[Senate Hearing 108-941]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-941
S. 2411, THE ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTERS ACT OF 2004
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 8, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-390 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 8, 2004..................................... 1
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Witnesses
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio........................ 24
Prepared statement...........................................
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut......... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Mencer, C. Suzanne, Executive Director, Office for State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security........................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Mitchell, Ernest, Chief (Ret.), Pasadena, California Fire
Department and President, International Association of Fire
Chiefs (IAFC).................................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Monihan, E. James, Past Chairman and Delaware State Director,
National Volunteer Fire Council................................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Paulison, R. David, Director, Preparedness Division and United
States Fire Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Shannon, James M., President and CEO, National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA)............................................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Shields, Billy, President, United Phoenix Fire Fighters and Vice
President, Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona............... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Appendix
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
prepared statement............................................. 53
S. 2411, THE ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTERS ACT OF 2004
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 8, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee meets today to
examine S. 2411, the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004.
This legislation was introduced by Senators Dodd and DeWine,
along with myself and 37 cosponsors, to reauthorize the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Over the years, the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program has gained a
reputation for being an effective way to help local fire
departments meet their basic needs for responding to all
hazards. These grants, known as Firefighter Investment and
Response Enhancement Grants, FIRE, are made directly to local
jurisdictions. Applications undergo a competitive, merit-based
process, which helps to ensure that the funding is spent
responsibly and productively.
The grant program includes a matching requirement to ensure
that the local community is committed to using the grant to
fulfill a specific purpose. These grants are used for a variety
of purposes, including personal protection and firefighting
equipment, training, firefighting vehicles, fire-prevention
campaigns, fire-code enforcement, and arson prevention and
detection.
I'd like to emphasize that these grants are dedicated to
improving the local response to, quote, ``all hazards,''
including natural disasters, structural fires, and acts of
terrorism.
For Fiscal Year 2004, the program received over 20,000
applications from local fire departments around the country.
These requests totaled approximately $2.3 billion in Federal
spending. The program received a similar number of applications
in each of Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003, which clearly
demonstrates the continued need and importance of this program
to the firefighting community.
Last year, the Office for Domestic Preparedness replaced
the U.S. Fire Administration as the agency tasked with
administering the FIRE Grant Program. This has raised some
concerns in the fire service community that the focus of the
program would be changed from responding to all hazards to only
anti-terrorism preparedness.
In addition, concerns have been raised that the peer-review
process would eventually be dropped, and that the FIRE Grant
Programs would be combined with existing state block grant
programs. I look forward to hearing how the Department of
Homeland Security is addressing these concerns. In addition, I
look forward to hearing any recommendations that the witnesses
may have regarding this legislation. S. 2411 would make a
number of reforms to the existing program in addition to
reauthorizing the program through Fiscal Year 2010. It will be
helpful to know how these reforms will affect the
administration of the program and the local fire departments
that benefit from it.
It's my intention to mark up this legislation, in the hope
that it can be included as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. I believe we should
work to pass this legislation this year in order to ensure that
our Nation's firefighters continue to have access to this
critical grant program.
As is demonstrated by their ongoing efforts to control the
wildfires around Mount Graham, in Southern Arizona, our
Nation's firefighters face a myriad of threats. We should
ensure that they are adequately equipped and trained to meet
them.
And I welcome all of our witnesses today. And since Senator
DeWine and Senator Dodd are fashionably late, we will ask the
first panel, Ms. Suzanne Mencer, the Director of Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness; and
the Honorable David Paulison, Director of Preparedness Division
and U.S. Fire Administrator, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security--would you please come forward, and we'll begin with
you, Ms. Mencer. Welcome to both of you.
STATEMENT OF C. SUZANNE MENCER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Mencer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Your complete statements will be made part of
the record.
Ms. Mencer. Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Hollings, in
absentia, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to discuss the current status of the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and legislation before
this Committee to reauthorize the program.
I first want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the
Department supports the FIRE Act Grant Program and is committed
to continuing the critical support it provides to our Nation's
firefighters. We look forward to working with the Committee on
the reauthorization of this important program.
Over the past Fiscal Year, we have been working closely
with the United States Fire Administration to ensure a smooth
transition of this program and to award FIRE Act grants quickly
and efficiently. At the same time, we have been working to
improve overall Federal preparedness assistance to the public-
safety community.
As you know, Secretary Ridge recently directed the
consolidation of the Office for Domestic Preparedness with the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination to create a
one-stop-shop of Federal assistance for America's first
responders. The Secretary's consolidation decision places
administration of the FIRE Act program within the new Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, or
SLGCP.
While we may be a new consolidated entity within the
Department of Homeland Security, as you know, Mr. Chairman,
SLGCP's predecessor offices have a long and successful history
of working closely with the fire service community to ensure
that its members are fully prepared to prevent and respond to
terrorism and other emergency incidents. For example, several
years ago we provided funding to the United States Fire
Administration to develop terrorism emergency response training
for firefighters. More recently, we worked with the USFA
administrator, David Paulison, to develop courses for delivery
with our State Homeland Security and Urban Areas Security
Initiative program funds. And we continue to work with Chief
Paulison to coordinate the review of course materials developed
by USFA's Emergency Management Institute and National Fire
Academy.
