[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2053-H2057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica). Pursuant to House Resolution 135
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 581.
{time} 1423
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 581) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture to use funds appropriated for the wildland fire
management in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001, to reimburse the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to
facilitate the interagency cooperation required under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 in connection with wildland fire management, with
Mrs. Morella in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I introduced H.R. 581 to assist the U.S. Forest
Service in expediting the transfer of funds from the Service to other
Federal agencies for critical and necessary interagency consultation
activities in connection with wildland fire management.
H.R. 581 is simply a technical fix to clarify that funds appropriated
in the 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for
wildland fire management may be transferred to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to reimburse
those agencies for the fuel load reduction consultation activities
required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Madam Chairman, the fiscal 2001 Interior Appropriations Act
appropriated $2.9 billion towards the National Fire Plan in response to
the devastating 1999 and 2000 fire seasons. The $2.9 billion which was
appropriated, which included $1.6 billion designated as emergency
contingent funding, is administered by the Department of Interior and
the Forest Service. Included in the plan are funds specifically
directed for reducing fuel load. However, before fuel loads can be
reduced, the Forest Service must meet existing laws, including the
Endangered Species Act.
Among the goals of the National Fire Plan are: to build firefighting
readiness, to be better prepared to fight wildland fires; to reduce
hazardous fuels, to invest in projects to reduce the fire risk; to
restore fire-impacted sites, to restore landscapes damaged by fire; to
protect communities, to concentrate efforts in the wildland-urban
interface; and to assure accountability and track accomplishments of
the plan.
Decades of excluding fire from our forests and past management
practices have drastically changed the ecological condition of western
forests and rangelands and dramatically affected fire behavior. A
century ago when low-intensity, high-frequency fires were commonplace,
many forests were less dense and had larger, more fire-resistant trees.
Over the last century, the number of trees has increased dramatically
and composition of our forests has changed from primarily fire-
resistant tree species to more species that are nonresistant to fire.
Madam Chairman, the fire ecologists point out the paradox in which we
now find ourselves in terms of fire suppression: The more effective we
become at fire suppression, the more fuels accumulate and ultimately
create conditions for the occurrence of more intense fires, such as
those we in the West have experienced the last 2 years.
To illustrate my point, here is a statistic to think about: In the
early 1930s, the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the lower 48
States was about 40 million acres a year. By the late 1950s, we were
effectively controlling fires at less than 5 million acres per year.
Through the 1970s and much of the 1980s, the annual acreage burned by
wildfires in the lower 48 States stayed at about the same levels, but
in 1988 and again in the late 1990s we had severe seasons, burning
close to 10 million acres each year.
Experts predict that future fire seasons will be similar to last
year's devastation.
Reversing the effects of a century of aggressive fire suppression and
past management practices will take time and money targeted to high-
priority areas to protect people, communities, readily-accessible
municipal watersheds, and habitat for threatened and endangered
species. The most at-risk areas are those wildland-urban interface
zones represented by areas with increased residential development in
fire-prone areas adjacent to Federal land.
With continuing drought in the western and southern United States, we
are facing the threat of another possibly horrendous and catastrophic
wildfire season. It is important that H.R. 581 proceed expeditiously to
launch the multiagency fire prevention initiative needed to ward off
another devastating wildfire season.
The funds made available in this bill to the Fish and Wildlife
Services and the National Marine Fisheries Services will enable the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to proceed with their fire
management program, as intended by the 2001 Appropriations Act. The
bill will not affect other aspects of the National Fire Plan.
Lastly, Madam Chairman, H.R. 581, I do not believe, is controversial.
It is nonpartisan and it is supported by the administration. It is also
reported by unanimous consent from the Committee on Resources. So I
would urge an aye vote on H.R. 581.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2054]]
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, H.R. 581 was introduced, as we heard, by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) from the Committee on Resources
and our esteemed chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands.
The legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to use funds appropriated for wildland fire
management in the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations Act to
reimburse the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service for the costs of carrying out the responsibilities
under the Endangered Species Act in connection with wildland fire
management activities.
{time} 1430
The legislation is necessary because without such reimbursement
authority, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service would be required to carry out their endangered
species responsibilities related to wildland fire management activities
using their existing resources. The effect of this would be potentially
to delay important fire management projects.
