[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 93 (Monday, June 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8359-S8366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA):
S. 1312. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide 100 percent reimbursement for medical assistance provided to a
Native Hawaiian through a Federally-qualified health center or a Native
Hawaiian health care system; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, Senator Akaka and I are introducing
legislation that would provide for 100 percent coverage under Medicaid
for the payment of health services rendered to Native Hawaiians by
either Federally qualified health centers or Native Hawaiian health
care systems. This provision would treat our State's Native Hawaiians
comparably with Alaskan Natives and American Indians under the current
Medicaid law. We purposely focused upon Federally qualified health
centers and Native Hawaiian health care systems, because they are
highly cost effective ways of providing these extraordinarily necessary
primary care and preventative services.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1312
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Native Hawaiian Medicaid
Coverage Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. 100 PERCENT FMAP FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO A
NATIVE HAWAIIAN THROUGH A FEDERALLY-QUALIFIED
HEALTH CENTER OR A NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.
(a) Medicaid.--Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended, in the third sentence, by
inserting ``, and with respect to medical assistance provided
to a Native Hawaiian (as defined in section 12 of the Native
Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act) through a Federally-
qualified health center or a Native Hawaiian health care
system (as so defined) whether directly, by referral, or
under contract or
[[Page S8360]]
other arrangement between a Federally-qualified health center
or a Native Hawaiian health care system and another health
care provider'' before the period.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
applies to medical assistance provided on or after the date
of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1313. A bill to establish the Congaree Swamp National Park in the
State of South Carolina, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
is particularly important to me, in that it culminates nearly 30 years
of efforts to preserve the wilderness of South Carolina for future
generations of Americans. This legislation proposes to raise the
designation of the Congaree Swamp National Monument to the Congaree
National Park, and to increase its size by 20 percent.
I still remember when my friend, Harry Hampton, enlisted my help to
protect the big trees that were being destroyed 500 acres a year in the
central part of my State. In 1976, Congress set aside 15,000 acres to
establish the Congaree Swamp National Monument. In the late 1980s, we
expanded it by another 7,000 acres. More recently, we've invested in a
visitor center and this investment has far exceeded this Senator's
expectations.
The attendance has ballooned to 120,000 visitors every year,
including some 12,000 students, who use the forest as their classroom
to nature. It has awakened an interest in the environment for these
children. They cruise the Congaree, learning how to identify trees,
birds, animals, and everything like that. All kinds of groups take
hikes, nature walks and canoe trips to see the almost 1,000 different
types of trees, plants, animals, and birds in the forest.
This is home to some of the tallest and rarest trees in the Eastern
United States--some are 400 years old. It is home to the largest
example of old growth southern hardwood forest in North America. All
eight species of woodpeckers can be found here, including the
endangered red-cockaded variety.
Yet had Congress not acted back in 1976, none of this may be around
today. We were able to save at least a few thousand acres of what once
covered vast portions of the east coast, so future generations of
Americans can enjoy it. There is a lesson here. The Government can do
good for the environment. It is in the interest of our nation to
protect our nation's treasures.
My legislation, the Congaree National Park Act of 2003 continues the
progress we have seen the last 25 years. It would add another 4,576
acres of ecologically rich land; and it would redesignate the Monument
into a fullfledged National Park, which would be the first in South
Carolina. The Congaree Swamp is widely recognized as one of the most
unique and rare ecological habitats in the country. This designation
not only recognizes the significance of this area but the wonderful job
the National Park Service is doing to make this a growing attraction
for local, State, national, and international visitors.
The project has received support from a number of organizations, and
I ask unanimous consent that these letters of endorsement be printed in
the Record. I hope to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues to
pass the legislation this session.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources,
Columbia, SC, June 23, 2003.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator, Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: I want to take this opportunity to
endorse the proposed legislation to establish the Congaree
Swamp National Park in the State of South Carolina (Congaree
National Park Act of 2003). We are delighted to see your
continued commitment to the protection of important
environmental properties in our State. The expansion of the
Congaree National Monument to a ``National Park'' certainly
continues the habitat protection vision that is embraced by
the Board of the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources.
I have been in routine contact with your staff and many of
our natural resource conservation partners as this important
legislation was developed by your staff. We appreciate your
staff's professional courtesy to us in seeking our agency's
input. The expansion of this significant natural resource
area certainly parallels the stated mission of our agency in
proactively protecting the State's natural resources for the
use and enjoyment by future generations of South Carolians.
Again, thank you for your commitment to our natural
resources and to improving the quality of life of our
citizens. You have been a strong supporter of our
conservation initiatives and our citizens are certainly
indebted to you for your leadership and vision.
Sincerely,
John E. Frampton,
Director.
____
The Trust for Public Land,
Washington, DC, June 23, 2003.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: I am writing today on behalf of The
Trust for Public Land in support of legislation to expand the
boundaries of the Congaree Swamp National Monument and
designate it as a National Park in the State of South
Carolina.
As you know, the Congaree Swamp National Monument was
authorized as a unit of the National Park Service in 1976.
The park rests on a floodplain of the Congaree River and is
recognized as an International Biosphere Reserve, National
Natural Landmark, Wilderness Area, and ``Globally Important
Bird Area,'' with over 90 tree species including old growth
loblolly pines and bald cypress. The Congaree hosts the
nation's largest tract of old-growth bottomland hardwood
forest, and contains some of the tallest trees in the eastern
U.S., with some pines reaching over 160 feet. The Congaree's
outstanding natural resources are frequented by outdoor
enthusiasts who enjoy canoeing, kayaking, picnicking,
camping, and fishing.
In 1994, the expansion area was the subject of a biological
and hydrological evaluation to determine its resource value
for protection and addition to the Congaree Swamp National
Monument. The report concluded that expanding the National
Monument to include this area would conserve a unique
hydrological system integrally connected to the hydrology of
the Congaree River and that of lands currently within the
Congaree Swamp National Monument. Once protected, these lands
would from a conservation corridor connecting the Congaree
with other protected state and Federal lands further
downstream.
