Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act of 2003

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on our national forests and public lands. I am pleased that Senator Daschle is a cosponsor of this bill.

Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. We all agree on the need to accelerate fuels reduction activities because the risk of severe fire is so high. Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and overly-excessive harvesting of timber have all contributed to the problem. All of us also agree that it is much better to devote limited resources to proactive efforts to reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires once they occur.

I have tried for years to improve the Federal agencies' forest thinning program in a variety of ways. I am also a vocal proponent for spending Federal dollars conducting proactive forest restoration. Although some may contend that restoration costs too much money, over the long-term, it is much less expensive than fighting fires.

Every year, the Forest Service borrows funds from other accounts to pay for firefighting. It is clear that this practice substantially contributes to project delays and cancellations. For example, in 2002 alone, the Forest Service states that:

some critical projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to

one year as a result of fire borrowing. These include

wildland-urban interface fuels projects on the Carson, Gila,

Lincoln, and Santa Fe National Forests. A contract for

construction of a fuelbreak around a community at risk on the

Cibola National Forest was postponed for six months.

The legislation I am introducing today eliminates the current fire borrowing practice by authorizing the Forest Service, during years in which the agencies' firefighting costs exceed its budget, to borrow funds directly from the Treasury. I urge my colleagues to reject any bill purporting to decrease on the ground delays if it does not address this problem.

A 2002 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, and a letter to Congress from the Society of American Foresters dated November 2002, confirms that the main obstacle constraining us from increasing our efforts to reduce fire risk is a lack of adequate funding. Clearly, the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice contributes to this lack of funding. Ever since Congress first funded the National Fire Plan more than two years ago, I have continually emphasized the need to sustain a commitment to the FY 2001 funding levels over a long enough period of time to make a difference--at least 15 years.

Important programs that are part of the National Fire Plan, including economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance, and burned area restoration and rehabilitation have been drastically cut--and some have been zeroed out--by the Administration over the last three budget cycles. For some accounts included under the National Fire Plan, but not all, Congress has made up the difference. However, it would certainly be much easier to fully fund the National Fire Plan with the Administration's support.

Beyond funding constraints, some allege that administrative appeals and lawsuits limit our ability to reduce fire risk across the country. As set forth in my legislation, I am willing to provide new legal authorities and exemptions from administrative appeals to address this concern.

Let me briefly describe the expedited procedures provisions of our bill. We propose to exempt from National Environmental Policy Act analysis all forest thinning projects located near communities or in municipal watersheds that remove up to 250,000 board feet of timber or one million board feet of salvage timber. We prohibit administrative appeals on these projects, thereby saving 135 days in the process. In addition, we eliminate judicial review granted under NEPA for thinning projects within one-half mile of at risk communities or within certain municipal watersheds. The combination of these provisions would save between one and one-half to three and one-half years of process.

Targeting the expedited procedures to areas near communities and in municipal watersheds is consistent with a 2002 National Academy of Public Administration report recommending that the Federal Government conduct fuels reduction treatments near communities and municipal watersheds before treating more distant areas. We also require that seventy percent of forest thinning funds be spent within these critical areas.

We agree with, and included, some provisions similar to ones found in H.R. 1904. For example, our bill covers the same amount of Federal land, namely, up to 20 million acres. H.R. 1904 requires the Secretaries to select projects through a collaborative process and give priority to protecting communities and municipal watersheds. Moreover, H.R. 1904 requires that projects be consistent with applicable forest and resource management plans. I agree with all of these provisions.

Both bills establish systematic programs, in cooperation with colleges and universities, to gather information on insect infestations that can be applied to forest management treatments. However, our bill provides actual funds, $25 million annually, to implement the program whereas H.R. 1904 does not.

This bill differs from H.R. 1904 in some other important aspects. Our bill comprehensively addresses the issue of on the ground delay by doing away with the Forest Service's fire borrowing practice and exempting the Forest Service from the Competitive Sourcing Initiative.

Our legislation provides $100 million annually to reduce fire risk and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands. Forest Service researchers state that seventy-seven percent of all high risk areas are on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National Academy of Public Administration's 2002 report notes that forty-seven percent of acres burned each year are non-Federal lands and stated that decreasing fuels on all owners' lands is needed to address the large scope of the fire hazard problem. Moreover, given that the Administration has zeroed out funding for burned area restoration and rehabilitation, the secure funding provided by our bill is desperately needed to protect communities from landslides and other adverse effects of catastrophic wildfire.

The bill I am introducing today recognizes the role that forest dependent

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.

Mr. President, today I join Senators Bingaman, Murray, Cantwell and others to introduce the Collaborative Forest Health Act to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health on our national forests and public lands. I thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership on this important issue.

Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. There is agreement on the need to accelerate fuel reduction activities because of the risk of severe fire is so high. Ongoing drought, past fire suppression policies, and past forestry practices have all contributed to the problem. These problems have made fire management much more expensive for American taxpayers. It is important to devote limited resources to proactive efforts to reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight fires once they occur.

The risk of damage to human life and property from severe wildfires has increased in areas where rapidly expanding populations are intermingled with forested wildlands, and a primary purpose of the National Fire Plan is to reduce the risks of such fires. Last week, Governors Judy Martz of Montana, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho issued a letter to the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee endorsing this approach stating that ``priority in project selection should be given to projects that reduce fire risk in communities at risk and the watersheds that supply them.''

This comprehensive legislation will assist communities from the threat of wildfire by expediting fuel reduction in high risk areas and target resources near communities and municipal watersheds. We propose to exempt from environmental review and analysis all forest thinning projects located within one-half mile of at risk communities or within certain municipal watershed. While these targeted exemptions from environmental review are warranted, the Senate should proceed with caution in considering any comprehensive changes to judicial review. On May 14, 2003, the General Accounting Office, GAO, issued a report on the Forest Service's fuel reduction activities. For fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, the GAO found that hazardous fuel reduction activities were conducted on 4.7 million acres. Only 3 percent of all the fuel reduction projects, covering only 100,000 acres, faced any legal challenge during this period.

In 2002, the National Academy of Public Administration issued a report recommending the Federal Government conduct fuels reduction treatments near communities and municipal watersheds before treating more distant areas. We also require that 70 percent of forest thinning funds be spent within these critical areas. Our bill authorizes projects on up to 20 million acres over 5 years.

The bill also recognizes the role that forest-dependent communities play in restoring our lands by requiring that at least 30 percent of the hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects that benefit small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located in small, economically disadvantaged communities.

It is widely known that approximately 80 percent of the land surrounding homes and communities is non-Federal land. Our legislation provides $100 million annually to States, tribal and private lands to reduce wildfire risk and restore burned areas.

In addition, our bill establishes a $25 million research program, in cooperation with colleges and universities, to gather information on insect infestations that can be applied to forest management treatments.

Our bill promotes wildfire management activities that maintain the integrity of our national forests and public lands. The bill requires protection of old and large trees, prevents new road construction in roadless areas, and protects municipal watersheds.

In conclusion, our bill represents a comprehensive and balanced approach to expedite forest thinning and improve forest health. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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.

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.

Mr. President, today, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation that would provide for 100 percent coverage under Medicaid for the payment of health services rendered to Native Hawaiians by either Federally qualified health centers or Native Hawaiian health care systems. This provision would treat our State's Native Hawaiians comparably with Alaskan Natives and American Indians under the current Medicaid law. We purposely focused upon Federally qualified health centers and Native Hawaiian health care systems, because they are highly cost effective ways of providing these extraordinarily necessary primary care and preventative services.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.