I discuss land exchanges under the next question, but the wilderness issue continues to be vexing because of a "winner-take-all" attitude that is preventing a thoughtful, serious approach. As long as the debate over Utah wilderness is focused upon how many millions of acres represent victory for one side or the other, the current stalemate will continue. Moving this debate, and the issue, forward will require an approach that focuses not on numbers but on suitability and local priorities. Placing land under wilderness restrictions is a very serious decision and should be the result of a methodical process — not a political showdown. All across the state, we have county commissions and other local officials who are ready to make rational decisions about land use and access. It is our obligation in Congress to work with those folks to cut through the politics of wilderness and get on with the business of prudent land management. In the meantime, we cannot allow study of wilderness to be de facto wilderness. The simple prospect of wilderness designation is today denying access and protection to and productive use of far too much federal land in Utah.

Wilderness is a recreation designation. It is not about protecting public lands. I believe all Utahns should have access to appropriate wilderness where they can be isolated from modernity. Other land should have protective designations that allow active management. Most public lands should allow balanced multiple use.

11. Do you favor or oppose No Child Left Behind? If you don't favor it, would you support plain repeal, or short of that how can it be fixed?

For 40 years, the federal government has provided education money to the states, mostly for minorities and for children with special needs. In those 40 years there has not been much progress in these areas, and we should not be surprised that President Bush and Congress are now demanding some degree of performance in return for continued funding. Many people do not realize that NCLB was in fact a reauthorization of many of those programs, rather than an entirely new federal effort. The reforms included in NCLB were intended to improve those programs by injecting accountability and local control into a federal education role that has clearly gotten out of hand over the past several decades.

That said, change is difficult — there are clearly problems with the implementation of NCLB. I have worked aggressively to mediate between Utah's unique conditions and the Department of Education, with some success. We have gotten the department to accept suggestions with respect to Adequate Yearly Progress of students, the definition of "qualified teachers" and English as a Second Language programs. We will continue to perform that task, and Congress will certainly look at the law to see if it needs adjusting.