[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20261-20264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         WILDFIRE PROVISIONS IN THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, most of us are busy today reviewing the 
contents of the Omnibus appropriations bill that was released late last 
night--actually, early this morning. I come to the floor this afternoon 
with my colleague from Washington, the ranking member on the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, to speak about the wildfire provisions. 
More specifically, I am here to explain why Congress chose not to 
accept a flawed proposal from the administration and really, I think, 
to be here to give hope and optimism about a path forward for next 
year.
  I think it goes without saying that our Nation's wildfire epidemic is 
a serious challenge that demands attention from each one of us. Each 
year the wildfire season seems to include new ``worsts'' and shattered 
records, and 2015 has been particularly devastating. It seems as though 
we didn't have a wildfire season; we've had a wildfire year. We all 
know that we have seen too much acreage burn, too many western 
communities have suffered damage, and, tragically, lives have been 
lost.
  According to the National Interagency Fire Center, more than 9.4 
million acres of our country had burned through October 30 of this 
year. In Alaska, where most of these fires occur, we lost over 5 
million acres during this period. For perspective, that is about the 
size of the State of Connecticut. That is what we saw burn in Alaska 
alone this year.
  Those of us whose States are impacted by wildfire started this year 
in agreement that the way wildfire management has been funded is 
broken; and that it is past time we fix it. We know we can't continue 
to underfund fire suppression, only then to scramble to borrow money to 
fight fires--and all this while the fires are many times burning out of 
control. We know that we need to end this very disruptive and 
unsustainable cycle of fire borrowing, which drains funds from other 
programs as agencies desperately seek resources. I think this fire 
borrowing concept is one area where we have all been able to come 
together, whether it is those within the agencies or those of us 
looking to address policy, the appropriators. We have to figure out how 
we are going to stop the fire borrowing that goes on within the various 
accounts in an effort to respond to these wildfires.
  Earlier this year, as the chairman of the Interior-Environment 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I set out to fix this very broken system. 
Under my direction, our committee reported a bill to do just that. The 
Interior appropriations bill included a permanent, fiscally responsible 
fix for fire borrowing. It would have provided resources to the 
agencies up front--enough funding to fully cover the average annual 
cost of firefighting over the past 10 years--while allowing for a 
limited cap adjustment in have truly catastrophic fire years. The bill 
simultaneously increased funding for fire prevention efforts and took 
steps also to return to active forest management.
  We thought this was not only a sound approach to address the fire 
borrowing but also the forest management issues that so many of us are 
concerned about. Unfortunately, we ran into a wall with the House of 
Representatives. They wouldn't accept the language because of its 
limited cap adjustment. Instead, we worked across Chambers within the 
Appropriations Committee to provide an unprecedented level of funding 
to address wildfire in this omnibus.
  As I said, I am still going through the omnibus myself and trying to 
figure out whether to support the overall bill. But I do think it is 
important to recognize and understand what we have included in this 
omnibus. The wildfire provisions are both responsible and pragmatic. It 
provides real money, right now and gives us the time to develop long 
term real solutions. The bill includes $1.6 billion for fire 
suppression, which is $600 million over the average cost of fighting 
wildfires over the past 10 years. It also includes $545 million for 
hazardous fuels reduction, and it includes $360 million for the Forest 
Service's timber program, which will help us resume the active 
management of our forests.
  What we have in this omnibus bill is more funding for wildfires than 
was spent during the 2015 fire season--and, again, that was one of the 
most expensive fire seasons in history. When we think about what we 
have done, barring a truly record-setting fire season in 2016, fire 
borrowing should not be an issue for us the rest of this fiscal year. 
We did this the right way--the way that Congress should deal with the 
government's responsibilities--by making cuts elsewhere to pay for this 
within the budget. Again, this is real money. This is money that will 
be available immediately because we have done this through the 
appropriations process.
  We have had many conversations--Senator Cantwell and I and many in 
this body--with Members who were hoping to see a different proposal. 
The House had a proposal, colleagues here in the Senate had a proposal, 
and the administration had a proposal. They were hoping it could be 
factored into the omnibus, but for a number of reasons it was not 
included within the bill.
  The administration's proposal would have amended the Stafford Act to 
expand the purposes for emergency funding for major disasters to 
include fighting wildfires on Federal lands. The House included a 
similar idea in a forestry bill it passed earlier in the year. The 
irony here is that the Administration came out very strongly against 
this back in July, just a few months ago. The President's advisers 
issued a Statement of Administration Policy objecting to the 
repurposing of the Stafford Act and the use of the Disaster Relief Fund 
for wildfire suppression operations.