Although no hearings were held on this measure, the Committee on
Resources favorably recommended the bill to the House by voice vote.
The technical change made by the legislation will help facilitate
completion of environmental compliance for wildland fire projects in a
timely manner. I think that is something we can and should support
seeing happen.
Making sure that wildland fire management activities are done in an
environmentally sound manner is a key element of the national wildland
fire plan. It is a policy that will yield long-term benefits for both
humans and nature.
Madam Chairman, H.R. 581 is a non-controversial measure supported by
all interested parties. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on this matter, as well as that shown by the
bill cosponsors, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). I support the bill as well, and
favor its adoption by the House today.
Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
581. This bill allows us to use wildland fire funds to deal with
endangered species issues, and it does so in a very responsible way.
This is a win-win for everyone. It is a responsible piece of
environmental legislation. The National Fire Plan will move forward on
an expedited basis, thereby protecting our communities and their
watersheds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will have the essential
tools and resources to resolve issues related to overall ecosystem
health.
I want to applaud the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley) and
the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs.
Christensen), for their hard work and leadership on this issue. I urge
all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Madam Chairman, the Wildland Fire Management Act, H.R. 581, provides
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture legal
authority to use wildland fire management funds for reimbursement of
costs associated with Endangered Species Act compliance.
The strategy of the National Fire Plan is to identify ecosystem
health issues in a manner that protects our communities. I support the
National Fire Plan and believe it is a significant step in addressing a
complex problem.
To support the implementation of the National Fire Plan, the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture attempted to transfer funds
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service in support of administering the Endangered Species Act.
On December 26, 2000, however, the USDA Office of the General Council
(OGC) rendered a formal opinion eliminating the use of the Economy Act
as the vehicle for transferring to other agencies funds that were
originally appropriated in FY 2001 to the Forest Service for ESA
consultation in implementing the National Fire Plan. Thus, the wildland
fire management agencies were forced to identify other alternatives to
meet ESA requirements.
Moreover, on January 10, 2001, the deputy chiefs of the USDA Forest
Service wrote to their field units about the importance of implementing
the National Fire Plan. In the letter, they recommended the Plan be a
top priority because consultation for activities such as fuels
management is critical to achieving success on the ground and to the
establishment of a long-term program. The letter outlined several
options to keep the agency moving forward. However, there is still
concern that a lack of funding for ESA consultations will slow down the
approval of all wildland fire projects.
The intent of H.R. 581 is to allow the federal agencies to do their
job, implement the National Fire Plan, and keep the agencies moving
forward. This bill is consistent with the National Fire Plan's goal of
assigning the highest priority for hazardous fuels reduction to
communities at risk, readily accessible municipal watersheds,
threatened and endangered species habitat, and other important local
features, where conditions favor uncharacteris-
tically intense fires.
In conclusion, the National Fire Plan is a step in the right
direction. The fires of 2000 underscored the importance of pursuing an
aggressive program that addresses the fuels problem by encouraging
collaboration between local communities, state governments, and Tribal,
and federal agencies. In fact, the Report to the President In Response
to the Wildfires of 2000, issued by the Departments of Agriculture and
the Interior, stated that funding would be available to support
Endangered Species Act consultation work by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. H.R. 581 ensures
that a mechanism is in place to do just that. I therefore strongly urge
my colleagues to support this measure.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for yielding me time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this important legislation
introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I
commend the gentleman for his leadership in this regard. I also note
with pride that he and I last year introduced a piece of legislation
specifically targeted at the State of Colorado to deal with the red
zone situation that we face there, the urban wildland interface, and my
pride is because much of what is in the National Fire Plan includes
some the ideas and sections of our legislation from last year.
The legislation provides that the United States Forest Service can
use National Fire Plan monies to undertake Endangered Species Act
studies. In the end, this will ensure that projects comply with the
Endangered Species Act so we can reduce fuel loads, return our forests
to a healthier condition and minimize the potential for catastrophic
fire this year and in years to come.
So, in short, I urge the House to promptly pass this legislation to
forestall problems and to keep the fire plan both on track and on a
sound legal and environmental footing.
Madam Chairman, I thank again the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands.
