PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 19, 2013
Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2013 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), with regard to sequestration adjustments, to require any adjustments in enacted appropriations for wildfire suppression operations in the Wildland Fire Management accounts at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the Department of the Interior for a fiscal year, to be the amount of additional new budget authority provided for wildfire suppression operations in the appropriations Act, but not to exceed $2.689 billion in such authority in each of FY2014-FY2021.
Defines "additional new budget authority" as the amount specified in an appropriations Act for a fiscal year to pay for wildfire suppression operations, but only to the extent such authority exceeds 70% of the average costs for wildfire suppression operations over the previous 10 years.
Prescribes requirements for any request by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture for supplemental appropriations necessary for wildfire suppression operations.
People & committees
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9063-9064)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1875 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1875 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1875 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1875 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.