  The purpose of S. 455 is to update PILT payments for inflationary 
increases. The index provision affects the authorization only and for 
some reason all through this debate things other than authorizations 
have been brought up and will prevent this problem from recurring.
  This is a compromise, and I would ask that the Members defeat this 
amendment and vote for the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Ms. Lambert].
  (Ms. LAMBERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak in support of 
the bill today. We have heard an awful lot of east-west argument. It is 
not an east-west argument. There are many areas out in rural America, 
such as my district in Arkansas, that would stand to benefit a 
tremendous amount from this bill. We have seen these areas. Since 1976, 
they have seen no inflationary increases. The price of bread has 
certainly gone up since 1976.

                              {time}  1540

  As I was stating, Mr. Chairman, it is not an East-West issue. We have 
many of the small counties in the Nation, just like are represented in 
my district in Arkansas, surrounded by Federal lands, who are still 
having to maintain school systems, county roads and other programs that 
are in vital need of the resources that they no longer get from the 
limited tax base that they have.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an important issue. It is one we need to resolve 
at this point. We need to move ahead with this issue. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote in support of this bill, so we can move on it this 
year. These counties have suffered long enough. It is time that we come 
to the point where we can help them out and give them the necessary 
resources that they need.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], a member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is, it sets into automatic pilot 
indexing after 5 years. That would be a great idea if we had billions 
of dollars to spend in this country, but we do not have it.
  It would be a great idea to have permanent indexing for things like 
minimum wage increases for the working men and women in this country, 
but we cannot afford to do that. It would be great to have indexes 
built in for payments for medical care. We do not have those built into 
our law. It would be great if we were able to fund the crime bill that 
we just passed for more than 5 years, but we were responsible, because 
we know we cannot stick those costs on future taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, somehow we are saying in this area, in this area only, 
we are going to bind future Congresses and we are going to require them 
to keep this authorization in law. That is irresponsible and it is 
something we should not do.
  This is a reasonable amendment and it is one that I hope my 
colleagues will support.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the legislation permanently indexes these 
payments. Where else do we have permanent indexing in a discretionary 
program? In Social Security, with a funding source. Where is the 
funding source for this particular program? It is the other 
discretionary programs which we are already committed to cut. That is 
why this indexing amendment is important to pass, and to eliminate it 
from this program.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am not a big spender. I 
am also not from the West, as the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Ms. 
Lambert] pointed out.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a western issue, as we pointed out. About a 
third of my district is owned by the Federal Government, over 50 
percent of the western half of the district. Two counties are 65 
percent and 85 percent owned. These have some of the lowest per capita 
income in the Southeast. It is park, parkway, National Forest, and so 
forth. All the funds they have to derive, most of the money has to come 
from ad valorem taxes.
  This body has placed on these counties a series of mandates in this 
Congress alone. We have the motor-voter bill that is going to pass 
about $50 million onto the States and counties. We have EPA regulations 
in the areas of landfills, we have OSHA, that is doing such things in 
the area of roofing as saying you cannot chew gum on a roof, so that is 
going to put a cost on any county building, any school, or any 
facility. We have the Americans With Disabilities Act.
  Everywhere we look there is an additional mandate being placed on the 
counties. Yet we are saying that because the Federal Government owns 
most of those counties, we are not going to give them the extra dollars 
they need to meet these mandates. The ad valorem tax is the only thing 
they have left, essentially, to pay for schools, pay for health care, 
to do any of the improvements and charges that we put on the counties.
  Mr. Chairman, we have taken their other revenue. We have said in 
national forests that they cannot harvest timber. We are saying they 
cannot mine, they cannot graze. In fact, there is a big sign on our 
public lands that says, ``Thou shall not do anything with these 
publicly-owned lands.'' Consequently, they are deprived of the revenue 
that usually comes into the county governments to go to the educational 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, unless we allow the increase we are talking about, we 
are mandating costs to these counties and sending them further and 
further behind. We are condemning those counties with Federal lands to 
obscurity, poverty, and the inability to carry out any public services 
on the basis of the locality.
  I think that is wrong. That is why I support S. 455 as it is now. As 
the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] pointed out, this is a killer 
amendment. It comes down to whether or not Members want the counties to 
get these PILT funds and the increases or Members do not.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer the top 10 reasons to support S. 455:
  10. It's good policy. PILT was established in 1976 to provide an 
appropriate payment to local governments based on the presence of tax 
exempt Federal lands in their jurisdiction.
  9. It has broad, bipartisan support. The Natural Resources Committee 
reported the bill 31-10. It passed the Senate last spring 79-20. PILT 
is supported by the National Association of Counties, and other 
organizations supporting law enforcement, education, and local 
construction. Conservation organizations like the Nature Conservancy 
and Sierra Club support PILT, understanding the inherent fairness of a 
local payment on the basis of Federal land holdings. 49 of the 50 
States receive payments under PILT.
  8. It's a sound program. Since its inception, no independent or 