Madam Chairman, an original cosponsor, I rise in support of this bill
and I congratulate my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Hefley, for his
leadership in introducing it.
This is an important bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is not complicated or
controversial. It was passed by the Resources Committee by a unanimous
voice vote and could well have been considered under suspension rather
than being brought up under a rule.
As has already been explained, the bill deals with funds provided to
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to implement the
new national fire plan established and funded in last year's Interior
appropriations bill.
The bill makes clear that fire plan funds can be transferred to the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The purpose of that is to enable those agencies to make sure the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act are met in connection with
fuel-reduction and other projects that are part of the fire plan.
This is completely consistent with the intent of the legislation
establishing the fire plan. But the Agriculture Department's lawyers
think the current wording of the legislation does not permit the
transfer of funds from the Forest Service to the other agencies for
that purpose.
[[Page H2055]]
So, the bill does not establish a new policy--it merely makes clear
what was intended when the fire plan was enacted last year.
We definitely need to press forward with the important work of
reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires in the areas where our
communities border on forest lands.
But it is just as important that this be done in a way that fully
complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and all
the other environmental laws--and this bill will help make sure that
occurs.
This is very significant for everyone in Colorado and in other
western States.
Across Colorado--and across the west--rapid population growth means
that more and more communities are pressing against and into our forest
lands.
That means our state has a large ``urban interface''--what in
Colorado we refer to as the ``red zone.'' That is the area where forest
fires present the greatest dangers to people's lives and homes.
The fire plan focuses on that ``urban interface,'' and that is where
it will be implemented through projects to reduce the danger by
reducing the buildup of brush and other fuels that has resulted from
policies that suppressed the normal role of fire in the ecosystem.
Of course, this danger of forest fires in the ``red zone'' is not
new. But last year we got a wake-up call about it--and so did the rest
of the county. That was what led to enactment of the fire-plan
legislation.
It also was what had earlier led me to introduce a bill to address
the problem in Colorado.
That bill was cosponsored by my colleague, Mr. Hefley, and by
Representatives DeGette and Tancredo as well.
Our bill had many similarities to the legislation that set up the
national fire plan. But it would have applied only to Colorado--and it
had some other significant differences, too.
For one thing, our bill emphasized public involvement by providing
for setting up a committee--representing a broad spectrum of
interests--to establish priorities for use of funds.
And our bill specifically provided that fuel-reduction projects would
have to meet some essential guidelines.
Like the fire-plan legislation, our bill required compliance with the
Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws.
It also specified that projects could not be performed in
Congressionally-designated wilderness areas and that roadless areas
would have to be protected.
And, notably, our bill included a specific limit on the size of trees
that could be removed as part of a fuel-reduction project.
That idea--a cutting limit based on tree size--drew many comments
from people holding differing views about the use of mechanical
thinning to reduce fire risks.
Some people do not support removal of trees as big as our bill would
have allowed, or perhaps of trees of any size. Others see any specific
limit as both arbitrary and too restrictive.
I respect the sincerity of both those points of view. However, I
think our bill struck an appropriate balance and represented a
legitimate starting point for legislative action.
The bill recognized that where the risk of catastrophic wildfires
comes from overly-dense vegetation, it is because of the build-up of
small-sized materials.
It also reflected the fact that cutting larger trees often can lead
to more severe fires, for a variety of reasons, and can also have other
adverse effects.
The limit in our bill also reflected the fact that cutting larger
trees is controversial--especially when the larger trees may have
commercial value.
It is simple fact that some will see the inclusion of larger trees as
evidence that a project ostensibly aimed at reducing the risk of fire
is really intended to be a commercial undertaking, by the Forest
Service and by industry.
This could lead to challenges that would unnecessarily complicate
necessary projects that were otherwise not controversial.
In short, both on the scientific merits and for reasons of public
acceptability, I thought--and I still think--that there should
be limits on the scope of these projects, of the kind that would have
been set by our bill.
That is why last year, after enactment of the legislation setting up
the national fire plan, I initiated a letter--ultimately also signed by
25 other Members of the House--to the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior urging that the fire plan be implemented
under appropriate safeguards and conditions.
I later received a response from the Deputy Chief of the Forest
Service for State and Private Forestry, stating that the Agriculture
Department shares the concerns expressed in our letter and outlining
how those concerns will be addressed in the implementation of the
national fire plan.