Additional protection of the Congaree Swamp National
Monument would not only play a critical role in enhancing
South Carolina's recreation needs, it would further enrich
South Carolina's impressive historic and cultural resources
as well as its significant wildlife and ecological resources.
The Trust for Public Land commends your leadership on this
matter and looks forward to working with you on enacting such
legislation.
Sincerely,
Alan Front,
Senior Vice President.
____
Columbia Audubon Society,
Columbia, SC, June 23, 2003.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings; I am writing to you on behalf of the
700+ members of Columbia Audubon Society. We want to express
our full support for your legislation to change the Congaree
Swamp National Monument to National Park and to expand the
boundary.
No other area in the Southeast is of comparable geological
and biological significance. The park has been recognized as
a National Natural Landmark, an International Biosphere,
Globally Important Bird Area, and a Wetlands of International
Importance. Anything that can be done to raise awareness of
this important resource and to protect it by boundary
expansion is a positive step that we support.
Thank you once again for your efforts on behalf of our
natural and national heritage.
Sincerely,
Daniel L. Tufford,
President and Conservation Chair.
____
Sierra Club,
South Carolina Chapter,
Columbia, SC, June 22, 2003.
Re Congaree Swamp National Monument.
Senator Ernest Hollings,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: The South Carolina Chapter of the
Sierra Club supports your legislation to expand and
reclassify the Congaree Swamp National Monument. We thank you
for your preservation efforts regarding the Congaree Swamp
and for your support of the environment generally.
The Congaree Swamp National Monument on the meandering
Congaree River is a tranquil setting of world champion trees,
primeval forest landscapes, and diverse plant and animal
life. This 21,479-acre intact old-growth bottomland hardwood
forest is a remnant of what much of the Southeast looked like
200-plus years ago. The opportunity to add 4,526-acres to
this living ecological museum cannot be ignored.
We also believe that Congaree Swamp is more appropriately
identified as a national ``park.'' This designation, within
the Park Service, will accord the ``swamp'' its appropriate
status and possible funding within the Department of
Interior.
[[Page S8361]]
The South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club was formed 25
years ago as a result of citizen involvement to form the
Congaree Swamp National Monument in 1976. Our Sierra Club
chapter could receive no better gift on our 25th birthday
than the expansion and redesignation of this sanctuary for
plants, animals, researchers, and hikers.
On behalf of the 5,200 Sierra Club members in South
Carolina, again, we thank you and support your efforts.
Sincerely,
Dell Isham,
SC Chapter Director.
____
South Carolina
Wildlife Federation,
Columbia, SC, June 17, 2003.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: The South Carolina Wildlife
Federation (SCWF) applauds you for your continued commitment
to the environment and to the rare and precious habitats
found both nationwide and in South Carolina. It is your
continued dedication to these valuable habitats and our
mission to support conservation efforts that prompts us to
write to you. The purpose of this letter is to express our
position on your ``Congaree National Park Act of 2003.''
The SCWF considers this bill, to change the designation of
the Congaree National Monument to the Congaree National Park
and to expand the park to include the 4,576 acres, a
profitable proposal. As is evidenced in the text of the bill,
there are numerous reasons to protect, preserve and expand
this area. The rarity of this wilderness area boasts the last
and largest example of virgin, old-growth southern hardwood
forest in North America. The Congaree National Monument and
adjacent private land provide valuable opportunities to
experience and learn about our natural, biological,
geological, and cultural history. This wilderness is home to
over 900 species of plants and animals, including rare,
threatened and endangered species. Since habitat size plays
such an important role in maintaining healthy communities and
diverse gene pools of plant and animal species, this
expansion and designation as a National Park are wonderful
ways to preserve such an ecologically rich area.
In addition, Mr. Harry Hampton, the founder of this
Federation, was also responsible for the recognition of the
Congaree Swamp as a National Monument. In keeping with the
vision of our founder it is with great eagerness that we
support your efforts to have this bill enacted. The South
Carolina Wildlife Federation commends you for introducing the
``Congaree National Park Act of 2003.'' Please use this
letter freely in the public record.
Sincerely,
Angela Viney
Executive Director.
____
South Carolina Coastal
Conservation League,
Columbia, SC, June 23, 2003.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: I am writing to give the Coastal
Conservation League's full support for the Congaree National
Park Act of 2003. The Congaree Swamp National Monument is a
tremendous asset for South Carolina and the nation, and has
enjoyed ever-increasing numbers of supporters and visitors.
It is definitely worthy of the level of protection that a
National Park designation would provide.
This area has regional, national, and international
significance. Regionally it stores waters that reduce
downstream flooding, and improves water quality in the
Congaree and Santee rivers. It is important on a national
scale because it includes the largest intact tract of old
growth area of virgin floodplain forest in the United States.
And 20 years ago it earned global recognition as an
International Biosphere Reserve. Because of its significance
it has attracted visitors ranging from Richland County to
around the world.
The expansion of the National Monument area by over 4,000
acres will greatly advance state conservation goals, as it
will link two core areas identified by the South Carolina
Landscape Mapping Project's Ecological Vision, namely the
Congaree Swamp National Monument and the Upper Santee Swamp.
In addition, the proposed expansion to include Fork Swamp
within the proposed National Park boundaries accomplishes the
objective of the Heritage Trust Board of the Department of
Natural Resources. This body has recommended protection for
Fork Swamp, where the Wateree and Congaree rivers from the
headwaters of the Santee River.
The Congaree Swamp is indeed a national treasure that will
be enjoyed by visitors from around the country for years to
come. The Congaree National Park Act of 2003 is a fitting
tribute to its importance. Thank you for all you continue to
do to preserve South Carolina's unique natural treasures.
Sincerely,
Dana Beach,
Executive Director.
____
The River Alliance,
Columbia, SC, June 16, 2003.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings,
Russell Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: Your guiding hand led the effort to
protect the unique national treasure of the Congaree Swamp
National Monument. We believe the addition of an additional
4,500 area and its redesignation as a National Park is a
continuation of this stewardship. The River Alliance strongly
supports the expansion of the Congaree Swamps' boundaries and
its designation as the Congaree Swamp National Park.
