[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.

                          ____________________