governmental organization has suggested that PILT is either inefficient 
or ineffective in filling its basic purpose. No organization has 
suggested that the policy of PILT is in any way inappropriate or 
misdirected in accomplishing its goal.
  7. It will actually happen. By passing the Senate bill--without 
amendment--we assure that this legislation goes directly to the 
President, marking an important accomplishment of the 103d Congress in 
appropriate support of local governments.
  6. It's a compromise. We are cosponsors of H.R. 1181, legislation 
which would have provided the full 120 percent increased authorization 
in the first year of the bill. S. 455, the Senate passed bill, phases 
in this increase over 5 years.
  5. It's moderate legislation which complies with the budget rules. 
The original PILT bill had no trigger for inflation; this bill retains 
the existing PILT formula while adjusting for the increase in 
inflation--120 percent--since 1976. The Congressional Budget Office 
scores the bill as increasing the authorization in $25 million 
increments in years 1995 through 1999, and states that the bill does 
not affect pay as you go requirements since these funds are subject to 
annual appropriations.
  4. It's needed. PILT funds are the Federal fair share to help fund 
local services--services which benefit the public users and managers of 
Federal lands. These services include law enforcement, road 
maintenance, search and rescue, and education. The problem is that PILT 
funds buy less than half the public services of the level in 1976.
  3. It's simple. PILT provides a reasonable payment in lieu of the 
property taxes which would otherwise have been generated by federally 
owned lands. A county's PILT payment is determined by the total acreage 
of federal land; adjusted on the basis of the county population--more 
people, higher PILT--and adjusted on the basis of receipts from the 
sale of Federal natural resources--if a county's receipts are high, 
it's PILT is low.
  2. PILT is the single major Federal program that has had no 
adjustment for inflation.
  And the No. 1 reason to pass S. 455 is--it's fair. It's appropriate 
that the Federal Government make a fair share payment in lieu of taxes 
on the basis of Federal land holdings; it's also fair that this program 
be adjusted for inflation.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], a great assist in our efforts.
  (Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, three very quick points, besides the fact that I have 
great respect for the chairman of the committee. Nonetheless, we are 
faced with a critical problem all across America with our counties 
being under enormous pressure as a result of the Federal holdings east 
and west across this country, and in creating a tremendous real estate 
tax burden in my State of South Dakota.
  A point that needs to be made here, this underlying bill does not 
guarantee assent to any county anywhere in America. There is no 
entitlement to it. This has no pay-go implications. It simply allows 
the county to go to the Committee on Appropriations in future years to 
ask that their PILT formula be funded. It allows them to make the 
arguments on the merits. I think that is only fair, again.
  Lastly, of course, the argument that has been made here repeatedly is 
that regardless of the merits of the amendment that is pending, the 
fact is that whether we like it or not, it is a killer amendment. If 
the amendment passes, it means that our counties all across this 
country will not have an opportunity to make an argument on the merits 
to the appropriators for an equitable share of financial resources to 
account for their lost tax base.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  (Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very 
important amendment. The reason why I believe it is an important 
amendment is because we have been talking about, throughout this 
Congress, looking for ways to rein in automatic increases in spending. 
What we will be doing is ending our Congress by putting into place an 
automatic adjustment in spending.
  As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, and as far as our staff has been able 
to determine, this would be the only area of discretionary spending 
that would have an automatic COLA increase built into it. Do we want to 
set this precedent at the end of the 103d Congress, that we should then 
look to other areas to have automatic COLA increases?
  Mr. Chairman, this is in fact a very important amendment. If this 
amendment does not pass, then I do not think the bill should pass, 
because I believe this would be a very bad precedent to set at any time 
in the Congress, but especially to end the 103d Congress with an 
automatic escalator clause.
  I think that is irresponsible. The National Taxpayers Union has 
spoken out loudly against this, and rightfully so.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to please join us in this 
effort, so we are not just adding to the statutes an automatic increase 
for the first time in discretionary spending.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the amount of time we 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 1 minute 
remaining, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield briefly to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just need to make the point, the previous speaker 
talks about built-in spending increases. That is not the case. That is 
not a fact. That is not true. There are built-in increases in 
authorization, not in spending.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate gentleman's contribution.
  Mr. Chairman, Let us be clear about this amendment. This is a red 
herring. This is an attempt simply to kill the idea that we should have 
payments in lieu of taxes to our countries, or any change in the 
formula to index it, to allow for an increase that we have not had for 
the last 20 years.
  We know we cannot go to conference today. We know this kills it. This 
is a bill that is long overdue. This is not something where we are 
talking about States that are taking money.
  This is not a handout. This is not an entitlement. This is because 
the Federal Government retains the ownership for more than 100 years of 
these lands and requires the countries to maintain basic services. This 
is a payment for those services.
  We have a responsibility as a Federal Government to pay our fair 
share. That is why this amendment should be defeated, and we should 
allow this indexing of the authorization, not the appropriation, not 
the appropriation, but only of the authorization.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
the Sixth District of Ohio [Mr. Strickland].
