Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the day. At 12:30, the Senate will recess for weekly party conferences to meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, there will be an additional period of morning business to allow Senators to introduce legislation and to make statements. By previous consent, when the Senate completes its business this afternoon, it will recess until 8:30 tonight. Senators are reminded to be in the Senate Chamber by 8:30 to proceed as a body at 8:40 this evening to the Hall of the House of Representatives for the President's address.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2001. The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve. In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. Not long ago, the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's Rule relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of as opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the state was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately needed to the Endangered Species Act. Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were being filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my state over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival. My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer- reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analyses of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role. This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices. In the past in my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened? This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over- zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species? This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require. Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise the end of the process the de-listing procedure. Recovery and delisting are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to currently de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process and the states the folks who have all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed. Wyoming's experience with the grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this one to no avail, despite tremendous effort and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole. The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big impacts. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lost sight of the real goal recovery and delisting. I ask unamious consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide recreational snowmobile access to certain units of the National Park System, and for other purposes. Recently many of my constituents in and around Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks witnessed the bureaucracy exercise its powers and run roughshod over those who disagreed with its findings. For years, the National Park Service managed and encouraged recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and on the adjacent John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, providing thousands of Americans an opportunity to enjoy the winter wonders of the Yellowstone plateau and the majestic surrounding countryside. Instead of continuing this reasonable approach to winter access, or constructively addressing perceived adverse issues; The Clinton administration hijacked the National Park Service effort to update Yellowstone's winter use management plan; corrupted the environmental impact statement process; cut off meaningful participation by cooperating states, local communities and citizens; disregarded critical facts and science, and injected new anti-snowmobile alternatives into the process at the last moment. In short, federal land managers cast aside their statutory duties and obligations and instead accepted interpretations of law twisted to stage a grand political gesture--the banning of snowmobiles from National Parks, including Yellowstone and Grand Teton. Snowmobiles often come under fire from those who suspect that the machines degrade air and water quality, despite the fact that scientists were unable to produce or confirm any resource degradation in the recent environmental impact study conducted by the National Park Service. In this regard, I have met personally with the presidents and CEO's of the four major snowmobile manufacturers. They have informed me, that as soon as the Environmental Protection Agency issues emission standards, they can produce and market snowmobiles that meet or exceed the standards within three years. Mr. President, the industry only needs to have the emission standards set so that they can get on with their business. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, was in the process of creating standards; however, EPA employees were told to stand down by the President's appointees until the Yellowstone scenario was played out. They did not want to be confused by the facts nor did they desire to constructively address the perceived problems. Headlines were more important than people as well as the economic viability of small communities and businesses in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Press reports were more important than providing winter visitors continued access to their parks. The bureaucrats did decide that the ``snowcoach only no other snowmachine'' scenario is the only way people should enjoy, experience and view the majesty that winter brings to the Yellowstone region. The ``snowcoach only'' scenario is unfortunately another bureaucratic snafu. No one considered that today's snowcoach is mechanically unreliable and it lacks the speed necessary to see much of the park in a day. While the snowcoach may be the correct and preferred mode of transportation for some, it is not for many. Telling local businessmen that more comfortable, more reliable snowcoaches will be developed in the next few years at taxpayer expense serves absolutely no purpose. I know of no such budget request or plan and I know of no one willing to invest in such a risky scheme. I do know that a viable alternative for winter access is possible. More importantly, access can be attained in an environmentally sound manner. It is not an issue that should be ignored. I doubt that the new rules and regulations will stand the scrutiny of our court system. The International Snowmobile Manufacturer's Association and other parties have already filed suit against the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service challenging the government's arbitrary and capricious decision to reverse decades of traditional activity. In watching the progress and the mistakes made, along with the information and facts ignored, I believe there is a real possibility that the newly issued rules and regulations will be overturned. It is for this reason that I am introducing this legislation today. I believe that a proactive, constructive and environmentally sound approval to winter access to our parks needs to be discussed and implemented. This legislation, when enacted, will: (1) direct the EPA, within two years, to promulgate final national standards governing emissions by snowmobiles; (2) the National Park Service, in conjunction with the Society of Automotive Engineers, shall set noise standards for snowmobile use in the National Park System, and (3) not later than five years after the enactment of this act, the National Park Service will not allow a snowmachine to operate within the boundaries of a park that does not meet the new emission and noise standards. The measure also provides the Secretary with authorities to close portions of parks if damage to the resource can be shown and the bill requires comprehensive studies; which, to date, have not been completed, much less initiated. The studies will assess the impacts of recreational snowmobile use within the affected units of the System on park resources, visitor use and