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

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…

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.

Our public lands provide substantial benefits to states and local counties from travel and tourism dollars.

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

If programs like PILT and Secure Rural Schools are truly vital to our rural communities throughout the West, then we must find ways to fully fund them.

What we must not do is cut PILT and then use that cut as an excuse to degrade our environmental safeguards on public lands.

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.