The Administration supports the payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) program to compensate units of local governments of losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands within their boundaries. The Administration, however, cannot support S. 455, which would authorize substantial increases in PILT payments. Unlike other public land payments to States and units of local government that are funded principally from revenues arising from public land use, the PILT program is funded through direct annual appropriations. Consequently, given the discretionary limits imposed by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, additional PILT payments would come at the expense of other priority programs. Mr. President, in closing, may I say, we will have to cut various domestic programs, defense and other existing domestic programs, below the President's request. And we will have to cut them, not just below inflation but below a hard freeze in 1995. The question is, should we enact a bill that will more than double these payments to local governments over the next 5 years and then index them to rise automatically with inflation thereafter and at the very time when we are going to have to cut many existing worthwhile programs every year for the foreseeable future?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Administration's position on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.
Share
More from Harry Flood Byrd
Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate today proposes to set aside more than 6.6 million acres of land in California as wilderness or national parks. The objective of the legislation is to protect the desert ecosystem of southern…
I hope that in conference every effort will be made to tie this language down to mean weapons or equipment only, and to exclude manpower in any way.
if I may take a couple minutes before my friend from New York leaves the floor, I congratulate him, I salute him, I greatly admire him. I think he has contributed enormously to the debate, and I look forward to the hour and the day when he…
Mr. President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of the Navy, have all maintained that the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Frank Kelso, should be allowed to retire as a four-star…