enjoyment, and adjacent communities. I am not suggesting that snowmachine users have unfettered access across park lands. Any use will be closely monitored and highly regulated. Some are unaware of the fact that currently snowmachines in parks are limited to the same established roadways used by hundreds of automobiles during the summer months. The users are not allowed to travel at will in parks as they are allowed on other federal lands. There will be some who will admit that cleaner, quieter machines are not that much different than the automobiles that tend to clog our park roadways from time to time. They would be correct, except that there are far fewer snowmachines visiting our parks than there are automobiles. They will point out; however, that snowmachines harass wildlife. Some of the folks at Yellowstone coined a phrase--``bison ping pong'' Evidently, there is a VCR tape that has been circulated showing two individuals on snowmobiles harassing a bison within the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. I have not seen the tape and I cannot attest to its veracity. Currently, there are laws that make it a federal crime to engage or participate in such activities. The National Park Service has all of the powers and authorities it needs to address this management problem or illegal activity, if indeed, it exists. I would advocate, that anyone apprehended in a park engaged in this sort of illegal activity, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and in addition to fines and jail time, their machines should be confiscated. The bottom line in the snowmobile debate is that with a little care, the program can be well managed, without causing damage to the park resources, including the wildlife therein. Finally, I am committed to work with my colleagues toward the passage of this legislation. I am willing to compromise where necessary and I am willing to listen to all sides of this issue. I firmly believe that we can reach resolution. The concept and management style which advocates the theory that there may be a problem with a particular activity, but we don't really know what the problem is--therefore the activity should be eliminated no matter who or what is inconvenienced, forced out of business, or denied access to our natural treasures--should not be allowed to continue unchecked. I am an avid supporter and protector of our National Park System. I firmly believe this winter use can be accommodated through good management, good science and a little common sense. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a synopsis of snowmobile regulations, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2001. The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve. In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. Not long ago, the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's Rule relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of as opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the state was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately needed to the Endangered Species Act. Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were being filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my state over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival. My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer- reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analyses of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role. This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices. In the past in my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened? This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over- zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species? This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require. Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise the end of the process the de-listing procedure. Recovery and delisting are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to currently de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process and the states the folks who have all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed. Wyoming's experience with the grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this one to no avail, despite tremendous effort and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole. The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big impacts. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lost sight of the real goal recovery and delisting. I ask unamious consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide recreational snowmobile access to certain units of the National Park System, and for other purposes. Recently many of my constituents in and around Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks witnessed the bureaucracy exercise its powers and run roughshod over those who disagreed with its findings. For years, the National Park Service managed and encouraged recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and on the adjacent John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, providing thousands of Americans an opportunity to enjoy the winter wonders of the Yellowstone plateau and the majestic surrounding countryside. Instead of continuing this reasonable approach to winter access, or constructively addressing perceived adverse issues; The Clinton administration hijacked the National Park Service effort to update Yellowstone's winter use management plan; corrupted the environmental impact statement process; cut off meaningful participation by cooperating states, local communities and citizens; disregarded critical facts and science, and injected new anti-snowmobile alternatives into the process at the last moment. In short, federal land managers cast aside their statutory duties and obligations and instead accepted interpretations of law twisted to stage a grand political gesture--the banning of snowmobiles from National Parks, including Yellowstone and Grand Teton. Snowmobiles often come under fire from those who suspect that the machines degrade air and water quality, despite the fact that scientists were unable to produce or confirm any resource degradation in the recent environmental impact study conducted by the National Park Service. In this regard, I have met personally with the presidents and CEO's of the four major snowmobile manufacturers. They have informed me, that as soon as the Environmental Protection Agency issues emission standards, they can produce and market snowmobiles that meet or exceed the standards within three years. Mr. President, the industry only needs to have the emission standards set so that they can get on with their business. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, was in the process of creating standards; however, EPA employees were told to stand down by the President's appointees until the Yellowstone scenario was played out. They did not want to be confused by the facts nor did they desire to constructively address the perceived problems. Headlines were more important than people as well as the economic viability of small communities and businesses in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Press reports were more important than providing winter visitors continued access to their parks. The bureaucrats did decide that the ``snowcoach only no other snowmachine'' scenario is the only way people should enjoy, experience and view the majesty that winter brings to the Yellowstone region. The ``snowcoach only'' scenario is unfortunately another bureaucratic snafu. No one considered that today's snowcoach is mechanically unreliable and it lacks the speed necessary to see much of the park in a day. While the snowcoach may be the correct and preferred mode of transportation for some, it is not for many. Telling local businessmen that more comfortable, more reliable snowcoaches will be developed in