  (Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the passage of S. 
455 to increase Federal payments in lieu of taxes to local governments 
and schools. Some critics make the absurd claim that this legislation 
is an entitlement. PILT is not welfare. It is plain fair. This bill 
will increase the PILT formula to give local governments more fair 
compensation for the lost tax revenue caused by federally owned, tax-
exempt land like the Wayne National Forest in my poor southern Ohio 
district. S. 455 will increase payments in my district from just over 
$47,000 to more than $200,000 in 5 years, and local governments, 
including my schools, will be assured that their payments from 
Washington will keep up with inflation. Amendments that would cut PILT 
payments after 2 years or say that the Frontier Local School District 
and others do not deserve to keep up with inflation are just plain 
wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendments and pass the bill to 
ensure fair compensation to our governments and our schools.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from the 
Third District of California [Mr. Fazio].
  (Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to pay tribute to my 
friend, the gentleman from the First District of Montana [Mr. 
Williams], the Representative from Montana, for leading the fight that 
has brought us to this point.
  I think it is evident to everybody here that if we do not act on this 
measure without amendment, it is dead, and we have one more time failed 
to keep faith with the communities across this country that have 
allowed Federal participation in their communities through Federal land 
ownership. We have not been keeping faith with them. Inflation has 
eroded the value of our payments. Communities--often small rural 
communities, counties, and cities--are suffering because we have been 
taking and not giving back.
  This is the essence of the whole fight we have had here on mandates. 
This is even in my view worse, because instead of not paying for 
something we have mandated, in this case we have taken the land and we 
have not compensated the communities that have it no longer on the tax 
rolls.
  We have an opportunity here to allow the authorization to move 
forward, but in no sense do we tell the subcommittee of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates] what it must appropriate.
  So, for all the discussion about automatic increases, that is a red 
herring. The Committee on Appropriations will continue to struggle with 
whatever is required. We know it has never been what was authorized. 
But at least it is an effort here to give our communities what they 
deserve.
  Please put aside all the rhetoric. Keep faith with our local 
communities that have contributed to public participation and enjoyment 
of our environment across this land.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Minnesota is absolutely correct. 
While it is understandable for advocates for payments in lieu of taxes 
to ask for an increase after an 18-year freeze on the funding level for 
this worthwhile program, it is not reasonable in my judgment to ask 
that we automatically index this payment for future years. Indexing is 
what got us in trouble with so much of our Federal budget today. 
Automatic increases should not be expanded to cover additional programs 
regardless how valuable.
  We ought to analyze what the budget can afford and analyze what is 
fair in comparison to other priorities within the budget. An automatic 
increase should not be slated. Bear in mind, as well, this is not an 
entitlement program, this is a discretionary program, an annually 
appropriated program, which means an expected increase in this program 
each year would naturally come at the expense of other programs in the 
same part of the budget.
  Let us not put further pressure on the valuable programs. Let us be 
reasonable, take this more slowly. At the very least, we ought to deny 
a COLA as part of this legislation. I urge support for the Vento-Miller 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the chairman of the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members 
would give very strong consideration to the passage of this amendment.
  This amendment does no harm to this legislation. What this amendment 
does is it says we will treat this legislation the same as we treat 
every other piece of legislation in this Congress of discretionary 
spending.
  If you do not support this amendment, what you are doing is taking 
this program that is scheduled to go up over 150 percent for the next 5 
years and automatically indexing it into the future. No other 
discretionary spending program in the entire Federal Government is 
treated this way.
  We just passed the authorization for the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act that affects millions of school children. They got a 5-
year authorization. Next year we are going to authorize the farm bill 
that affects millions of farmers and families. They get a 5-year 
authorization. We authorize the housing programs. They get a 5-year 
authorization. None of them get their programs indexed into the future 
so they can escape the review of the policy committees. And why are we 
going to do that? Not on the merits. We are going to do that because 
the Senate, the same Senate that has held program after program after 
program of Member after Member after Member of this body hostage, says 
that they do not want to discuss reforms. They do not want legislation 
with reform on it. They only want the money.
  Your choice here is whether or not you are going to be responsible to 
your taxpayers. One of the speakers earlier today said, ``You know, 
there hasn't been an increase in this program since 1976. But the price 
of bread has gone up since 1976.'' That is right.
  But what has not gone up since 1976? The wages of middle-class 
working people in this country who go to work every day. Their real 
wages have fallen. But you are going to index this program. You are 
going to index this program that has no constraints on it, has no 
priorities, goes out simply based upon the amount of acreage, not based 
upon the burden, not based upon the benefit, not based upon offsets of 
other Federal dollars that we give to these exact same counties, to 
these exact same cities. we do not index the minimum wages of workers 
in this country. We do not index education dollars. We do not index WIC 
dollars for at-risk infants. We do not index crime money for troubled 
communities because of crime. But somehow we can index this money that 
so disproportionately goes to States with very few people and 
relatively few problems that people from other States who get chunk 
change, chunk change.

