[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S1395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Helms):
  S. 322. 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.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the no net loss 
of private lands bill. This legislation has to do with acquisition of 
lands by the Federal Government, particularly lands to be acquired by 
the Federal Government in the West. This is a commonsense proposal, I 
believe, to Federal land acquisitions in public land States of the 
West.
  The Federal Government continues to acquire large amounts of land 
throughout the Nation. In many instances, it is justified. There are 
many reasons why land should be acquired, but there does become a 
question of how much land in any given State will belong to the Federal 
Government.
  In almost every State, officials and concerned citizens are saying we 
need to address this question of public land needs before we continue 
to increase the holdings of the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government is not always the best neighbor of the people in the West, 
largely because so much land in our States--in my State, 50 percent of 
the State--belongs to the Federal Government. Even though everyone 
wants to protect the lands, and that is an obligation we all have, we 
also have an opportunity for the most part to use these lands in 
multiple use. We should be able to have both access for hunting, 
fishing, grazing, for visitation and camping, and use the lands for 
other economic activity in such a way that we can protect the 
environment.
  What we have run into from time to time is the effort to lock up the 
public lands and restrict access. We find this happening in a number of 
ways, including excessive emphasis on roads, where people cannot have 
access to the lands they occupy.
  Interestingly enough, we hear from all kinds of people. Often they 
say it is the oil companies. As a matter of fact, it is often disabled 
veterans. For example, they say they would like to go into the back 
country and get into some of the public lands, but if we don't have 
highway access for doing that, it is impossible.

  This setting aside and this decisionmaking that comes from the top 
down creates great hardships for many local communities, destroys jobs, 
and depresses the economy in many places around the West. As we provide 
funds--and there is always a proposition to provide automatic funding 
for acquisition--it threatens the culture, it threatens the economics 
of many of our States and local governments, and the rights of 
individual property owners throughout the Nation. Even this proposed 
language would put constraints on mandatory spending and Federal land 
acquisition. If we don't do that, we will see it increasing at a faster 
and faster pace.
  How does it work? The bill limits the amount of private land the 
Federal Government acquires in States where 25 percent or more now 
belongs to the Federal Government. When a Federal Government has 
reason, and they will have reasons to purchase 100 acres or more, it 
will require disposing of an equal value of amount away from Federal 
ownership. If there is 40-percent Federal ownership in your State, and 
there were good reasons to acquire more, there would have to be an 
exchange of lands so the 40-percent factor continues.
  Fifty percent of Wyoming and much of the West is already owned by the 
Federal Government. Many people throughout the country don't realize 
that. They know about Yellowstone Park. But much of the State was left 
in Federal ownership when the homestead proposition was completed and 
these lands were never really set aside for value of the land. They 
were just there when this homestead stopped. They came under Federal 
ownership, not because of any particular reason but because that is the 
way it was at that time.

  I think it is time for the Federal Government to make a move to 
protect private property owners and use restraint in terms of land 
acquisition. The no net loss of private lands acquisition bill will 
provide that discipline. As I mentioned, this amendment does not limit 
the ability to acquire pristine or special areas in the future, areas 
that have a particular use and that use should be under Federal 
ownership. They can continue to acquire more land in many areas. But in 
order to do that, as I mentioned, there would have to be some trading.
  Regarding the Federal land ownership pattern, I suppose many people 
expected more, but in Alaska almost 68 percent of the State belongs to 
the Federal Government. Even in Arizona, as highly populated as it is, 
almost half, 47 percent, is Federally owned. In Colorado, it is 36 
percent; in Idaho, 61 percent of the State is in Federal ownership; the 
number in Montana is 28 percent, and Nevada is 83 percent federally 
owned. Really, you could make a case that much of this land could be 
better managed by local or State governments or if it were in the 
private sector. In New Mexico, the percentage of Federal land ownership 
is 33 percent; Oregon, 52; Utah, 64; Washington, 29; and Wyoming, 49 
percent.
  So we are talking about providing an opportunity for the Federal 
Government to continue to acquire those lands if there is good reason 
to do that, but to recognize the impact that it does have on private 
ownership, on the economy, and on the culture of the states. We have 
some offsets.
  In our State, we have 23 counties. They are quite different, but in 
some of those counties--for instance, my home county, ark County, Cody, 
WY, which is right outside of Yellowstone Park--82 percent of that 
county belongs to the Federal Government. In Teton County, next to 
Yellowstone, It is 96 percent. Four percent of Teton's land is in non-
Federal ownership.
  I think this is a reasonable thing to do. It certainly does not 
preclude the acquisition of lands the Federal Government has a good 
reason to acquire. It simply says if you want to acquire some, let's 
take a look at the other 50 percent that you already own of the State 
and see if we can't dispose of something in equal value.
                                 ______