[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S8904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           WILDFIRE TRAGEDIES

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on a 
tragedy that weighs very heavy upon my heart. Last month four 
firefighters were killed in a conflagration in Washington State's 
Okanogan National Forest. My prayers and thoughts are with the families 
of Tom Craven, Devin Weaver, Jessica Johnson, and Karen FitzPatrick. 
Their service and bravery will not be forgotten.
  This tragedy, like those at Mann Gulch and Storm King Mountain, 
reminds us of the very real, imminent and often hidden specter of 
wildfire. While Congress and the Administration have made a commendable 
commitment to fighting and preventing wildfire, this most recent 
tragedy raises valid concerns about potential administrative and 
regulatory barriers to responsible fire management.
  There are reports that conflicting authorities, involving the 
requirements to protect bull trout under the Endangered Species Act, 
delayed a water drop on the fire for nearly 12 hours, during which time 
the fire grew from 25 to 2,500 acres. I am aware that the Forest 
Service is investigating this matter, and in no way want to comment on 
the verity of this report. The fact that such an occurrence is 
possible, however, is cause enough for great alarm, and a call for 
immediate attention by this body and the administration.
  I would pose two questions to my colleagues: What obstacles are 
preventing the protection of human life during emergency situations? If 
there is indecision in the face of danger, is there also inconsistency 
in our laws, and our priorities as a government?
  There is a clause in the Endangered Species Act, ESA, that provides 
for threats to human life. It says that ``No civil penalty shall be 
imposed if it can be shown . . . that the defendant committed an act 
based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself . . 
. or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered 
species.'' This is the ``charging bear'' scenario, which I believe in 
spirit, should apply to any conflict between human and animal life.
  As the Forest Service investigates this tragedy, I believe that 
clarity should be given to all Federal land management agencies, as 
well as the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, giving explicit 
authority, in emergency situations, to take without reservation 
necessary actions to prevent the loss of human life. While this 
authority is consistent with the Endangered Species Act, it seems to be 
constrained by a bureaucracy that has repeatedly turned a blind eye to 
the human side of natural disasters.
  I also want to express my disappointment in one of the government's 
missed opportunities to prevent wildfire threats in the first place. 
The National Fire Plan provided a landmark level of funding to reduce 
hazardous fuel loads on 3.2 million acres of public lands. In addition, 
the Forest Service and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to 
streamline the ESA consultation process for fuels reduction projects 
while protecting salmon habitat. NMFS was consequently given $4 million 
to accomplish this. Over a month ago, thirty NMFS biologists were sent 
to the Pacific Northwest to expedite these consultations. It appears 
that, to date, they have not been assigned a single project. In 
addition, testimony from the General Accounting Office this week 
reported that there are serious flaws in the implementation of the 
National Fire Plan, including interagency cooperation.
  When I go home to Oregon tomorrow I want to tell my constituents, 
including my friends and neighbors, that ``help is on the way.'' In 
order to do that, I must be confident that this body will exert every 
power at its disposal to protect our citizens, and our forests, from 
Nature's disasters, and our own.

                          ____________________