As you may recall, the River Alliance is a public benefit
organization tasked with connecting citizens to the region's
rivers. The Congaree Swamp is the crown jewel of our region's
90 miles of river system. The Alliance sees this physical
expansion as a high value environmental and recreational
addition. It allows protection of the Running Lake Creek,
Bates Old River and Fort Swamp areas. The Wateree River is
the logical southern boundary for the expansion. It also
allows inclusion of the Congaree's River's edge between the
existing federal boundary and the confluence with the
Wateree. This brings the primary river access at South
Carolina Highway 601 inside the park boundary. The expansion
allows protection of additional cultural and environmental
resources. It also provides a solid boundary for park
management.
In 1997, the River Alliance initiated a major program to
assist the Congaree Swamp in reaching its potential for
visitation. With your help, physical outcomes were an
improved access road, parking, and the Harry Hampton Visitors
Center. Visitation has increased dramatically, but our
analysis revealed an issue with its current designation as a
``Monument.'' An inaccurate, but very real, public perception
is ``A Monument is less worthy of visitation than a National
Park.'' The Congaree Swamp deserves the ``National Park''
designation, not only for its inherent national and
intentional value, but to fully reach its potential to
attract visitors. Congaree Swamp visitors leave with an
embedded imprint of natural beauty. We wish that every
citizen can have this experience. Visitors become advocates
for the Swamp and for the National Park Service.
From the Alliance perspective, public ownership of the
river's edge of the Congaree Swamp is a valuable commodity,
the more the better. It allows public access by boat, canoe
or kayak to the Swamp's bluffs, banks and creeks from the
waters of the Congaree River. This offers visitors an
unparalleled view of the ecosystem and access to the true
wilderness. The record trees accessible from the water, are
an awesome demonstration of the value of federal park
protection. The expansion will extend the edge to the Wateree
River. It will also allow the current Highway 601 access to
become a true entry point to the Swamp with an opportunity
for river-focused education and interpretation. As with the
Harry Hampton Visitors Center project, the River Alliance is
committed to assist in the creation of a visitor experience
worthy of the environmental resource. The increased Congaree
frontage sets the stage.
We know your action is forthcoming and we strongly support
the expansion and redesignation. We will be happy to answer
any questions, provide additional information, or testify to
Congress as you desire. If you have any questions, feel free
to contact me at (803) 765-2200.
Sincerely,
Michael T. Dawson,
Director.
____
Friends of Congaree Swamp,
Columbia, SC, June 23, 2003.
Hon. Ernest Hollings,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Congaree Swamp--Boundary Expansion and National Park
Designation
Dear Senator Hollings: For more than 25 years, you have
provided outstanding leadership for Congaree Swamp National
Monument. You were instrumental in establishing the monument
in 1976 and expanding the monument in 1988. You have obtained
funding for Congaree land acquisition, the entrance road, the
Harry Hampton Visitor Center, and, recently, the maintenance
facility.
Congaree Swamp's significance is affirmed by many studies
and by its designations as a National Natural Landmark, a
National Monument, and an International Biosphere Reserve. A
nomination is prepared to recognize Congaree Swamp as
Wetlands of International Importance.
The Friends of Congaree Swamp are delighted by your
introduction of legislation to expand Congaree Swamp National
Monument and to change its designation from National Monument
to National Park.
Congaree boundary expansion is a significant step toward
implementing several visions:
It implements part of the South Carolina Conservation
Vision Map by linking two major core areas: Congaree Swamp
National Monument and the Upper Santee Swamp Natural Area;
It implements part of the Fork Swamp Large Area Project, a
landscape-scale conservation project approved more than two
years ago by the SC Heritage Trust Advisory Board of the SC
Dept. of Natural Resources; and
It supports legislation you introduced in 2002, and again
in 2003, regarding a Southern Campaign of the Revolution
Heritage Area in South Carolina.
``Timing is everything.'' This boundary expansion was
proposed and studied extensively in 1994, but one of the two
key landowners was hesitant at that time to include the tract
in legislation. Now, in 2003, both key landowners (Riverstone
Properties and the Beidler family) are willing to sell their
tracts for addition to Congaree Swamp National Monument.
[[Page S8362]]
However, both key landowners will sell these tracts to
other buyers if the Congaree expansion languishes. Both key
landowners recognize the potential to subdivide and sell
their tracts as smaller parcels. On such parcel has
already been sold. This situation underscores the urgency
to authorize Congaree's expanded boundary and appropriate
funding to purchase both key tracts before they are
subdivided and sold as multiple parcels, especially if the
new owners of the multiple parcels are unwilling to
include their land in the Congaree boundary.
We support Congaree's designation as a National Park.
Congaree Swamp National Monument has received visitors from
more than 90 countries. Visitation--from throughout the
United States as well as internationally--will surely
increase if Congaree's significance is further recognized by
National Park status.
Currently, Congaree's old-growth forest is the principal
theme interpreted by the National Park Service. We understand
Congaree's cultural/historical resources would be interpreted
as the second theme if Congaree becomes a National Park.
Friends of Congaree Swamp can provide historical information
for lands within this Congaree boundary expansion.
We recall your tremendous efforts in 1988, when you secured
FY 1989 funding for Congaree land acquisition while
simultaneously authorizing Congaree's 7,000-acre expansion.
How wonderful if your Congaree expansion/park legislation can
be authorized in 2003 and funding obtained promptly
thereafter to purchase these Congaree tracts!
On behalf of our members and our Board of Directors, we are
grateful for your continued leadership. Please do not
hesitate to contact us for additional information and
assistance.
Sincerely,
LaBruce Alexander,
President, Friends of Congaree Swamp.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Murray, and Ms.
Cantwell):
S. 1314. A bill to expedite procedures for hazardous fuels reduction
activities on National Forest System lands established from the public
domain and other public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management, to improve the health of National Forest System lands
established from the public domain and other public lands administered
by the Bureau of Land Management, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive
legislation to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on
our national forests and public lands. I am pleased that Senator
Daschle is a cosponsor of this bill.
Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat
of catastrophic wildfire. We all agree on the need to accelerate fuels
reduction activities because the risk of severe fire is so high.
Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and overly-excessive
harvesting of timber have all contributed to the problem. All of us
also agree that it is much better to devote limited resources to
proactive efforts to reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires
once they occur.
I have tried for years to improve the Federal agencies' forest
thinning program in a variety of ways. I am also a vocal proponent for
spending Federal dollars conducting proactive forest restoration.
Although some may contend that restoration costs too much money, over
the long-term, it is much less expensive than fighting fires.
Every year, the Forest Service borrows funds from other accounts to
pay for firefighting. It is clear that this practice substantially
contributes to project delays and cancellations. For example, in 2002
alone, the Forest Service states that:
some critical projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to
one year as a result of fire borrowing. These include
wildland-urban interface fuels projects on the Carson, Gila,
Lincoln, and Santa Fe National Forests. A contract for
construction of a fuelbreak around a community at risk on the
Cibola National Forest was postponed for six months.
The legislation I am introducing today eliminates the current fire
borrowing practice by authorizing the Forest Service, during years in
which the agencies' firefighting costs exceed its budget, to borrow
funds directly from the Treasury. I urge my colleagues to reject any
bill purporting to decrease on the ground delays if it does not address
this problem.
A 2002 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, and a
letter to Congress from the Society of American Foresters dated
November 2002, confirms that the main obstacle constraining us from
increasing our efforts to reduce fire risk is a lack of adequate
funding. Clearly, the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice
contributes to this lack of funding. Ever since Congress first funded
the National Fire Plan more than two years ago, I have continually
emphasized the need to sustain a commitment to the FY 2001 funding
levels over a long enough period of time to make a difference--at least
15 years.
Important programs that are part of the National Fire Plan, including
economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance,
and burned area restoration and rehabilitation have been drastically
cut--and some have been zeroed out--by the Administration over the last
three budget cycles. For some accounts included under the National Fire
Plan, but not all, Congress has made up the difference. However, it
would certainly be much easier to fully fund the National Fire Plan
with the Administration's support.
Beyond funding constraints, some allege that administrative appeals
and lawsuits limit our ability to reduce fire risk across the country.
As set forth in my legislation, I am willing to provide new legal
authorities and exemptions from administrative appeals to address this
concern.
Let me briefly describe the expedited procedures provisions of our
bill. We propose to exempt from National Environmental Policy Act
analysis all forest thinning projects located near communities or in
municipal watersheds that remove up to 250,000 board feet of timber or
one million board feet of salvage timber. We prohibit administrative
appeals on these projects, thereby saving 135 days in the process. In
addition, we eliminate judicial review granted under NEPA for thinning
projects within one-half mile of at risk communities or within certain
municipal watersheds. The combination of these provisions would save
between one and one-half to three and one-half years of process.
Targeting the expedited procedures to areas near communities and in
municipal watersheds is consistent with a 2002 National Academy of
Public Administration report recommending that the Federal Government
conduct fuels reduction treatments near communities and municipal
watersheds before treating more distant areas. We also require that
seventy percent of forest thinning funds be spent within these critical
areas.
We agree with, and included, some provisions similar to ones found in
H.R. 1904. For example, our bill covers the same amount of Federal
land, namely, up to 20 million acres. H.R. 1904 requires the
Secretaries to select projects through a collaborative process and give
priority to protecting communities and municipal watersheds. Moreover,
H.R. 1904 requires that projects be consistent with applicable forest
and resource management plans. I agree with all of these provisions.
Both bills establish systematic programs, in cooperation with
colleges and universities, to gather information on insect infestations
that can be applied to forest management treatments. However, our bill
provides actual funds, $25 million annually, to implement the program
whereas H.R. 1904 does not.
This bill differs from H.R. 1904 in some other important aspects. Our
bill comprehensively addresses the issue of on the ground delay by
doing away with the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice and
exempting the Forest Service from the Competitive Sourcing Initiative.
Our legislation provides $100 million annually to reduce fire risk
and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands. Forest Service
researchers state that seventy-seven percent of all high risk areas are
on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National Academy of Public
Administration's 2002 report notes that forty-seven percent of acres
burned each year are non-Federal lands and stated that decreasing fuels
on all owners' lands is needed to address the large scope of the fire
hazard problem. Moreover, given that the Administration has zeroed out
funding for burned area restoration and rehabilitation, the secure
funding provided by our bill is desperately needed to protect
communities from landslides and other adverse effects of catastrophic
wildfire.
The bill I am introducing today recognizes the role that forest
dependent
[[Page S8363]]
communities play in restoring our lands by requiring that at least
thirty percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects
that benefit small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located
in small, economically disadvantaged communities. In order to provide
robust monitoring of new authorities, we require that an independent
commission report to Congress on the results of the program and that
the agencies establish a multiparty monitoring program. H.R. 1904 does
not contain similar provisions.
Most fuel reduction projects will take several years to implement. It
is critical that the agencies have reliable funding to complete the
projects they start. If funding is obtained to thin trees the first
year, but not to complete the slash disposal and reintroduce fire
through prescribed burning the following years, short-term fire risk
will be increased. Moreover, slash that is left on the ground increases
the likelihood of beetle infestations. The bill I am introducing today
ensures that agencies address long-term fuels management whereas H.R.
1904 does not contain any similar provision.
At this point in time, I do not believe we need to expedite judicial
review beyond what we offer in this bill. The judicial review
limitations in H.R. 1904 are excessive. In May 2003, GAO completed an
analysis of Forest Service decisions involving fuel reduction
activities. In the first two years of activity under the National Fire
Plan, GAO found that only three percent of all of the decisions were
litigated covering 100,000 acres. Decisions affecting the remaining 4.6
million acres treated in those two years proceeded without any
litigation.
H.R. 1904 provides new legal authorities and judicial review
limitations without regard to many independent analyses that have
discovered numerous flaws with the agencies' existing implementation of
the National Fire Plan. In November 2001, the Inspector General for the
Department of Agriculture found that the Forest Service was
inappropriately spending its burned area restoration funds to prepare
commercial timber sales. Similarly, it was recently discovered that the
Forest Service ``misplaced'' $215 million intended for wildland fire
management due to an accounting error.