At the end of my remarks, I will attach both of these letters for
inclusion in the Record.
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, in Colorado's ``red zone'' and other
areas covered by the national fire plan, there are very real risks to
people, property and the environment--some of them resulting from past
fire-management policies.
It is important that we respond to those risks--and that is why I
support the national fire plan.
But it is also important that the need to respond to those risks is
not misused as a convenient rationale for projects that do not meet
proper standards.
That's why the fire-plan projects should reflect public involvement.
That's why the projects need to be based on sound science. And that's
why the projects need to be completely consistent with applicable
environmental laws.
Enacting this bill will be an important step in that direction--
because, as I said, the purpose of this bill is to make sure the
projects comply with the Endangered Species Act.
So, I urge the House to promptly pass this legislation, to forestall
problems and to keep the fire plan both on track and on a sound legal
and environmental footing.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, October 20, 2000.
Hon. Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Glickman and Secretary Babbitt: As you know,
the fiscal 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act provides important funding for work to restore federal
lands damaged by large-scale forest fires and to lessen the
risk of such fires in the future by reducing accumulations of
fuels.
We support these objectives. However, in the past there
have been efforts to use the ``fuel reduction'' label to
justify environmentally-unsound timber sales and it is very
important that pursuit of restoration and fuel reduction does
not weaken sound land management or the protection of the
environment. So, we urge you to make sure that these
activities will be subject to appropriate safeguards and
conditions.
Recent events have shown the importance of a scientifically
sound fuels reduction program targeted to protect communities
in the wildland/urban interface. However, the relevant
language in the Interior appropriations bill does not spell
out adequate environmental safeguards to protect wilderness,
roadless areas, old growth forests, endangered species
habitat, or riparian areas. Wilderness areas should be off-
limits to fuels reduction by mechanical means, and
appropriate conditions should be imposed to assure that
mechanical fuel-reduction projects will not adversely affect
old growth forests, roadless areas, endangered species
habitat, or riparian areas.
In addition, we believe direction is needed to ensure that
fuels reduction projects focus on the fine and surface fuels
that create the greatest fire risks. We urge that the
agencies be directed to develop ecologically-sound treatment
criteria with an emphasis on underbrush and small-diameter
trees.
The Interior bill also includes language providing the
Administration with an option to develop expedited NEPA
procedures within the next 60 days. We are strongly opposed
to any weakening of the current NEPA procedures and public
involvement in decision- making for fuels reduction projects.
We respectfully urge the Administration to not exercise
this authority to expedite NEPA procedures.
We also believe the funding increase for fuels reduction
should be carefully targeted to protect communities at risk
from wildfire. The need for fuel reduction is greatest in
those areas where homes exist within or about forested
areas--the wildland/urban interface or ``red zones,'' and in
particular in the areas closest to homes and communities. In
many cases that means within 200 feet of homes or
communities. We urge the Administration to prioritize
emergency fuels reduction funds to support projects to reduce
risks in these narrowly defined areas to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, we urge the Administration to
support the Firewise program and other cooperative efforts
for community protection in the wildland/urban interface.
There is a significant increase in funding for preparedness
activities. We urge the Administration to make the completion
of fire management plans the top priority for these funds.
Currently only 5 percent of the National Forests have
completed fire management plans which were mandated by the
Fire Management Policy of 1995.
The Forest Service and BLM undoubtedly will be pressured to
expedite fuel-reduction efforts by taking old projects,
including timber sales, off the shelf regardless of whether
they are environmentally sound fuels reduction projects. We
urge that before funds under this program be allocated for
any ``old project,'' the projects first be reevaluated to
make sure that they are consistent with the focus on fuels
reduction rather than other objectives.
We have noted with some concern that the report to the
President in response to this year's fires seems to identify
``recovering some of the economic value of forest stands'' as
one reason for including removal of burned trees in
restoration and fuel-reduction efforts. We think that salvage
logging
[[Page H2056]]
based in part on economic considerations should remain
separate from fuels reduction.
We are also concerned that funds intended to address
hazardous fuels issues in western forests will be diverted to
eastern forests which do not have the same ecological needs.