the next few years at taxpayer expense serves absolutely no purpose. I know of no such budget request or plan and I know of no one willing to invest in such a risky scheme. I do know that a viable alternative for winter access is possible. More importantly, access can be attained in an environmentally sound manner. It is not an issue that should be ignored. I doubt that the new rules and regulations will stand the scrutiny of our court system. The International Snowmobile Manufacturer's Association and other parties have already filed suit against the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service challenging the government's arbitrary and capricious decision to reverse decades of traditional activity. In watching the progress and the mistakes made, along with the information and facts ignored, I believe there is a real possibility that the newly issued rules and regulations will be overturned. It is for this reason that I am introducing this legislation today. I believe that a proactive, constructive and environmentally sound approval to winter access to our parks needs to be discussed and implemented. This legislation, when enacted, will: (1) direct the EPA, within two years, to promulgate final national standards governing emissions by snowmobiles; (2) the National Park Service, in conjunction with the Society of Automotive Engineers, shall set noise standards for snowmobile use in the National Park System, and (3) not later than five years after the enactment of this act, the National Park Service will not allow a snowmachine to operate within the boundaries of a park that does not meet the new emission and noise standards. The measure also provides the Secretary with authorities to close portions of parks if damage to the resource can be shown and the bill requires comprehensive studies; which, to date, have not been completed, much less initiated. The studies will assess the impacts of recreational snowmobile use within the affected units of the System on park resources, visitor use and enjoyment, and adjacent communities. I am not suggesting that snowmachine users have unfettered access across park lands. Any use will be closely monitored and highly regulated. Some are unaware of the fact that currently snowmachines in parks are limited to the same established roadways used by hundreds of automobiles during the summer months. The users are not allowed to travel at will in parks as they are allowed on other federal lands. There will be some who will admit that cleaner, quieter machines are not that much different than the automobiles that tend to clog our park roadways from time to time. They would be correct, except that there are far fewer snowmachines visiting our parks than there are automobiles. They will point out; however, that snowmachines harass wildlife. Some of the folks at Yellowstone coined a phrase--``bison ping pong'' Evidently, there is a VCR tape that has been circulated showing two individuals on snowmobiles harassing a bison within the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. I have not seen the tape and I cannot attest to its veracity. Currently, there are laws that make it a federal crime to engage or participate in such activities. The National Park Service has all of the powers and authorities it needs to address this management problem or illegal activity, if indeed, it exists. I would advocate, that anyone apprehended in a park engaged in this sort of illegal activity, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and in addition to fines and jail time, their machines should be confiscated. The bottom line in the snowmobile debate is that with a little care, the program can be well managed, without causing damage to the park resources, including the wildlife therein. Finally, I am committed to work with my colleagues toward the passage of this legislation. I am willing to compromise where necessary and I am willing to listen to all sides of this issue. I firmly believe that we can reach resolution. The concept and management style which advocates the theory that there may be a problem with a particular activity, but we don't really know what the problem is--therefore the activity should be eliminated no matter who or what is inconvenienced, forced out of business, or denied access to our natural treasures--should not be allowed to continue unchecked. I am an avid supporter and protector of our National Park System. I firmly believe this winter use can be accommodated through good management, good science and a little common sense. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a synopsis of snowmobile regulations, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the morning until 2 o'clock. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 320 regarding copyright and patent laws. By previous consent, there will be up to 1 hour of debate on the bill, with the vote on passage expected to occur at approximately 3 p.m. There may be some slippage of time there. Some Members may be returning, I believe, from West Virginia. It could be 3:15. The Senate could also consider the Paul Coverdell Peace Corps bill and the small business advocacy bill during this week's session, as well as any executive nominations that are available. I yield the floor. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 322 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS

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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nomination of Joe M. Allbaugh to be Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, at 9 a.m. on airline customer service.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, to conduct an oversight hearing to receive the semiannual report of the Federal Reserve as mandated by the Federal Reporting Act of 2000.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed sessions to receive testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``The Nursing Shortage and Its Impact on America's Health Care Delivery System.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am waiting for one of our associates to come. In the meantime, I want to begin some conversation and discussion about the topic of the week, which the President has been working on certainly, and that is strengthening our national security. I suspect most people would agree that the responsibility for defense is perhaps the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government. It is the activity that no other government at any other level can handle. It is the thing that, of course, all of us are very aware of. We are constantly grateful for the kinds of things that have been done to preserve our freedom by the military over the years. For more than 200 years, the military has been that arm of Government that has preserved our freedom. Many people have sacrificed, including the soldiers, sailors, and the marines, over the years. So as we face the question of defense and the military, that is one of the things with which we are obviously most concerned. The President has put this as one of his high priorities, and I think properly so. Clearly, over the last 8 years, specifically, the military has not been supported to meet the kinds of needs they have had. I think it is very clear that there are at least two kinds of questions to be answered as we go about funding the military. One has to do with improving the quality of life for military personnel. The other, then, has to do with the idea of examining the structure, examining where we are in terms of the military and how it meets today's needs and the changing needs that obviously have happened around us. I think the President has been very wise to commit himself to some payments soon to help with the quality of life for the military. I think equally as important has been his request for some studies, bottom-up analyses, of the military prior