Finally, another GAO report concluded that, because the Forest
Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its other
activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used the timber
program to address the wildfire problem. GAO states, ``The difficulty
with such an approach, however, is that the lands with commercially
valuable timber are often not those with the greatest wildfire hazards.
Additionally, there are problems with the incentives in the fuel
reduction program. Currently, managers are rewarded for the number of
acres on which they reduce fuels, not for reducing fuels on the lands
with the highest fire hazards. Because reducing fuels in areas with
greater hazards is often more expensive--meaning that fewer acres can
be completed with the same funding level--managers have an incentive
not to undertake efforts on such lands.'' GAO/RCED-99-65.
The parameters set forth in our bill will ensure that the agencies
conduct forest thinning in a way that truly reduces the threat of fire
and improves forest health. For example, we require the agencies to
focus on thinning projects that remove small diameter trees. Too often,
the Forest Service has cut large trees because of their commercial
value instead of removing small-diameter trees that tend to spread
fire. A group of respected forest fire scientists recently wrote
President Bush a letter stating that, ``thinning of overstory trees,
like building new roads, can often exacerbate the situation and damage
forest health.''
Our bill prohibits new road construction in roadless areas whereas
H.R. 1904 contains no similar provision. The National Forests already
contain 380,000 miles of road, as a comparison, the National Highway
System contains 160,000 miles of roads, and the deferred maintenance
needs on these existing roads totals more than $1 billion. Forest
Service analysis reveals that roads increase the probability of
accidental and intentional human-caused ignitions.
Returning receipts to the Treasury is consistent with a provision in
Senator Wyden and Senator Craig's county payments legislation enacted
two years ago and avoids existing perverse incentives. Numerous GAO
reports reveal that existing agency trust funds provide incentives for
the agency to cut large trees because it gets to keep the revenue.
Cutting large trees will not reduce fire risk, therefore, we should
direct receipts back to the Treasury. Jeremy Fried, a Forest Service
Research specialist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, states,
``If you take just big trees, you don't reduce fire danger.''
The provision in our bill stating that seventy percent of hazardous
fuels reduction funds be spent within one-half mile of at risk
communities or within municipal watersheds is necessary because GAO
recently found that more than two-thirds of the Forest Service's
decisions involving fuels reduction activities were targeted
exclusively at lands outside of the wildland/urban interface. H.R. 1904
contains no similar provision.
In conclusion, our bill represents a comprehensive and balanced
approach to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Collaborative Forest Health
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``at-risk community'' means--
(A) an urban wildland ``interface'' or ``intermix''
community as those terms were defined by the Secretaries on
January 4, 2001 (66 Federal Register 753), or
(B) consisting of a collection of homes or other structures
with basic infrastructure and services, such as utilities,
collectively maintained transportation routes, and emergency
services;
(i) on which conditions are conducive to large-scale fire
disturbance events; and
(ii) for which a significant risk exists of a resulting
spread of the fire disturbance event, after ignition, which
would threaten human life and property.
(2) The term ``community protection zone'' means an at-risk
community and an area within one-half mile of an at-risk
community.
(3) The term ``Secretaries'' means the Secretary of
Agriculture with respect to National Forest System lands and
the Secretary of the Interior with respect to public lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
(4) The term ``1890 Institution'' means a college or
university eligible to receive funds under the Act of August
30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee
University.
(5) The term ``Federal lands'' means public lands as
defined in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)) and the National Forest
System as defined in section 11 (a) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C.
1609(a)).
SEC. 3. EXPEDITED PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.
(a) Categorical Exclusion.--Subject to subsection (h), the
Secretaries may find that a proposed hazardous fuels
reduction project, including prescribed fire, that removes no
more than 250,000 board feet of merchantable wood products or
removes as salvage 1,000,000 board feet or less of
merchantable wood products and assures regeneration of
harvested or salvaged areas will not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and, therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required
(b) Public Meeting.--Prior to implementing a project
pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretaries shall conduct a
public meeting at an appropriate location proximate to the
administrative unit of the Federal lands in which the project
will be conducted. The Secretaries shall provide advance
notice of the date and time of the meeting.
(c) Collaboration.--
(1) The Secretaries shall identify projects implemented
pursuant to this section through a collaborative framework as
described in the Implementation Plan for the 10-year
Comprehensive Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for
Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the
Environment, dated May 2002, developed pursuant to the
Conference Report to the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY 2001 (H. Rept. 106-
646) to reduce hazardous fuels. Any project carried out
pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the
applicable forest plan, resource management plan, or other
applicable agency plans.
(2) The Secretaries shall ensure that local level
collaboration includes Tribal representatives, local
representatives from Federal and State agencies, local
governments, landowners, other stakeholders, and community-
based groups.
[[Page S8364]]
(3) The Secretaries shall establish incentives or
performance measures to ensure that Federal employees are
committed to collaboration.
(d) Acreage Limitation.--In implementing this section, the
Secretaries shall implement projects on an aggregate area of
not more than 20 million acres of Federal lands. This amount
is in addition to the existing hazardous fuels reduction
program that implements projects on approximately 2.5 million
acres each year.
(e) Administrative Appeals.--
Projects implemented pursuant to this section shall not be
subject to the appeal requirements of section 322 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note) or review by
the Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals. Nothing
in this section affects projects for which scoping has begun
prior to enactment of this Act.
(f) Conclusive Presumption.--Within--
(1) the community protection zone; or
(2) municipal watersheds in which National Environmental
Policy Act documentation and analysis has been completed and
no new road construction is allowed, no timber sales are
allowed, and no log skidding machines are allowed,
unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the decision of
either Secretary that a proposed hazardous fuels reduction
project authorized by subsection (a) is categorically
excluded is conclusive as a matter of law and shall not be
subject to judicial review. This conclusive determination
shall apply in any judicial proceeding brought to enforce the
National Environmental Policy Act pursuant to this section.
(g) Excluded Federal Lands.--This section does not apply to
any Federal lands--
(1) included in a wilderness study area or a component of
the National Wilderness Preservation System; or
(2) where logging is prohibited or restricted by an Act of
Congress, presidential proclamation, or agency determination.