  In September, the director of FEMA wrote an opinion piece about this. 
He said that tapping the Disaster Relief Fund for wildfires would 
``undermine the federal government's ability to budget for and fund 
responses to disasters, as well as to finance state and tribal public 
infrastructure recovery projects.''
  The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 
head of the Office of Management and Budget echoed that concern in a 
letter where they said, ``We do not believe that Congress should modify 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as 
a means to address the escalating costs of wildfire.''
  Yet here we are just a few months later, and the administration is 
now proposing to amend the Stafford Act. And after reviewing the 
proposal, it appears to be nothing more than a work-around that still 
has serious problems.

[[Page 20262]]

  I think the first important reminder is that the Stafford Act itself 
is designed to provide Federal assistance to State, local, and tribal 
governments to alleviate disaster suffering and facilitate recovery 
after a disaster has occurred. There is no precedent for accessing it 
to provide emergency money for disasters on Federal lands.
  The second concern we have is that this proposal doesn't actually end 
fire borrowing. What it does is create an account that is separate from 
the Disaster Relief Fund that is subject to appropriations, which means 
that it is now empty. That fund may be there, but there is nothing in 
it, and it could remain empty. There is no guarantee that appropriators 
will fund the account or that the President will ever request funds for 
it. And if there are no funds in the account, then basically what we 
have to assume is that the agencies are going to have to borrow again. 
So we haven't fixed the borrowing.
  We have an average of 68,000 fires each year. Under this proposal, 
each one could require a separate Presidential declaration once the 
initial appropriations run out. So we have to ask the question: How 
does this actually work? Does the Forest Service Chief have to estimate 
how much each fire is going to cost? What happens in the meantime while 
you have all these fires burning? Again, the agencies are going to be 
in a situation where they are going to be forced to fire borrow.
  Even if we assume that Federal dollars will be appropriated to the 
fund envisioned by this proposal and that the President will make 
disaster declarations after he is asked to do so by Cabinet officials, 
we are still setting another troubling precedent. The administration 
will effectively be able to decide to give itself money under the 
Stafford Act. This is not like giving an individual money after they 
have suffered a disaster, a loss to their home or property; this is the 
administration being able to decide to give itself money. So the 
question is, is this really something that we want to do?
  Finally, I think this proposal is a missed opportunity. It was 
supposed to be coupled with a set of productive forest management 
reforms. What we saw is a good start. There are forest reforms in there 
but there is not very much in this to get excited about for Alaska, 
where we have both a wildfire problem and a timber problem. The 
proposal also does too little to help our firefighters or our 
communities which are at physical risk from wildfires and economic risk 
from restrictions on timber harvesting.
  I am certainly not alone in this. Again, Senator Cantwell has spoken 
very passionately on this issue--not only in committee but here on the 
floor. I am going to yield to her in just a moment.
  We heard from a representative from the International Association of 
Fire Chiefs, who said that ``due to the rapidly rising cost of wildland 
fire suppression, IAFC [the International Association of Fire Chiefs] 
is concerned that the [Disaster Relief Fund] could run out of money as 
it is also used to address hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and 
other emergencies.''
  We have also heard from a nonprofit organization called Firefighters 
United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology. Their letter to congressional 
leaders observes that ``allowing agencies to declare wildfires as 
disasters simply to access near-unlimited funding for suppression will 
undermine efforts that have been long in the making to shift agencies 
toward alternative proactive strategies in fire preparedness and 
planning, fuels reduction and forest restoration.''
  I want to find a solution to the fire-budgeting problem as much as 
anyone in this Chamber, but the proposal that surfaced during budget 
negotiations was not the right way to go. It was not developed in the 
open and transparent manner that we would hope, and it has not been 
fully vetted. It has drawn opposition not only from Members here but 
from outside groups whose members are on the ground actually fighting 
these fires. So the only solution was to do what we have done, which is 
fully fund firefighting within the budget that we were given.
  The omnibus is our path forward on wildfire funding for this year. It 
devotes greater resources to fire prevention and hazardous fuels 
reduction and contains real money--not an empty account--that will be 
available immediately. We can use the window it provides to develop 
long-term solutions.
  This is where I want to give encouragement to other Members. I am 
committed, as I know that Senator Cantwell is, to working to address 
the longer term solutions to these issues. I am here today to affirm 
that wildfire management legislation will be a top priority for those 
of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year.