to making any substantial changes in the way the military is structured, the kinds of weapons that are necessary and those things that will deal with that aspect of it. With regard to quality of life, certainly one of the things that is important, obviously, is that the military is built around personnel, around the idea that you have men and women willing to serve. We now have a voluntary military, of course, so that it has to be made somewhat attractive for people to be interested in joining the military, so that recruitment can be kept up. Equally as important, of course, is after the training that takes place in the military, it is necessary to have the kind of arrangement where people can stay there once trained, whether it be airplane mechanics, or pilots, or whatever, to leave the training and their training goes unused. So the President has, I believe yesterday, gone down to Georgia and committed himself to some things to improve the lives of our troops--to raise military pay, renovate substandard housing, to improve military training, and take a look at health care, as well as some deployments in which we have been involved. The President will announce, as I understand it, about a $5.76 billion increase, which will include $1.5 billion for military pay, which is in the process and should be in the process of causing these folks to be able to come a little closer to competition with the private sector; about $400 million for improving military housing; and almost $4 billion to improve health care for the military. I believe these things are very necessary and should happen as quickly as possible. I have had the occasion and honor over the last month or so to visit a couple military bases, Warren Air Force Base in my home State, a missile base in Cheyenne, WY, and Quantico, VA, the Marine Corps base close to D.C., here, where I went through training for the Marine Corps many years ago. It is an interesting place. In both instances, the first priority on these bases was housing, places for enlisted NCOs, officers, to live on base. As to the housing in both instances, it is interesting. As different as these two bases were, and as far as they were apart, the problems in housing were very similar. Housing that had been built back in the thirties was still being used. It really had gone to the extent that rather than being renovated or repaired, it wasn't worth that; it had to be destroyed and replaced. Some, of course, could be fixed up. It is very difficult, particularly for enlisted with families, No. 1, find a place to live, particularly at a place such as Quantico, but more importantly to have it economically reasonably attractive for these folks. As we move toward this, I hope the President will maintain--and I want to comment on this later--his commitment to doing something immediately for the personnel, and then to go through this study. I think there is a great deal that needs to be done in terms of how the military is structured. It is quite different now. Obviously, our big problem now is terrorism. There are problems around the world in smaller units. We are not talking about ships full of divisions of troops with tanks landing somewhere. We are talking about something that can move quickly and is available to move and sustain itself without logistical support for some time. These are things that I think are very important. I intend to come back later this morning and talk more about this. In the meantime, I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will continue on with a few more comments about the national security issue, which is being highlighted this week, of course, by the President. We have talked about the most obvious issue dealing with the military; that is, having to do something for personnel. Without that, we can't have a military. We can't have defense. Furthermore, it is very unfair. We ask people in the military to serve the country, and they do that willingly. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are reasonably reimbursed and their living conditions are kept as high as possible. Obviously, the military budget is one of considerable concern. It is the largest item in discretionary spending. We have discretionary spending of about $630 billion. Nearly half of that, $300 billion, is defense. It is very large. On the other hand, when we ask our country to defend against threats around the world --and this is not necessarily a peaceful world at this time--then we have to expect that it will be costly. We are faced with, of course--at least in the notion of many--what has been a period somewhat of neglect over the last 8 years where the military has not had the highest priority, has not had as high a level of support as many believe it should have. Last year the uniformed Service Chiefs testified to a requirement of between $48 and $58 billion per year in additional funding above the 5- year projected budget. That is the impression, that is the notion from the military leadership of the amount of dollars that are essential. One of the things that makes that even more obvious in terms of needs is that while the military has not been supported as highly and as strongly as it might be, this administration that just passed has deployed more troops overseas than at any previous time during the same length of time. In the past decade, our active duty manpower has been reduced by about a third, active Army divisions have been cut by almost 50 percent. Not all that is bad, of course. As the Senator from Iowa indicated, there are changes that need to be made. Certainly the economic accounting, the management of the economics in the military could stand some strengthening. I am sure that is the case. We ought to expect that kind of expenditure of taxpayer dollars. However, we do find ourselves in a state where we do need to change things. The lack of spare parts for aging systems has forced the military to take parts off of other vehicles and other airplanes and cannibalize other kinds of things. It is so widespread that personnel in the Air Force apparently spent 178,000 man-hours over 2 years removing parts from bombers and fighters and transports, some of those kinds of things that certainly do not bode well for the kind of military we, indeed, want to have. Obviously, there are needs for change. Often bureaucracies--and frankly, the military has its share of bureaucracies--find it difficult to make change: We have always done it that way so we are going to continue to do it that way. Certainly that can't be the case with the military, as things have changed substantially. I heard testimony this week before one of the committees that indicated there could be a good deal more cooperation and unification among the branches of the military to make it more economic. That is probably true. One of the items that is being considered is the national missile defense. There is a great deal of interest in that. It is not a new idea. It has been around for about 20 years. It certainly has merit. If we thought we could develop some kind of an overall network of defense mechanisms, that would be a wonderful thing to do. On the other hand, there is substantial question about what the costs would be. I think there is substantial question even about the technology. It has not yet been developed. I favor moving toward a national missile defense. I don't think we are ready to sacrifice some of the other things that we do because we are talking about doing a national missile defense. First of all, as I mentioned, it is very expensive. We don't really know the cost. I have been to Space Command in Colorado Springs, CO. They indicated that even though they are enthusiastic about it and doing experiments, we haven't reached the technological level where it would work. I think there is a legitimate role for the missile defense soon. However, I think we are going to run into, No. 