[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15706-15714]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 15707]]

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 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 form 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

[[Page 15708]]

     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.
       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 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

[[Page 15709]]

     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.
       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.

[[Page 15710]]

  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 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:

[[Page 15711]]

       (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.
       (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

[[Page 15712]]

     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 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

[[Page 15713]]

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 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

[[Page 15714]]

     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.''.

                          ____________________