For example, conditions in the relatively moist Southern
Appalachian forests naturally limit the spread of fire. Fuel
reduction bears little relevance to the decline of native
forest types, which is a major threat confronting the
Southern Appalachians. We urge that emergency fuels reduction
funds be used in the Forest Regions that are subject to the
greatest risks--principally those in western States.
On a related point, the Interior bill authorizes the Forest
Service to enter into an additional 25 ``end-result''
stewardship contracts. The ``goods-for-services'' authority
allows the Forest Service to trade National Forest trees for
contracted services and, if not subject to appropriate
restrictions, could encourage large-scale logging in
conjunction with restoration projects. We urge that in the
fuels-reduction program the Forest Service be directed to
place priority on use of appropriated funds rather than
issuance of additional stewardship contracts under the fuels-
reduction program and that all agencies be required to ensure
that the protections discussed above are followed in any
``goods-for-services'' contracts to assure that these
projects remain exclusively focused on fuels reduction
purposes.
Finally, we appreciate that the Administration opposed and
was able to remove from the Interior bill language to set
excessive targets for timber sales. However, the statement of
managers in the conference report still urges the Forest
Service to prepare for sale 3.6 billion board feet of timber.
This would represent a significant increase in timber sales
above the current level of 2.1 billion board feet, and this
timber targets language is backed up by a significant
increase in funding for logging. The bill contains a $40
million increase in logging subsidies, including $5 million
earmarked specifically for the Tongass National Forest. We
are very concerned that this $40 million in additional
logging subsidies could result in unsound timber sales on the
National Forests. We urge that instead this unrequested
increase in funding be used to mitigate environmental
degradation by spending it on forest restoration through road
decommissioning and obliteration.
If the fuels-reduction program is to bring real benefit, it
must be implemented in a way that avoids the controversies,
appeals, and litigation associated with significant increases
in logging that degrade water quality and fish and wildlife
habitat. We look forward to working with the Administration
to avoid such results.
Sincerely,
Mark Udall, James Leach, George Miller, Cynthia McKinney,
Lloyd Doggett, John Lewis, Frank Pallone, Jr., Barbara
Lee, Fortney (Pete) Stark, Grace F. Napolitano,
Edolphus Towns, Sam Gejdenson, Sander Levin, Bob
Filner, Rush Holt, Earl Blumenauer, Bill Pascrell, Jr.,
Nancy Pelosi, Anna G. Eshoo, Maurice Hinchey, Sherrod
Brown, Henry A. Waxman, Diana DeGette, Howard L.
Berman, Ellen O. Tauscher, Michael R. McNulty.
____
Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2001.
Hon. Mark Udall,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Udall: thank you for your October 20,
2000, letter from you and your colleagues, to former
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman regarding the Fiscal
Year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shares your concerns
about the implementation of the fuels reduction program. As
directed in the Interior Appropriations Act, funds provided
to reduce hazardous fuels will be focused in and around
communities at risk. In these areas, protecting life and
property from catastrophic wildfire will be the primary
objective of the treatments. In complying with existing
environmental laws, we will work closely with the treatments.
In complying with existing environmental laws, we will work
closely with the local communities to design and implement
these treatments. I assure you that environmentally
appropriate safeguards will be maintained throughout the
planning and implementation efforts to restore lands damaged
by recent wildland fires and to mitigate future wildland fire
risks through fuel reduction projects.
The USDA Forest Service has developed the Cohesive
Strategy, Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-
Adapted Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy. A suite of Federal
laws and regulations guide management of fire-related
activities on those lands. They include the Organic Act,
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among others, that
will ensure clean air, clean water, and biodiversity in fire-
adapted ecosystems. Long-term sustainability is a consistent
theme embodied within these laws. The Forest Service's
efforts to reduce hazardous fuels compliment long-term
sustainability and will fully comply with these laws and
regulations. All Forest Service activities will be in full
compliance with procedures established by the Council on
Environmental Quality for implementation of NEPA.
The National Fire Plan is in response to Managing the
Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, A
Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000,
which was submitted on September 8, 2000. The Plan discusses
the Forest Service's strategy to remove excessive fuel
through vegetative treatments and prescribed fire in order to
protect communities at risk, help prevent insect and disease
damage, and generally improve overall ecosystem health and
sustainability. It also discusses how the Forest Service's
locally-led, integrated teams should coordinate environmental
reviews and consultations, facilitate and encourage public
participation, and monitor and evaluate project
implementation.
