William Bradley: “the basic message on this bill is that we really cannot afford it. We have a mushrooming budget deficit, a growing…”

“the basic message on this bill is that we really cannot afford it. We have a mushrooming budget deficit, a growing national debt. We need to cut spending, not increase spending. This program increases spending. For 200 years there was no payment in lieu of taxes. The first payments were authorized in 1976 and were made in the late 1970's, when the deficit and the Federal debt were a fraction of what they are today. What is the chance, do you think, we would have PILT payments if we had a national debt of $3.5 trillion? Unlikely. This program came into being at a time when there was virtually no national deficit and the national debt was very small. Proponents of the legislation argue that the PILT payments have been reduced because of inflation. It is true. Over the 17 years, PILT payments have been reduced in real dollars. It is also true that, over the last 18 years, PILT payments have increased in real dollars-- because in reality they did not exist 18 years ago. This was a new gift to counties and States with high amounts of public lands. The proponents want to index these payments to communities to compensate for inflation. The existing program pours money out, $100 million a year or so. Now we want to index them for inflation. Madam President, would the same proponents of this amendment be willing to index payments to the Federal Government for such things as grazing rights?”