(h) Extraordinary Circumstances.--For all projects proposed
pursuant to this section, if there are extraordinary
circumstances, the Secretaries shall follow agency procedures
related to categorical exclusions and extraordinary
circumstances consistent with Council on Environmental
Quality regulations.
(i) Reduce Fire Risk and Improve Forest Health.--
(1) In order to ensure that the agencies are implementing
projects pursuant to this section that reduce the risk of
unnaturally intense wildfires and improve forest health, the
Secretaries--
(A) shall not construct or reconstruct new temporary or
permanent roads in inventoried roadless areas;
(B) shall maintain the integrity of mature and old growth
stands appropriate for each ecosystem type and shall focus on
thinning from below for all forest thinning projects;
(C) shall use integrated pest management techniques to
forestall significant fuel loading in areas infested by
native insects;
(D) shall require a slash treatment plan when thinning to
reduce hazardous fuels in areas with insect mortality and
limit timber salvage activity to areas with fifty percent or
more mortality; and
(E) shall deposit in the Treasury of the United States all
revenues and receipts generated from projects implemented
pursuant to this Act.
(2) In addition to the requirements set forth in paragraph
(1), the Secretaries shall ensure that projects implemented
in municipal watersheds protect or enhance water quality or
water quantity.
(3) The Secretaries shall not use goods-for-service
contracting to implement projects pursuant to this section.
(j) Long-Term Fuel Management.--In implementing hazardous
fuels reduction projects pursuant to this section, the
Secretaries shall ensure that--
(1) funding to assure completion of all phases of the
project be committed by the management unit before the
project begins;
(2) a follow-up treatment plan describing the long-term
maintenance activities to keep the treated areas within the
historical range of variability, and the project costs, shall
accompany all proposed projects; and
(3) a system to track the budgeting and implementation of
follow-up treatments shall be used to account for the long-
term maintenance of areas managed to reduce hazardous fuels.
(k) Hazardous Fuels Reduction Funding Focus.--In order to
focus hazardous fuels reduction activities on the highest
priority areas where critical issues of human safety and
property loss are the most serious and within municipal
watersheds, the Secretaries shall expend at least seventy
percent of the hazardous fuels operations funds provided
annually only on projects within the community protection
zone or within municipal watersheds.
(l) Communities.--
(1) The Secretaries shall expend at least thirty percent of
the hazardous fuels operations funds provided annually on
projects that benefit small businesses that use small
diameter material and woody debris removed in hazardous fuels
reduction treatments and are located in small, economically
disadvantaged communities.
(2) To conduct a project under this section, the
Secretaries shall use local preference contracting and best
value contracting. Best value contracting criteria includes--
(A) the ability of the contractor to meet the ecological
goals of the projects;
(B) the use of equipment that will minimize or eliminate
impacts on soils; and
(C) benefits to local communities such as ensuring that the
byproducts are processed locally.
(m) Monitoring.--(1) The Secretaries shall jointly
establish a commission to complete an assessment of the
positive or negative impacts and effectiveness of projects
implemented under this section. The commission shall be
composed of 12 to 15 members with equal representation from
conservation interests, local communities, and commodity
interests. The Commission shall submit a report to Congress
within 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. The
report must include identification of the total dollar value
of contracts awarded to natural resource related small or
micro enterprises, Youth Conservation Corps crews or related
partnerships, entities that hired and trained local people to
complete the contract or agreement, or local entities that
meet the criteria to qualify for the Historically
Underutilized Business Zone Program pursuant to section 32 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a).
(2) (A) The Secretaries shall establish a multiparty
monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process in order
to assess a representative sampling of the projects
implemented pursuant to this section.
(B) The Secretaries shall ensure that monitoring data is
collected and compiled in a way that the general public can
easily access. The Secretaries may collect the data using
cooperative agreements, grants, or contracts with small or
micro-enterprises, Youth Conservation Corps work crews or
related partnerships with State, local, and other non Federal
conservation corps.
(3) Funds to implement this section shall be derived from
hazardous fuels operations funds.
(n) Sunset.--
The provisions of this section shall expire five years
after the date of enactment of this Act, except that a
project for which a decision notice, or memorandum in the
case of a categorical exclusion, has been issued before the
end of such period may continue to be implemented using the
provisions of this Act.
SEC. 4. INSECT INFESTATIONS.
(a) During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the Secretaries
jointly shall make available from funds otherwise available
in the Treasury, without further appropriation, $25,000,000
each fiscal year to conduct a systematic information
gathering program on certain insect types that have caused
large scale damage to forest ecosystems in order to complete
research that can be applied to forest management treatments
and product utilization.
(b) The Secretaries shall establish and carry out the
program in cooperation with scientists from universities and
forestry schools, State agencies, and private and industrial
land owners. The Secretaries shall designate universities and
forestry schools, including Land Grant Colleges and
Universities and 1890 institutions, to carry out the program.
(c) The Secretaries shall ensure that the program includes
research on:
(1) determining how to best use mechanical thinning and
prescribed fire to modify fire behavior and reduce fire risk,
and to improve the scientific basis for design,
implementation and evaluation of hazardous fuels reduction
treatments;
(2) gathering systematic information on insect types,
including Emerald Ash Borers, Gypsy Moth, Red Oak Borers,
Asian Longhomed Beetles, and Bark Beetles, that have caused
large-scale damage to forest ecosystems, to establish early
detection programs for insect and disease infestation in
order to prevent massive breakouts, to determine the
correlation between insect mortality and fire risk in
specific forest types, and to test silvicultural systems that
use integrated pest management; and
(3) developing new technologies and markets for value-added
products that use the byproducts of insect infestation or
hazardous fuels reduction treatments.
SEC. 5. FIREFIGHTER SAFETY AND TRAINING.
The Secretaries shall track funds expended for firefighter
safety and training and include a line items for such
expenditures in future budget requests.
SEC. 6. BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION.
