Payments to counties in fiscal year 1963 under present law an estimated 1963 Payments to counties in fiscal year 1963 under present law an estimated 1963 1 Lands under primary administration of Corps of Engineers which distributes 75 percent of receipts Lands under primary administration of TVA which distributes 5 percent of gross proceeds from sale Estimated payments from: Acquired lands.. Public lands.. Total... Mr. BONNER. What does that total? $708, 213 736, 151 Mr. McBROOM. The total expenditures, this is without the option Mr. BONNER. That is the land that you already own in fee simple? Mr. BONNER. Now, do you have a list of the land that you propose Mr. McBROOM. No; we do not have a list of land we propose to acquire. In our planning we do have land acquisitions scheduled, generally outlining areas of our interest, but that is not firm enough now so that we can get this kind of figures from them. Mr. BONNER. Based on the land you have now, what would be the cost under the option plan? Mr. McBROOM. As I indicated, our total payments to counties would be $1,671,460 under the option plan as of 1968. Mr. BONNER. What are these two figures added together, the last figure and the first figure, the totals? Mr. McBROOM. The first figure I gave you was part of the second figure. We now pay, Mr. Bonner, $587,710, based on our present holdings in 1963. If the Department's proposed bill had been law in 1963, we would have paid $736,151. Now, projecting as we have into the end of the accelerated program, incuding the option, we would pay to the counties $1,671,460. Mr. BONNER. What are those total figures? Mr. McBROOM. Well, sir, they are not additive, really. Each of the smaller figures is included in the larger figure. Mr. BONNER. All I am trying to get at is what you are paying now, what you would pay under this bill, and then what you would anticipate paying under acquisition. Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. Mr. BONNER. Now, what are those figures? Do you have any idea of what they are? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. We are now paying $587,710. Mr. BONNER. Then you pay 700 and something. Mr. McBROOM. Yes, in 1963, if the Department's bill had been law in 1963, we would have paid under the three-quarters percent, without the option, $736,151. Mr. BONNER. All right, then what do you estimate the anticipated acquisition costs will be to that figure? Mr. McBROOM. Well, the anticipated acquisition cost of the land itself? Mr. BONNER. In payments to the counties. Mr. McBROOM. In payments to the counties, it would be the difference between $1,671,460 and the $736,000. The additional cost thus would be about $935,000. Mr. BONNER. What is the whole cost? Mr. McBROOM. $1,671,460. Mr. BONNER. And you have $3 million that you are certain as to revenue? Mr. McBROOM. We are not certain, but that is our best and a rather conservative estimate. We are certain of our 1963 figure of $2,350,000. That is an actual figure of last year. Mr. BONNER. Louisiana is not going to give out of gas, I do not think. Mr. McBROOM. No, sir; we would not expect that. Mr. BONNER. Then from these figures you would have enough to pay the optional plan? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir; we expect we would. Mr. BONNER. Well, what is the argument about? Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the gentleman from the Department once again maybe I can clarify this thing in my own mind. Last year, fiscal 1963, you paid out what to the counties now under the 25-percent distribution? Mr. McBROOM. $587,710. Mr. LENNON. Now, if you had had during fiscal year 1963 the threequarters of 1 percent and paid that to the counties, how much would you have paid? Mr. McBROOM. We would have paid $736,151. Mr. LENNON. Less than $200,000 more. Mr. McBROOM. About $148,441 more. Mr. LENNON. But in North Carolina in two reservations alone you would have paid $23,581 more? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. Mr. LENNON. That would make the big difference? Mr. McBROOM. No, sir. It must be remembered that under our formula in this bill some counties would get less. In some cases, quite a little less; 211 counties would have gotten more out of our bill than they actually got in 1963, 14 counties would get the same, and 18 counties would get less under the bill Mr. LENNON. How would they get less if you had both the 25 percent and the three-quarters of 1 percent? Mr. McBROOM. No, sir; I said under our bill. Our bill does not include the option. Without the option Mr. LENNON. But the original bill, the original bill provided for the continuation of the 25 percent? Mr. McBROOM. No, sir; only as to public lands. Mr. LENNON. As to public lands only? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. The original bill would replace the 25 percent on acquired land which goes to the county by the three-quarters of 1 percent system. Mr. LENNON. So, you are making your calculation on the basis of the bill which did not provide for the option. Mr. McBROOм. That is right. The calculation I just gave you. On the table which was called for and which I put into the record, the calculation was based on the option. Mr. LENNON. But the figures of last year, the difference between $587,710 and $736,000 was not based on the option at all, but just on the three-quarters of 1 percent? Mr. McBROOм. That is correct. I could give you the amount under the option plan, I have it right here. On the basis of three-quarters of 1 percent, with the option, the total payment to the county, to all the counties, would have been $1,077,460. Mr. LENNON. Let me ask you, then, if you have no reason to believe that there will be a time when you cannot meet the terms of this bill, why do you object to the inclusion of that subsection (d)? Is it a precedent you say that we are legislatively setting that you oppose? Mr. McBROOM. Well, sir, it is a matter that goes, I think, beyond our Bureau and perhaps our Department. It is a matter of the relationship of the whole Federal Establishment with all the counties There have been commissions and studies over a period of 25 years trying to solve this problem of how you get money from the Federal Government to the counties when lands are acquired by the Federal Government. None have come up with an equitable solution that could apply all the way across the board for the whole Federal Government. But one principle has been enunciated and that is opposition to the use of appropriated funds, appropriated by this Congress to an executive agency, to pay money in lieu of taxes directly to the counties. This principle is a strong one. Mr. THOMPSON. Would the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. LENNON. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Would you not consider, however, that with section (d) as it is included in the bill, that 95 percent, if not 100 percent, of the counties would fare much better than they have fared in the past? Mr. McBROOм. That is certainly true, Mr. Chairman, and it is a very splendid point to bring out here. The question, I think, is whether we want to improve the lot for 211 out of 243 counties, involved in this bill under a system which will not be out of the ball park as far as the whole Federal Establishment goes. The alternative is to go on like we are, where Dare County, N.C., get $19. We do not think that is equitable, and we think it ought to be changed. Mr. THOMPSON. The Chair would like to say at this point, discretion can be the better part of valor. If we are making this big step forward, taking in view a little bit of conservative mindedness, that we should protect the Federal Government to that extent until we see whether it is working inequitably. Mr. McBROOM. I cannot speak for the Bureau of the Budget on its views, but I believe they would object at this time to any suggestion to use appropriated Federal funds to pay to a county government funds in lieu of taxes. Mr. THOMPSON. Gentlemen, we are going to have to move along. Mr. BONNER. Would you yield? Mr. LENNON. I yielded the floor. Mr. BONNER. Will you explain how 18 counties will get less? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir; they would not Mr. BONNER. Under the option plan. Mr. McBROOM. Under the option plan, none would get less. Mr. BONNER. That is what I thought. Mr. McBROOM. Eighteen counties would get less under the bill that was sent before the committee by the Department. Mr. BONNER. The original bill? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Pelly. Mr. PELLY. I would like to have in the record at this point the position of the Department as far as this option plan goes. Was this socalled Metcalf provision in the bill in the Senate? Was there any position taken by the Department on it? Mr. McBROOM. No, sir; and I am not in a position to take any position on it here this morning. Mr. PELLY. Well, I think we should have it before we act on this bill, Mr. Chairman. |