There are values opportunity, but I don't know how you quantify that.

It would benefit communities to keep as much public land in public ownership for their scenic and recreational value during these times.

The Majority has categorized the designation of wilderness as an assault on the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

This labeled rhetoric and gross mischaracterization has made legitimate discussion of wilderness proposals difficult.

It is a significant hearing in that wilderness has been a bad word in the discussion before this Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, and it is refreshing and certainly a breath of fresh air to discuss wilderness in an open…

So, the point being that additional budgetary resources would be required in order to meet----

Since we heard from one of the witnesses the very fate of the Nation rests with the passage of this legislation.

And that would be a significant transfer of funds, would it not?

We must reauthorize PILT and we must continue to provide the support these counties and communities need.

I am worried that history is about to repeat itself with the Republican Majority either allowing PILT to expire or targeting the program for significant cuts in funding.

Some units of local governments that are already fairly well off receive large PILT payments while some areas that have very limited resources do not receive as much.

And it appears that there was a period from 1995 to 2007 when the amounts appropriated to the program fell short of the authorized levels.