  I know we come at this from different perspectives, but that is OK. 
Let's bring our different perspectives and work collaboratively with 
all Members to develop a commonsense bill that properly addresses the 
challenges and concerns that Senator Cantwell has articulated when it 
comes to active forest management, how we deal with our hazardous 
fuels, and how we work on the front end to prevent these catastrophic 
fires. We need to be working together toward these solutions, and I 
certainly make that commitment with my ranking member to advance early 
on in the New Year these provisions that I think will make a 
difference.
  I know Senator Cantwell wants to be part of the solution here and she 
has played a great part as we have worked together to craft a solution 
in the committee. With that, I know that from the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee perspective, we have a lot on our plate. But I 
think that from my perspective as a Senator from Alaska, this is an 
issue that the people in my State feel very passionately about.
  I will ask Senator Cantwell, as we deal with the pressing issues that 
are before us, is this an area where we can come together as an energy 
committee to address these very immediate concerns?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, responding to my colleague from Alaska--
and I will make a longer statement in a second--I do want to thank her 
for her leadership, not just as chairwoman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, but also as the chairwoman of the Appropriations 
Interior subcommittee.
  Thank you for your detailing exactly why it is so important to have 
real money up front. You are right. For you and me and for many Western 
States, we have seen a change in fire habit, and we have seen probably 
two of the worst fire seasons our country has seen in many years and 
the fact that this year's season may trump that.
  It is very important that we give the agencies the tools to address 
this issue and that we give them the tools now--not a guessing game, 
not how much they might get or how much they might borrow but how much 
they have now. I think the 50-percent increase is a recognition of how 
dire the situation is and makes sure that these communities know that 
they get those resources.
  Yes, I wish to thank the chairwoman for allowing the committee to 
have a hearing. Senator Barrasso participated at a very critical moment 
and at a very sad moment because it was just days after we learned that 
we lost firefighters in the central part of our State.
  I wish to say that she has had a committee hearing. We have had 
committee hearings. My staff attended what was called the Wildfire and 
Us Summit. Many people in the central part of our State participated in 
that summit. Your question is, Is this important to us? I think when 
you have a rain forest that catches on fire or you have parts of Alaska 
that have never burned that are up in smoke, you bet this is of 
critical importance to both our States and to many Western States. I 
thank you for the question and thank you for helping to get real 
resources on the table and a 50-percent increase over last year's fire 
budget. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know that Senator Cantwell has a

[[Page 20263]]

longer statement that she would like to make at this point in time.
  I yield to Senator Cantwell.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Murkowski 
for her leadership on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, and I thank the Senator for her discussion on fighting 
wildfires in the United States of America. I think she gave a great 
rendition. My hat is off to appropriators. I can tell you this: What we 
need is real money, and that is what she has provided. I thank her for 
that.
  I thank her partner on the subcommittee, Senator Udall from New 
Mexico. They worked together and had to provide a framework in which 
the omnibus reflects an appropriation that we will vote on later this 
week containing $1.6 billion for fire funding and fire suppression. 
That is $500 million more than last year. So I consider it a very good 
down payment.
  Congress has recognized that it is very important to provide funding 
for fire suppression and at sufficient levels so that agencies can 
address the issues of prevention and hazardous fuel reduction. This is 
something. It is critically important.
  I am pleased that this is a very large increase in firefighting 
accounts this year. Besides the 50-percent increase in fire 
suppression, as my colleague mentioned, there is $375 million in 
hazardous fuel reduction and new grants to local communities to 
decrease their fire hazards, additional fuel reduction projects such as 
controlled burns in our forests, and research on protecting homes 
during massive wildfires.
  This is critically important to my State, as they have implemented 
many programs over the last two seasons that they call ``hasty 
response'' or fuel reduction, where they have been able to show that 
certain treatments have actually been able to save communities and 
neighborhoods that have done such treatment. The challenge becomes 
this: How do you educate the rest of the community, the rest of the 
State, on the vital importance of doing this fuel reduction? It is very 
important that we continue this.
  I thank again the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee and the interior subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations on the fact that this is real money today, a 50-percent 
increase without the necessity for a future declaration of disaster, 
without a future appropriations request, without pitting States against 
each other on every disaster, but providing some predictability with 
this increase about how to move forward for the 2016 firefighting 
season.