(a) The Secretary of Agriculture may request up to $250
million in a fiscal year from the Secretary of the Treasury
to cover fire suppression costs that exceed the amount of
funding available to the Forest Service for fire suppression
in a fiscal year.
(b) Upon such request, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
make such sums available to the Secretary of Agriculture,
without further appropriation.
(c) Upon amounts being appropriated by Congress to
reimburse funds transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture
pursuant to this section, such amounts shall be deposited in
the Treasury.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON THE COMPETITIVE SOURCING INITIATIVE.
The Competitive Sourcing Initiative and the Office of
Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, dated May 29, 2003,
shall not apply to the Forest Service.
SEC. 8. WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION AND BURNED AREA RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the
Secretaries jointly shall
[[Page S8365]]
make available from funds otherwise available in the
Treasury, without further appropriation, $100,000,000 each
fiscal year to reduce the risk of wildfire to structures and
restore burned areas on tribal lands, nonindustrial private
lands, and State lands using the authorities available
pursuant to this section, the National Fire Plan and the
Emergency Watershed Protection program.
(b) Cost Share Grants.--In implementing this section, the
Secretaries may make cost-share grants to Indian tribes,
local fire districts, municipalities, homeowner associations,
and counties, to remove, transport, and dispose of hazardous
fuels around homes and property to--
(1) prevent structural damage as a result of wildfire, or
(2) to restore or rehabilitate burned areas on non-Federal
lands.
(c) Non-Federal Contribution.--The non-Federal contribution
may be in the form of cash or in-kind contribution.
(d) Priority.--Priority for such funds shall be given to
areas where the applicable local government has enacted
ordinances for wildland areas requiring or promoting brush
clearance around homes and requiring fire-retardant building
materials for new construction.
(e) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated in one
fiscal year and unobligated before the end of that fiscal
year shall remain available for use in subsequent fiscal
years.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Bingaman, Murray,
Cantwell and others to introduce the Collaborative Forest Health Act to
expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on our national
forests and public lands. I thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership
on this important issue.
Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat
of catastrophic wildfire. There is agreement on the need to accelerate
fuel reduction activities because of the risk of severe fire is so
high. Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and past
forestry practices have all contributed to the problem. These problems
have made fire management much more expensive for American taxpayers.
It is important to devote limited resources to proactive efforts to
reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires once they occur.
The risk of damage to human life and property from severe wildfires
has increased in areas where rapidly expanding populations are
intermingled with forested wildlands, and a primary purpose of the
National Fire Plan is to reduce the risks of such fires. Last week,
Governors Judy Martz of Montana, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Janet
Napolitano of Arizona, and Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho issued a letter to
the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee endorsing this approach stating that ``priority in project
selection should be given to projects that reduce fire risk in
communities at risk and the watersheds that supply them.''
This comprehensive legislation will assist communities from the
threat of wildfire by expediting fuel reduction in high risk areas and
target resources near communities and municipal watersheds. We propose
to exempt from environmental review and analysis all forest thinning
projects located within one-half mile of at risk communities or within
certain municipal watershed. While these targeted exemptions from
environmental review are warranted, the Senate should proceed with
caution in considering any comprehensive changes to judicial review. On
May 14, 2003, the General Accounting Office, GAO, issued a report on
the Forest Service's fuel reduction activities. For fiscal year 2001
and fiscal year 2002, the GAO found that hazardous fuel reduction
activities were conducted on 4.7 million acres. Only 3 percent of all
the fuel reduction projects, covering only 100,000 acres, faced any
legal challenge during this period.
In 2002, the National Academy of Public Administration issued a
report recommending the Federal Government conduct fuels reduction
treatments near communities and municipal watersheds before treating
more distant areas. We also require that 70 percent of forest thinning
funds be spent within these critical areas. Our bill authorizes
projects on up to 20 million acres over 5 years.
The bill also recognizes the role that forest-dependent communities
play in restoring our lands by requiring that at least 30 percent of
the hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects that benefit
small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located in small,
economically disadvantaged communities.
It is widely known that approximately 80 percent of the land
surrounding homes and communities is non-Federal land. Our legislation
provides $100 million annually to States, tribal and private lands to
reduce wildfire risk and restore burned areas.
In addition, our bill establishes a $25 million research program, in
cooperation with colleges and universities, to gather information on
insect infestations that can be applied to forest management
treatments.
Our bill promotes wildfire management activities that maintain the
integrity of our national forests and public lands. The bill requires
protection of old and large trees, prevents new road construction in
roadless areas, and protects municipal watersheds.
In conclusion, our bill represents a comprehensive and balanced
approach to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health. I urge
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Smith):
S. 1315. A bill to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 to provide owners of non-Federal lands with a reliable method
of receiving compensation for damages resulting from the spread of
wildfire from nearby forested national Forest System lands or Bureau of
Land Management lands, when those forested Federal lands are not
maintained in the forest health status known as condition class 1; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhanced
Safety from Wildfire Act of 2003. I am joined by my colleagues Mr.
Crapo and Mr. Smith.
This morning, I awoke to the news that the Aspen fire near Tucson,
AZ, made a significant run yesterday and damaged or destroyed an
estimated 200 structures. The report also said firefighters could do
nothing to stop the wall of fire from ripping through the middle of
town. Sadly, this report is one of several such stories today and it is
far from being the last.
It is only the middle of June and already the wildfire season is in
full swing throughout the West. The loss of property as a result of
wildfires on Federal land is unacceptable. I believe that our homes and
the safety of our communities should never be put in harms way because
of the mismanagement of our Federal land.
In short, the legislation we are introducing would amend the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to make it possible for non-
Federal land owners to receive compensation for a loss of property as a
result of wildfire spreading from Federal land that has not been
managed as Condition Class 1.
As we all know, in recent years, there has been a significant amount
of injury and loss of property resulting from the spread of wildfire
from Federal forested lands to non-Federal lands. Recent wildfires on
Federal forested lands have shown that lands managed under approved
forest health management practices are less susceptible to wildfire, or
are subjected to less severe wildfire, than similarly forested lands
that are not actively managed.