  You get $48,000 in the State of New Jersey, and you think you have to 
support the effort because you might get $52,000. And Nevada is walking 
away with $8 million and New Mexico $10 million and California $10 
million. You are playing for chunk change but you are giving away the 
principles here of automatic indexed Federal spending and you should 
not do it. Support this amendment.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair reminds the Members again that they are not 
to characterize the actions of the other body in their debate.
  The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is recognized for 1 minute 
to conclude the debate on this amendment.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, a Presidential candidate not so long ago 
used to say this: ``Now here's the deal.''
  Well, here's the deal, my colleagues. You vote for this amendment, 
the bill dies. It is the last day of the session. So if you want PILT 
payments to be increased, vote no on this amendment, vote for the bill. 
That is the deal. It is that simple.
  There is no automatic appropriation increase in this bill, none.

                              {time}  1600

  What is in this bill is the right for your county commissioners for 
the first time in almost 20 years to come and ask you to go to the 
appropriators and say, ``Will you give us a little more,'' to your 
county commissioner than you got 18 years ago. If this amendment 
passes, the day comes again when that choice is taken away from you and 
your county commissioners and they are going to be stuck with no 
inflationary increase.
  So here is the deal: Oppose this amendment. Let the appropriators 
have the choice. Give your counties a break and give your property tax 
payers a break. Every single State in this country with the exception 
of one, Rhode Island, benefits from PILT payments.
  Vote against this amendment. Help those other States. Vote for this 
bill. Help your State, help your counties.
  I also want to thank Mr. Hansen for the cooperation we received from 
him and his staff, Mr. Alan Freemeyer and Mr. David Dye, and for the 
help of Mr. Jon Weintraub and Mr. David Blair of my staff.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 223, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 503]

                               AYES--195

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (TX)
     Armey
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Danner
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickle
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Swett
     Synar
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--223

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentley
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDade
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Myers
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Applegate
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     DeLay
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Houghton
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     McCandless
     McCurdy
     Ravenel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Slattery
     Studds
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1620

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Barton against.

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Messrs, HEFLEY, BACHUS of Alabama, SMITH of 
Michigan, DICKEY, and THOMPSON of Mississippi changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CRANE, SERRANO, SMITH of Texas, ROSTENKOWSKI, and BRYANT 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1620

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Sharp] having assumed the chair, Mr. Lancaster, chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the Senate 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, pursuant to House Resolution 565, he reported the Senate bill 
back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were refused.
  So the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________