1, the cost; and No. 2, technology; and, No. 3, certainly we are going to have difficulties dealing with some other countries in terms of the agreements that we have. I think we need to understand that, at least from what we know about it now, it is going to be a relatively limited defense system, probably based on the islands of Alaska. It will be designed to deal with rogue states that have very limited capacity but certainly have the scary capacity to put a missile in the United States, even though certainly that would not win a conflict for them. But it would do a great deal of damage to us. I think the Space Command is working on the kind of system that would be there in case something came from a couple of the countries that are likely to be out of control in doing these kinds of things. They would be limited to defending against a limited number of reentry vehicles. They would not be able to deal with the whole issue of a major missile attack, of course. I guess what I am saying is that we now have a nuclear capacity of our own, probably the strongest in the world. We have had it for a good long time. We deal in three areas, of course, land-based missiles, ship-to-ground missiles, and ground-to-air missiles. They constitute a very important part of our defense in terms of a deterrent. I think it is very necessary to continue to do that. The President has talked about reducing the number of nuclear weapons. I think that makes sense. We are in the process of doing that now. We are in the process of removing some of our missiles under START I, and we are moving toward the restrictions that will be there in START II, in terms of the land-based missiles we have had over time, of course, the peacekeepers that have been multiple warhead missiles. These are being changed and replaced by the Minuteman III missiles, which would be a single warhead. We can do a good deal of reduction through this ongoing arrangement. There needs, in my view, however, to be the time START II or even START III was agreed to with the Russians, a minimum of 500 missiles that we would have, which brings us down to that 2,000 missiles that we talked about--the warheads we talked about in START I and II. We could do that. There is some talk about the idea of a hair trigger alert. There was something on TV last weekend, taken from the command room in one of these missile silos. I have been through this, and the fact is, there is a real system for ensuring that is not a hair trigger kind of a thing. It doesn't happen unless there is approval from three different areas before that happens. But more important than anything, I think it does really take from us the day-to-day deterrent that is out there, and the idea, of course, that if you only had a few missiles, we put your missiles in that place and do away with those-- when you have them spread as we do now, basically about three different places land-based, then it is possible to do that. I guess I am encouraged that we are talking about a missile defense system, that it would be there to augment the idea of maintaining our capacity to have this deterrence. I think it is terribly important that we do that as part of our strategy. We can move forward to reduce those numbers and get down to a START II agreement. I hope we do that. We are going to be going forward, of course, on a number of things that all have to do with budgets, all have to do, then, with surpluses and taxes. These things are all related, of course, and should be. I am hopeful, frankly, from the standpoint of the budget, that the President pursues the idea that we ought to be able to have a budget that is basically inflation increases, which we overstepped last year substantially. Occasionally, there are areas--certainly in health care--where we are going to want to expand. But I think regardless of the surplus it is important that we try to keep Government spending under control in some way. We seem to think if there is money, we ought to spend it. I think when you go out into the country and talk to people, they are very concerned about having a Federal Government that is continuously growing, that is more and more involved in our lives. And we would like to see these kinds of activities shifted back to the States, counties, and local governments, where government is closest to the people being governed. So when we talk about budgets, we have to look at that in terms of the tax reductions. We are finding from the other side of the aisle a good deal of resistance to returning the money that people have overpaid in taxes to the people who paid it. That is a pretty stiff argument to undertake. We need, of course, to set up spending to pay down the debt. I think we have an opportunity to deal with these things in a balanced way so we can come out of this session of Congress--if we are really persuaded as to what we want to do, I hope we may give some thought, individually and collectively, to what we want to have accomplished when this session of Congress is over. What do we want to say we have done in terms of tax relief? What have we been able to accomplish? What do we want to say we have been able to do in terms of controlling spending? What are our goals in terms of paying down the debt? I think these are some of the things we talk about a great deal. We talk about them kind of independently and, obviously, everybody has a different idea, and that is legitimate. It seems to me that we ought to be able to establish fairly and collectively some goals, some vision of where we want to be, what we want to have accomplished when these 2 years are over, and then be able to measure the things we do against the attainment of those goals. Unfortunately, I am afraid that, from time to time, it is not always the measurement of individual actions as to how they contribute to overall attainment. Will there be agreement on all of those things? Of course not. That is the nature of this place, the nature of any group that makes decisions. They don't all agree. They have different views and values, and we have to deal with that. There is nothing wrong with that. But we do want to be able to move toward accomplishing those things that we believe are good for the country, good for the long-term merits, and that, it seems to me, is our challenge. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State and Local Government Participation Act of 2001 which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that federal agencies identify state, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA. NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action. Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many states throughout the nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on federal lands, NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these federal lands for their existence. The State and Local Government Participation Act is designed to provide for greater input from state and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that state, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival. States and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on federal lands in their state. Too often, federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, D.C. or New York City than the people who actually live in the state where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities is vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The State and Local Government Participation Act of 2001 will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decisions that will affect their lives.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State and Local Government Participation Act of 2001 which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that federal agencies identify state, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA. NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action. Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many states throughout the nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on federal lands, NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these federal lands for their existence. The State and Local Government Participation Act is designed to provide for greater input from state and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that state, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival. States and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on federal lands in their state. Too often, federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, D.C. or New York City than the people who actually live in the state where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities is vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The State and Local Government Participation Act of 2001 will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decisions that will affect their lives.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this, obviously, is the week and the time to be talking about taxes, tax relief, and tax reductions. It is an appropriate time to deal with all of the involved issues. Certainly, the President has talked a great deal about his tax plan not only in the campaign but certainly now as he is prepared to reveal and unveil this plan of relieving the tax burden on all taxpayers. The plan, of course, is oriented toward stimulating economic growth, reducing family tax burdens, and saving family estates from the auction block, and hopefully making this Tax Code simpler and more fair. That is an important aspect of it. We talk all the time about the Tax Code being so detailed and complex, and yet we do not do much about it. I hope we do not start seeking to have directed tax reductions here, there, and other places, aimed more at behavior than at tax reductions. This is designed to make it simpler, and that is important. The case for the President's relief package is strong. First, there is a record surplus of taxes coming in. It is really a tax overpayment. That makes possible a policy of paying down the debt and reducing taxes on working families. Second, the slowing down of the economy has many people concerned and properly so. Absent some kind of fiscal stimulus, our record economic expansion may turn downward and into a recession. The third argument is the one my friends have talked about this morning, but I think it is really the issue for most of us, and that is the burgeoning tax burden on American families. No matter how one looks at it as a proportion of national income, the burden persists as compared to other family expenses. Actual time spent working just to fund the Federal Government is taking more of a typical family's income than at any other time in history. Isn't that interesting? Almost any time in history. Federal revenues for fiscal year 2000 pulled more than $2 trillion out of the economy for the first time in American history. Along with that being the highest level ever, the Federal tax burden is also the highest rate of gross domestic product since World War II. In 1944, revenues reached 20.9 percent of GDP. Today, revenues have returned to that extraordinary level. They are at 20.6 percent, well above the historical norm. Interestingly enough, since 1935, the average tax burden has been 17.2 percent. Never during the Korean war, the Vietnam war, or the cold war did it ever reach 20 percent. Yet the Federal tax burden continues to take more financial power out of the economy without a particular cause. In the last few years, the American people have had to pay 20 percent of what they earned. The impact on the economy, on families, and the taxpayers has been extraordinary. We have an opportunity to do some things differently, and I hope we do that. The current tax system, I believe, is a mess. Just think how difficult it is for all of us as we prepare our tax returns. We often say if anyone cannot make out their own return, it must be too complex. Seldom are people able to make out their own. After 80 years of lawmakers, lobbyists, and special interests working on it--which will continue--it is unfair; it is complex; it is costly. Those are the kinds of things of which I hope, as we move forward, we can take advantage. Someone suggested taxpayers devote almost 5.5 billion hours a year to the preparation of tax returns. The other thing--and it depends, I suppose, on your point of view and philosophy with respect to Government; if one believes Government ought to be contained in its growth, that there are limits to in what the Government ought to be involved--the Federal Government in particular-- why, this has something to do with that. When there is a surplus, it is more difficult to maintain limits on the growth of Government than it is when there is not a surplus. Obviously, we want to fund the essentials such as health care, education, and Social Security. There also ought to be a limit on the growth of Government, the involvement of Government. We are saying all the time that the Federal Government is involved in too many things; we ought to give more emphasis to State and local governments; we ought to evaluate what is the legitimate role of the Federal Government. I believe that is true, but that depends on your philosophy of government. We are going to hear arguments during the course of this discussion that there needs to be more Government, more Government spending. If one believes that is the direction we ought to go, there is no end to the programs. It is very difficult, once a Federal Government program is in place and builds a constituency around it, to change it, to eliminate it, to reduce it. It comes down to a philosophy of government. When you have, as in this case, a surplus of dollars, what do you do with it? You can spend it and increase the size of Government. That is a philosophy we hear quite often in this Chamber. Another is we ought to limit the role of the Federal Government; we ought to use our best judgment to determine which of those things are most important, which of those things are essential, which of those things can only be done by the Federal Government as opposed to local and State governments, which of those things should be done in the private sector as opposed to the Federal Government. All those things have a play in what you do in the future. I happen to believe we ought to be paying down the debt. It is unfair for us to have gone into debt over the last number of years to finance programs young people will have to pay for. We can do that. I am persuaded that under the President's program we can pay down the debt over this period of time. I am persuaded that we will have adequate money to spend on essential programs. At the same time, we can substantially reduce the tax burden on American families, and that is very much what we want to do. I do believe one of the elements of taxes ought to be fairness. One of the issues we have talked about for some time and passed last year, only to be vetoed by the President, was the marriage tax penalty. It really does not make sense from a fairness standpoint that a single man and woman earning this amount of money pays x amount of dollars; if they are married, making the same amount of money, they pay more. That is a fairness issue and one that needs to be decided. Of course, the estate tax also is one that many argue is a fairness issue. People, particularly on farms, ranches, and in small businesses, work their whole lives to create some capital and assets, and if they own property, as many ranchers and farmers do, they have to pay this 55-percent estate tax. They have to dispose of the property to do that and that seems unfair. There are some legislative ideas, and I do not know which one will prevail. There can be expansion of exemptions, and there can be elimination, which