5 (Icjccle over mineral "funds hills S Spcl!nVrna,Fxpr,8!" D hH,l.niCMib.r n , ,n -A hassle over who H Vment in the House to restore 1 im?pIvmentS-in lieu of taxes J wnt was co-sponsored by ? KSS.n:R-Ni..ndD.n Rf' ,i R-Utah, ranking Republicans 3 MC ii interior Committee It : " Mtave added $100 million to the 'StSUnding bill to make direct J Stents to TILT counties. u-hen the smoke cleared after M , L debate. Westerners were vir-i vir-i A ad)' ones who voted for it. In Larea.forexample. one Utah, both w Mexico and all five Colorado Leawtatives voted for the amend- !IV But Rep. Richard B. Cheney, y bWvo voted against i1, and Rep-$ Rep-$ james'V. Hansen, R-Utah. failed to vote. N Luian and Marriott pushed hard for the amendment. They noted the $100 M million thev sought to add to the fun-N fun-N ding bill in PILT payments in 1982 was N n million less than appropriated for N 1981 Thev claimed this amount was & ithic the' budget reconciliation resolu-S resolu-S don and they pointed out the House In-J In-J Krior Committee had allocated $100 million for the 1982 PILT payments in clearing the Interior Department 1982 N budget. But the House Appropriations Committee Com-mittee refused to put a cent in the funding fun-ding bill for PILT, and Chairman Sidney R. Yates, D-Ill., of the House Ap-propriations Ap-propriations Sub Committee on Interior and Rep. Joseph M. McDade, R-Pa., tie ranking Republican explained why: To add $100 million to the Interior Department funding bill would put it (33 million out of balance, as there is only a cushion of $7 million to spare in the bill now-that is it is only $7 million less than the budget estimate by the Administration. Ad-ministration. Further, they argued the public land states are getting materially higher , receipts from mineral and forestry S revenues, but they aren't passing them od the counties where the mineral production pro-duction and timber cut is. In addition, the Administration requested only $45 million for the PILT program, which it is now in the process of reviewing. The program must be overhauled, both Vales andlcDade underscored. Lugan and Marriott argued that PUT payments are made by the federal government directly to public land counties under the PILT Act of 1976 to "compensate county governments govern-ments for the loss of tax revenue they have incurred due to the ownership of federal land within their jurisdiction," asLujan put it. Public land counties count on PILT payments for operating expenses,, the too senior Interior Republicans pointed out, "so a loss of PILT payment would mean one of two things, higher local taxes or a cut in police and fire protection protec-tion and trash collection on the public lands within their borders. But Yates and McDade were adamant. ada-mant. The hassle over PILT payments led to this exchange on the House floor last week. Yates: "The Mineral Lease Act alone has doubled the receipts paid to the state of Utah. Does the gentleman from Utah (Marriott) know what the state of Utah conveys to the counties under this Mineral Leasing Act? The state of Utah passes thru 2 percent of the amount it receives. ..to the counties." Marriott: "The payments from mineral leasing to the states were in ex-istance ex-istance long before PILT came along" . in 1976. Yates: "The intent of the Mineral Leasing Act was for the money to be paid to the counties." Marriott: "Only three states of our 50 states pay money back to their counties (from the Mineral Leasing Act). It has never been understood by the states that they had to pay this money to the counties. ..if we have problems with the states (relative to) mineral revenue dollars why do we not do something about that? Why do we penalize the counties for problems that we have with the states?" Y'ates: "The states are the ones who are penalizing the counties. The federal government is making the payment to the states. Would the gentleman rather the money went directly to the counties? coun-ties? Then amend the Mineral Leasing Act to do that"-ie., make a direct pass thru from the federal government to the counties. Marriott: "I would be in favor of reviewing and analyzing the entire payment pay-ment situation, hut not penalizing the counties because we have a problem with the states. McDade pointed out the 1982 payments would not be made to the states until September 19!(2 so there is plenty of time to amend either the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to provide for a straight pass thru to the counties or the PILT Act of 1976. Both Yates and McDade noted the Administration favors revisions in the law.