  It is very important, as she mentioned, that we continue to focus on 
a variety of issues and resolutions: stopping the way that we continue 
to erode funds from other accounts while ensuring there are 
considerations of cost and oversight for large and expensive fires, 
integrating forest research to better prioritize where prevention money 
goes, increasing controlled burns on our Federal lands, ensuring 
personnel and equipment can operate seamlessly across jurisdictions 
during wildfires, funding community preparedness and FireWise 
activities, funding risk mapping, providing technology on all large 
fires to ensure managers know in real time the location of the fires 
and of our firefighters, and upgrading our air tanker system.
  We saw a lot of this, and we heard a lot about our air tanker system 
during our committee hearings and that there was much more we could be 
doing.
  As to establishing surge capacity, we heard a lot from our local 
communities that joined in the fight and are more than willing to join 
in this effort of helping us fight wildfires, but we need to have the 
capacity and the training.
  As to ensuring communications, nothing was more frustrating in some 
of these wildfires than to have no broadband communication and yet to 
be in charge of all the evacuation for the region without the ability 
to communicate to the people that needed to be evacuated. It is 
critically important that we have on-the-ground communications systems 
available on day one.
  Doing preventative treatments when risks are low is a particular 
issue for our State. We want to make sure that we have cooperation in 
working with other agencies. We don't want to do fire treatments when 
we are in drought conditions and high temperatures and dry, dry 
conditions, but when there are less risks.
  We want to do mapping to clearly identify where the risks are, and we 
want to use technology for safety and effectiveness, such as GPS and 
other systems that can be used from the air, and modifying the 
individual assistance program. I say that because various communities 
that have been hardest hit by our fires have been in rural communities, 
but the way the definition works under our current law basically has 
prejudice against a community if it is not dense enough to meet the 
current requirement.
  I wish to say that the ranking member, myself, and probably even the 
Presiding Officer have very rural communities that can be devastated by 
fires. That means an entire community that may be based on recreation 
or outdoors or any kinds of outdoor activities could be so devastated 
and yet would be left without the resources, simply because they didn't 
meet a population density number. To me, we need to address this 
because these communities are integral parts of our larger United 
States and the economic stability of many of our States.
  We want to continue to make these improvements in our system. As I 
said, the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
allowed several hearings to take place, and we want to continue the 
efforts in working with our colleagues to make sure that we are moving 
forward on this issue in providing all the resources that we can.
  I wish to address one issue, and that is that we are not going to get 
this overall solution by simply clearcutting large swaths of land in 
which we haven't made the right assessments. I say that because we have 
had so many issues in the State of Washington where dangerous erosion 
has taken place in those circumstances, but it is clear that we all 
agree that massive fuel reduction does need to take place.
  I look forward to working with my colleague on that because there are 
many ways in which we can prevent and fight our national wildland 
fires. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, and I thank 
her for getting us real money--a 50-percent increase--that doesn't 
require another declaration, doesn't require a future event. It is 
there, and we can start using it. Let's go to work with our colleagues 
in defining how we do hazardous fuel reduction in the most aggressive 
way possible, giving our communities better tools to fight these fires 
in the future, and working to make sure that we have the best equipment 
and the best resources for those individuals who are fighting those 
fires.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Washington for not only her comments here this evening but for her 
leadership and guidance in this area. When your State is hard hit by 
these disasters, you learn a lot. You learn a lot about what works in 
the process and, unfortunately, what doesn't work. When you cannot get 
a cat to run a fire break because it doesn't have the appropriate card 
or designation, people come to us and say: Well, that is crazy. And you 
have to agree; it is crazy. We can do better. When we are talking about 
the issue of wildland fire and management, it is this management piece 
that I really hope we can get to, because it is not just about throwing 
more money at the fires and hoping that we get it right. It is not only 
about ensuring that we prioritize and get it right with suppression 
dollars, but also that we are working aggressively to deal with the 
prevention, with hazardous fuels reduction, with actively managing 
these issues. That is how we are going to be making the headway. That 
is where we need to be working collaboratively, whether you are from a 
very open, remote, and large State such as Alaska or whether you are a 
State that sees smaller fires that have a catastrophic impact on your 
local economies. I know that Senator Cantwell has articulated that 
very, very clearly within the committee.

[[Page 20264]]

  We have our work cut out in front of us. I worked on a statement that 
included no shortage of fire puns and needing to put a damper on this 
10-alarm fire that was out there, but I decided that the issue of fire 
was not a joke or a laughing matter for anybody.
  We have a lot of work to do, and I am ready to do it. I am rolling up 
my sleeves and looking forward to a lot of cooperation from my 
colleagues as we address this very important priority.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________