I favor. There can also be some efforts made to pass these on without taxes and allow then for a tax to be placed on their growth. There are many things we can do. The President has put forth a package that is very useful, one that deals with the issues as we see them, one which will bring fairness, one which will bring a reduction in costs, one which will pay down the debt, one which will allow us to go ahead and fund those programs that we deem to be essential and of a high priority. We have an opportunity to do that now. I am hopeful we will move forward and do it quickly, to the benefit of this country, its economy, its taxpayers, and all of its families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for Senator Collins' Rural Education Improvement Act, a bill that would allow school districts in my state and across the nation to more fully benefit from the use of federal grant monies. In current formula-based federal grants, some of the amounts rural districts receive are so small the school districts an not do anything meaningful with them. This ``One-size-fits-all'' policy would be remedied under the ``Rural Education Improvement Act,'' which would allow several small sums to be joined and spent according to local needs. Like Senator Collins, I'm committed to giving parents and local school districts more say in how their education dollars are spent. I commend the Senator for her efforts in this area and am proud to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for Senator Collins' Rural Education Improvement Act, a bill that would allow school districts in my state and across the nation to more fully benefit from the use of federal grant monies. In current formula-based federal grants, some of the amounts rural districts receive are so small the school districts an not do anything meaningful with them. This ``One-size-fits-all'' policy would be remedied under the ``Rural Education Improvement Act,'' which would allow several small sums to be joined and spent according to local needs. Like Senator Collins, I'm committed to giving parents and local school districts more say in how their education dollars are spent. I commend the Senator for her efforts in this area and am proud to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to proceed, if I may, under the order. I believe this time is allotted to us.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we were talking about confirmation of appointments. Among the next ones that will take place tomorrow will be the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton. I want to spend a little time talking about the Secretary, but perhaps more as a preliminary matter, I want to talk about the importance of Federal lands and the impact they have on the West in particular. Of course, they are national lands. First of all, I am very hopeful and confident that Gale Norton will be confirmed. I think she has done an excellent job in responding to the legitimate questions she has been asked. That is the role of the Senate: to inquire, ask questions of these aspiring nominees. She has done, I believe, an excellent job of responding. She is a superb candidate for this job. She has experience. She has experience as attorney general of the State of Colorado, during which time, of course, she had to deal with a good many land, water, and air quality issues and I think dealt with them professionally. She is knowledgeable, certainly, about the West. The West is unique-- I will talk about that in a moment--where, in many cases, more than half of a State belongs to the Federal Government. It is very important to all of us. Gale Norton has a background in land use and park use, not only from her experience in Colorado but also her experience in the Interior Department as an associate solicitor for the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Park Service. I have had some occasions to talk with her as chairman of the parks subcommittee. I certainly have an interest in this job in that this Secretary has jurisdiction over the National Park System. She is certainly a conservative conservationist. We have sometimes gotten into the position where those things seem to be an oxymoron; they seem to be conflicting. Indeed, it seems to me they are not. She is a conservative and I am a conservative, but we are conservationists in that we want to protect the resources so they will be there in the future for our kids and future youngsters. These two things are not incompatible. Under most definitions, they would be quite compatible. I would substitute conservationist--at least to some we have to be an environmentalist. That perhaps is another step. In any event, I do believe Gale Norton will be confirmed as Secretary, and I certainly support her nomination. I do want to talk about public lands, since we have some time today. In my State of Wyoming, nearly 50 percent of the land belongs to the Federal Government in various categories. Some was set aside for national parks. We have two of the most famous national parks, Yellowstone and Grand Tetons. We also have Devils Tower and other facilities as well. Some of the land was set aside for U.S. forests. Much of the land, on the other hand, is BLM land, which really was remaining land after the Homestead Act was finished and lands were taken for private ownership. These were the lands that remained and stayed in Federal ownership. This map shows the holdings throughout the country. They represent millions of acres--a great deal of public land. In Alaska, 68 percent of the land belongs to the Federal Government. In Nevada--Senator Reid was just here--they believe theirs is closer to 87 percent federally owned lands. It goes all the way to New Mexico, the Presiding Officer's State, with about 26 percent. They are very important. Not only are they important because they are public lands and they are great treasures that we want to preserve, but of course they have a great deal to do with the way we live. They have a great deal to do with our economy. They have a great deal to do with our culture. Those who live there often talk about public lands, and I understand people in Maryland or people in Connecticut often are not quite as familiar with the fact that we have millions of acres that are either mountains or high plains. When we talk about those things, there is not much recognition of what the problems are. I suppose we are guilty of the same thing with regard to coastal lines. We do not have coastal lines in Wyoming. We need to talk about some of these things so we will better understand them. I am very interested, of course, in the parks. I grew up right outside Yellowstone Park in Cody, WY. The park is one of the real treasures of this country. It seems to me the purpose of the park is to protect those treasures. The second purpose is to allow the owners, the American people, to enjoy them, and, from time to time, how we do that becomes somewhat controversial. These places are unique, and some are managed for a single purpose: wilderness areas. I support wilderness areas. They are set aside and restricted as to how they can be used. I hope we do not change the old sign of the Forest Service which said ``Land of many uses,'' to what some would like to change it to: ``Land of no uses.'' I do not believe that is where we ought to be headed, and I do not believe that is where our Secretary of the Interior will be heading. There are many uses for which the land should be made available, not all economic. There is hiking and camping. You would be surprised by the number of letters I receive, when we talk about the roadless areas, from veterans organizations. Some of our disabled veterans are not going to have access to these lands if we do not provide it. Not only are there resources there such as grazing and timbering, but also recreational access, of course, is most important. We also need to