The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review
reinforces the Forest Service's efforts to utilize the best
available science that incorporates the role of fire in land,
resource and fire management planning. Recently, the Agency
requested a review of the 1995 Policy. The review found the
basic policy sound. The review group made 11 recommendations,
which were accepted by the Agency, on ecosystem
sustainability, restoration, science, communication, and
evaluation. As the Forest Service continues to implement this
Policy, planning efforts will ensure that full environmental
safeguards, as required by laws and policies, are more than
adequate to address all concerns raised in your letter.
Thank you again for your thoughtful letter and expressing
your concerns. Identical letters will be sent to your
colleagues. I appreciate your continued support for our
forest health and restoration program. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (202) 205-1657, if I can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Michael t. Rains,
Deputy Chief,
State and Private Forestry.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk. At
the conclusion of debate, I will just offer that amendment.
Madam Chairman, this is basically a buy-American amendment. I realize
much of this money is to be transferred, but some of it will end up
trickling down to make a purchase or an expendable consumption.
I want to commend this chairman and the ranking gentlewoman handling
this bill and thank them for accommodating my amendment.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Wildland Fire
Management Act, which would make a small technical correction that
would free up resources for fighting wildfires.
When you drive from the northern end of my district in Florida to the
southern end, you pass through an area that still bears the scars of
wildfires from only a few years ago. Those fires devastated families,
businesses, and farms. And, while we can rebuild our facilities and buy
new belongings, there's a toll exacted on the people whose lives are
disrupted that can never be quantified or reimbursed.
Right now there are wildfires raging nearby in Florida, and there is
a serious drought across the state. The concern my constituents feel is
palpable. And, it is precisely because we in Florida's Fourth District
understand the destruction that wildfires can cause that I support the
swift passage of this legislation, which merely makes a technical
correction necessary to keep the fire management tools for which
Congress has already appropriated funding from drying up.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 581.
Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 581 is as follows:
H.R. 581
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. USE OF WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT FUNDS TO
FACILITATE COMPLIANCE WITH ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS.
The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture may use funds appropriated for wildland fire
management in the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-291; 114
Stat. 922), to reimburse the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and
[[Page H2057]]
the National Marine Fisheries Service for the costs of
carrying out their responsibilities under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to consult and
conference, as required by section 7 of such Act (16 U.S.C.
1536), in connection with wildland fire management
activities.
The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
Are there any amendments to the bill?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased using funds provided under section 1, it is
the sense of the Congress that entities receiving the funds
should, in expending the funds, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Funds.--In expending funds
provided under section 1, the head of each Federal agency
receiving such funds shall provide to each recipient of the
funds a notice describing the statement made in subsection
(a) by the Congress.
(c) Notice of Report.--Any entity which receives funds
under section 1 shall report any expenditures on foreign-made
items to the Congress within 180 days of the expenditure.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman
of the subcommittee and the ranking gentlewoman on our side for their
work on the bill. It is a good bill. Some of this money may trickle
down to be used for the purchasing of some equipment and certainly some
services.
Just briefly, I would like to say our last month's trade deficit was
$33 billion. Our trade deficit projected for this year will exceed $300
billion. China is now taking $100 billion a year out of our economy.
Madam Chairman, even our trade deficit bears a label ``made in China.''
This is a very simple amendment that says any use of these funds, we
recommend where possible, services and goods, if purchased, give the
American worker and the American companies a tumble.
Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I am supportive of this amendment. I would like to
commend the gentleman from Ohio for keeping our feet to the fire when
it comes to this buy-American theme that the gentleman has been the
leader in Congress on. I think in the appropriations bill where the
money is appropriated, the gentleman has gotten the amendment in last
year there, so we have it there. We have it in the authorization side.
I think both are good, and I support the amendment.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, we have no objection to the
amendment as well.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I move the question on the amendment,
and yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Mica) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Morella, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 581) to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture to use funds appropriated for wildland fire management in
the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001, to reimburse the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to facilitate the interagency
cooperation required under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in
connection with wildland fire management, pursuant to House Resolution
135, she reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________