There is a continuing and growing threat to the safety of
communities, individuals, homes and other property, and timber on non-
Federal lands that adjoin Federal forested lands because of the
unnatural accumulation of forest fuels on these Federal lands and the
lack of active Federal management of these lands.
The use of approved forest health management practices to create
forest fire ``buffer zones'' between forested Federal lands and
adjacent non-Federal lands would reduce the occurrence of wildfires on
forested Federal lands or, at least, limit their spread to non-Federal
lands and the severity of the resulting damage.
This legislation requires the agencies to manage a ``buffer zone'' on
Federal land, greater than 6,400 acres, that is adjacent to non-Federal
land. When forested Federal lands adjacent to non-Federal lands are not
adequately managed with a ``buffer zone'' and wildfire occurs, the
legislation states the owners of the non-Federal lands are eligible for
compensation for damages resulting from the spread of wildfire to
[[Page S8366]]
their lands. The legislation sets minimum criteria for non-Federal land
to be eligible for compensation.
Our Federal land management agencies need to take responsibility for
the fatal impacts that occur on non-Federal land as a result of a lack
of management on Federal land. As a society, we have come to expect
that our neighbors take responsibility for their actions and I feel the
Federal land management agencies should not escape this responsibility
either.
In the next few weeks, the weather will continue to heat up, the
drought ridden West will become drier, wildfire will continue to plague
throughout, and the number of reports regarding the loss of property
will continue to escalate. At the same time, the forest health debate
will also heat up as the Senate considers the President's Healthy
Forest Initiative.
I know this legislation may not be the answer to solving our Federal
land management problems and I am willing to discuss other options, but
I know that until we address the heart of this issue, homes, private
land, and communities will continue to be at risk because of poor
Federal land management. Being a good neighbor means being responsible
for your actions.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1315
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act maybe cited as the ``Enhanced Safety from Wildfire
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. UNITED STATES LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
THE SPREAD OF WILDFIRE FROM FORESTED PUBLIC
LANDS.
(a) Imposition of Liability for Spread of Wildfire.--Title
III of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 is
amended by inserting after section 318 (43 U.S.C. 1748) the
following new section:
``Sec. 319. Liability for Damages Resulting From Spread of Wildfire
From Public Lands or National Forest System Lands.
``(a) Liability as Rule of Law.--Except as provided in
subsections (b), (c), and (d), and subject to the delayed
effective date specified in subsection (h), any injury to or
loss of property that occurs on non-Federal lands as a direct
result of a fire that spread from forested Federal lands onto
the non-Federal lands, either directly or by first spreading
to other non-Federal lands, shall be deemed to be an injury
or loss of property caused by the negligent or wrongful act
or omission of an employee of the United States while acting
within the scope of the employee's office or employment for
purposes of section 1346 and chapter 171 of title 28, United
States Code (commonly known as the `Federal Tort Claims
Act').
``(b) Additional Requirement for Certain Non-Federal
Lands.--The owner or leasee of non Federal lands damaged by
the spread of wildfire from forested Federal lands may not
utilize the rule of law specified in subsection (a) when the
non-Federal lands exceed 6400 acres and are used for the
commercial production of timber, unless the owner or leasee
proves that the damaged non-Federal lands were being managed
to achieve or maintain the forest health status known as
condition class 1 immediately before the fire. In the event
of a dispute between the owner or leasee and the Secretary
concerned regarding the status of the non-Federal lands
before the fire, the determination of the State Forester of
the State in which the lands are located shall control and
any expenses associated with State Foresters determination
shall be equally divided between the disputing parties.
``(c) Exclusion of Condition Class 1 Lands.--The rule of
law specified in subsection (a) shall not apply if the
forested Federal lands within the buffer zone adjacent to the
Federal land boundary from which the fire spread to non-
Federal lands were managed as condition class 1 immediately
before the fire.
``(d) Exclusion of Other Federal Lands.--The rule of law
specified in subsection (a) shall not apply to the following
Federal lands, even though wildfire may originate on such
lands and spread to adjacent non-Federal lands:
``(1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
``(2) Federal lands where, by Act of Congress, Presidential
proclamation, or land and resource management plan, the
removal of vegetation is prohibited.
``(3) Areas of Federal lands that comprise less than 6,400
acres and are not contiguous to other Federal lands.
``(e) Exception for O&C Lands.--The rule of law specified
in subsection (a) shall apply to National Forest System lands
and Bureau of Land Management lands administered under the
authorities of the O&C Sustained Yield Act of 1937 and that
do not meet the acreage limitation set forth in subsection
(d) (3).
``(f) Report Regarding Status of Buffer Lands.--Not later
than two years after the date of the enactment of this
section, the Secretary concerned shall submit to Congress a
report describing the forest health status of all buffer
zones with non-Federal lands and the extent to which the
buffer zones are in, or are being managed to achieve, the
forest health status known as condition class 1.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `buffer zone' refers to those forested
Federal lands that are within a prescribed distance of a
Federal land boundary with non-Federal lands and comprise, or
are part of a larger area of Federal lands comprising, 6,400
acres or more. The Secretary shall prescribe the actual
buffer zone for a particular area of forested Federal lands
based on the geography, topography, and forest cover of the
lands.
``(2) The term `condition class 1', with respect to an area
of forested Federal lands or non-Federal lands, means that
the lands are managed so that
``(A) fire regimes on the lands are within historical
ranges;
``(B) vegetation composition and structure are intact; and
``(C) the risk of losing key ecosystem components from the
occurrence of fire remains relatively low.
``(3) The term `forested Federal lands' means public lands
and National Forest System lands that contain trees as a
significant component of the lands.
``(4) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of
the Interior (or the designee of that Secretary) with respect
to public lands and the Secretary of Agriculture (or the
designee of that Secretary) with respect to National Forest
System lands.
``(h) Delayed Effective Date.--The rule of law specified in
subsection (a) shall take effect at the end of the eight-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section
and apply with respect to fires that spread from Federal
lands onto non-Federal lands after the end of such period.''
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents at the
beginning of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 318 the following new item:
``Sec. 319. Liability for damages resulting from spread of wildfire
from public lands or National Forest System lands.''.
____________________