understand that these resources do need to be managed. We had this year probably the most devastating series of forest fires on public lands in the West. Managing those forests more in terms of access if there is a fire, in terms of thinning to prevent fires, is a very important issue. We have a unique relationship with the Federal Government because of this involvement. Generally, it is a pretty good relationship. Interestingly enough, often the relationship with regard to the forest and BLM lands is pretty good on the local level with the staffs that are doing the actual work, but when you get to the policy level, the regional level, the national level, that coordination and cooperation seems to become more and more difficult. We need to find some ways to make the Government a better neighbor to the people of the West so that we can work together. There has been a promise on the part of this administration, and particularly on the part of Gale Norton, to work more closely to involve local people and local governments in management of these lands. One of the things that has happened, and needs to happen more, and at least be done more effectively and efficiently, is what is called a cooperating agency agreement where, when you have an EIS or study on a particular change of a regulation, why, the surrounding States, the surrounding counties, officials can be brought in as cooperating members and cooperating agencies to help make these decisions. It is true they are Federal lands and the final decision rests with those agencies, but the people who live there ought to have some input, and we hope that can be the case. Throughout this past administration, it was more difficult. I understand the Secretary of the Interior and the last President were seeking to make some history for themselves, some legend in terms of setting aside public lands. Much of that was done without any commitment or involvement of local people at all. On the contrary, Escalante Staircase, in Utah, was announced in Arizona when the Governor and the delegation had not been consulted about setting aside millions of acres in the State of Utah. That is not the kind of thing that makes for a good arrangement for managing these resources well or providing an opportunity for local people to participate that each of us thinks they ought to have. Also, of course, there are a number of agencies that are involved. It isn't just the Department of the Interior. Certainly, in terms of access, we have the EPA, which has a great deal to do with some of the things that are involved with the endangered species and that sort of business. We have the whole access question, which has to do with Transportation, and other agencies. So we hope there will be an effort to bring together agencies that have sometimes conflicting jurisdictions in the Interior Department. Certainly, I hope, for the most part, these lands, other than those that are set aside for special purposes, can be used for multiple use. And ``multiple use,'' I am afraid, is sometimes interpreted as being very detrimental to the environment. It does not necessarily need to be that way. There can be these uses, if they are managed well--renewable resources, such as grazing, for example. Grazing can be, if it is managed properly. It is certainly not detrimental to these lands. It harvests a crop that is there and will be there again next year. So multiple use is very important to our States and to the economy there. This, of course, is not to say in the least that we in the West are not as interested in preserving the resources as anyone else in the country. One of the real problems, however, is the decisions with respect to that have generally been made from the top down, where the whole system really was designed in the NEPA arrangements that are in place, and so on, to start at the bottom and move up. And we have had, in our case in Wyoming recently, several instances of changes that were to be made, the most recent one being the use of snow machines in Yellowstone Park, where we had a 2-year winter-use study. They went all through this thing. They came up toward the end with some preferred decisions, and the Assistant Secretary--the very person we are talking about here--came there and said: Wait a minute. We are going to change that. And that was after all the people had participation in it. In Jack Morrow Hills, which is in the Red Desert in Wyoming, the very same thing happened recently with the Secretary. You go through this process and you talk about partnerships and participation, and then somebody from the administration, at the top level, comes out and says: All right, we are going to change all that. That is not really what is intended for participatory government. Hopefully, we can do some things that will help to change that. I emphasize, however, again, that when we talk about preserving resources, I think you will find the people who live there are as adamant and emotional about preserving the resources--more so--than most people because that is where they live. That is where they are. Those are the things that are very important. So we need to have a little better understanding of the plan and process. Frankly, more recently, it has been my experience, that when people from Washington went out to talk about a proposed roadless plan they were not certain what the plan was when they got to the meeting. And there would not be a lot of support for it among the people who were actually managing the process. We have a process for a forest plan that comes up for renewal about every 10 years. That is where the decisions ought to be made for the Medicine Bow Forest, not here in Washington. So I hope that is what we can do; that there can be public involvement. So, Mr. President, I am very excited about the opportunity to support Gale Norton. Certainly, the appointments of the other officials in the Department will be equally as important--when you appoint the Director of the Park Service, when you appoint the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, or in the Department of Agriculture, where you have a Secretary who is over the Forest Service and the Forest Service management, as well as, of course, the Chief of the Forest Service, who does not happen to be one who is confirmed by the Senate. But those are very important items. I hope we can help build some understanding that people who are interested in having multiple use of the lands are not interested in destroying those lands. We sometimes get that view promoted by some of the environmental groups in New York City and other places, that if you are going to use it, it destroys it. That does not need to be the case. Indeed, it should not be the case. In fact, of course, in the parks we work very hard to provide facilities so that people can come and enjoy them. They have to be managed. I mentioned the sled issue. The parks said: We are going to do away with them because they are too noisy and have too much exhaust. They do. The difference is, there has been no management effort made over the last 20 years to separate the snow machines from the cross- country skiers. There has been no effort made to have standards so that the manufacturers of the sleds would reduce the noise and the exhaust. They were willing and able to do that, if they had some standards that would ensure that the investment they made could then be legitimate. So I think these are the things we are looking for, to have a little different way of managing these kinds of resources. I am excited about the prospects that Secretary Norton will bring to this agency. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Elaine Lan Chao, of Kentucky, to be Secretary of Labor, notwithstanding the consent of January 24, 2001, that the time of the nomination be yielded back, and the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume the pending business.