[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 53 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3848-S3849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 826. A bill to limit the acquisition by the United States of land 
located in a State in which 25 percent or more of the land in that 
State is owned by the United States; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                    NO NET LOSS OF PRIVATE LANDS ACT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is really the ``No-Net-Gain'' bill 
that we have talked about before. The regulation is a commonsense 
proposal that will limit additional Federal land acquisition in public 
land States. The Federal Government continues to acquire more land 
throughout the Nation in every State of the Union, and folks are saying 
we have to take a new look at the growth of the Federal Government and 
begin to protect private property rights. This, however, only applies 
to States in which 25 percent or more of the State now belongs to the 
Federal Government. So, as you can imagine, the acquisition of 
additional lands is especially a problem for those of us living in the 
West.
  Roughly 50 percent of the land in my home State of Wyoming is owned 
by the Federal Government. In some States it is as high as 87 percent--
in Nevada. In Colorado, the home State of the Presiding Officer, it is 
higher than 50 percent. This bill deals with that sort of phenomenon. 
As you probably know, in the past, of course, much land was set aside 
in parks and forests. They were reserve lands. And I support that. I am 
glad they are set aside. These are national treasures and we want to 
keep them.
  Much of the land, of course, was then put into private ownership 
through the Homestead Act. When that was concluded, there were still 
lands there that were left afterwards, and they were taken and are now 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. These were not lands that 
were ever reserved; these were lands that were simply left over when 
the Homestead Act was completed.
  So they, too, are managed for many uses and are important. This bill 
in no way asks these total lands be reduced. We are simply saying 
whenever there is an acquisition made for something that is useful--and 
it does allow the Federal Government to do that, of course--that an 
equal value of land, Federal land, be sent back into private ownership.
  The Federal Government, of course, makes it a little more difficult 
sometimes in the States to have multiple use, to use them, to set them 
aside, to manage the environment, but at the same time have economic 
activities, to have mining, to have oil, to have timber, to have 
grazing. These are the things, of course, that are the lifeblood to the 
Western States. This creates often a hardship for the local economies; 
and it depresses the economy.
  The Clinton administration, I think, has been particularly difficult 
in the way it has handled some of the public lands. The latest 
proposal, the Lands Legacy Initiative, is an example of a rather 
expansive acquisition of Federal lands. Again I say I have no objection 
to the maintaining of lands that have a special character, that have a 
special need, to be reserved into public ownership. All we say is, if 
you are going to do that, then release an equal value amount of lands 
back into private ownership. Many of us are very concerned about the 
Lands Legacy Initiative, that it will again impede the private 
ownership, which, of course, is a very basic thing to this whole 
country.
  I think the time has come to put some kind of a bridle on the 
insatiable appetite for additional land in the western part of the 
United States. The No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act is, I think, a 
reasonable approach to an ever-increasing growth of Federal land 
ownership. This measure requires the Federal Government to release an 
equal value of land when it acquires property in the States that are at 
least 25 percent federally owned.

[[Page S3849]]

  The property would be released at the same time of the new 
acquisition and could be any type of Federal lands. In addition, the 
legislation would provide a provision waiving the disposal requirement 
in time of national emergency or war.
  While in the Congress, both in the House and the Senate, I have 
worked extensively to protect unique public lands, such as national 
parks. I served as chairman of the National Parks Committee. I think 
there is nothing more important to us, in terms of preserving natural 
resources and cultural resources.
  In fact, we passed a rather extensive bill called Vision 20/20 last 
year that does this. It helps to strengthen national parks. When I grew 
up, my parents' ranch bordered the Shoshone National Forest, so I feel 
very strongly about forests and that they should be there, but I do 
believe there needs to be some equality between the private ownership 
and Federal ownership. So it is time for the Congress to protect the 
rights of private owners and to instill some common sense and restraint 
in the further acquisition and growth of Federal lands. That is what 
this bill is designed to do. And I indicate the cosponsorship of 
Senator Kyl and Senator Helms.
                                 ______