To ensure the seamless delivery of the almost $746 million
in Fiscal Year 2004 funding appropriated for the FIRE Act
Grants Program, we have maintained our close coordination with
USFA and the Department's Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate. For example, to better serve the fire-service
community, FIRE Act Grant application materials, as well as
additional information and resource materials, were posted on
both the DHS and USFA Websites. We have continued the use of
peer-review panels for FIRE Act grant applications. As in past
years, peer reviews were conducted at the National Fire
Academy, in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in coordination with the USFA
and members of the fire service. We also developed a CD-ROM
that contains all pertinent 2004 program information, including
a self-study tutorial on the grant application process. And,
together with EP&R and USFA, we continued the successful
practice of holding local workshops for fire departments across
the country in order to provide valuable information and
guidance on the application process. During the FY-2004
application period, working with USFA and FEMA regional
offices, we conducted nearly 400 workshops that were attended
by almost 10,000 fire department officials throughout the
country.
We also worked with the fire-service representatives to
select the three areas for which the 2004 FIRE Act grants may
be used. On their recommendation, the Emergency Medical
Services Program area was consolidated under the Fire
Operations and Safety, in an effort to increase the number of
requests for EMS equipment and training. As a result, we have
seen a twelvefold increase in EMS-related applications this
year, from 216 in FY-2003 to over 2,500 in the current
application cycle. We've also increased our efforts to make
local fire departments aware that they may use FIRE Act grant
funds to purchase equipment related to WMD response, and to
coordinate those funding requests with the state's homeland-
security strategy.
As a result of these and other efforts, the transfer of the
FIRE Act Grant Program has been highly successful. This year,
we received 20,348 applications, slightly more than the number
received last year. Sixty-six percent of these applications
requested funds for the Fire Operations and Fire Safety
Program-Firefighter Safety Program, 33 percent were for
firefighting vehicles, and 1 percent were for fire prevention.
I would like to clarify, for the Committee, this last
figure. As you know, the authorizing statute allows the
Department to make grants for fire prevention to organizations
that are not fire departments, provided that these
organizations are recognized for their work in fire prevention.
This fall, we will open an additional application period for
both fire department and nonfire department organizations that
wish to pursue fire-prevention activities.
Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we, at SLGCP,
recognize the importance of continued support for the fire
service through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.
We know that the funds provided through this program are
critical to the operations of many fire departments,
particularly in rural and volunteer departments, but also in
urban and suburban departments, as well.
The Department of Homeland Security supports your effort,
Mr. Chairman, to reauthorize this important program. And we
especially appreciate the legislation before this Committee,
the Assistance to Firefighter Act of 2004. It will allow
Secretary Ridge the discretion he will need to ensure a
streamlined and well-administered Assistance to Firefighter
Grant Program throughout the years to come.
Detailed Department comments on this bill will be provided
to the Committee in the near future. We at SLGCP look forward
to continuing to providing the fire service with the valuable
resources available through this grant program.
The President's FY05 budget request is $500 million. This
is the first time funds for this program have been requested as
a separate request from other first responder programs.
On behalf of all of us at the Department of Homeland
Security, I want to thank this Committee and the other Members
of Congress for your ongoing support for the Department, for
SLGCP, and for the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program. We
recognize that you have entrusted us with a great deal of
responsibility, and I want to assure you that we will continue
to meet that responsibility with the utmost diligence. Working
with you and your colleagues in the Fire service, we will make
this an even more successful program in the future.
And this concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would
be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mencer follows:]
Prepared Statement of C. Suzanne Mencer, Executive Director, Office for
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings and members of the
Committee, my name is Sue Mencer. I serve as the Executive Director of
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office for State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP). On behalf of
Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to
discuss the current status of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program and the legislation before the Committee to reauthorize the
program.
Mr. Chairman, the Department supports the Committee's effort with
respect to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and we look
forward to working with you to provide critical support to the Nation's
fire service. As you know, the State and local first responder
community has for some time been calling for consolidation of, and
better accountability for, Federal preparedness assistance to the
public safety community. Secretary Ridge's recent consolidation of the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) with the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination is an important step and demonstrates the
Secretary's commitment toward creation of a ``one-stop-shop'' for
America's first responders.
As the Committee is aware, the Secretary's consolidation decision
places administration of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
within OSLGCP. OSLGCP administers this program in full coordination
with the United States Fire Administration (USFA). As the Committee is
also aware, the Secretary's assignment of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program to OSLGCP follows action taken by the
Congress with the passage of the Department's Fiscal Year 2004
Appropriations Act, which provided for OSLGCP administration of the
program beginning in the current Fiscal Year. I am happy to report that
the administration of this critical program under OSLGCP is moving
forward with great success.
On behalf of all of us at DHS, I want to thank this Committee, and
the Congress, for your ongoing support for the Department, OSLGCP and
the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The Congress has
entrusted us with a great responsibility, and we are meeting that
responsibility with the utmost diligence.
OSLGCP is responsible for preparing our Nation against terrorism by
assisting States, local jurisdictions, regional authorities, and tribal
governments with building their capacity to prepare for, prevent, and
respond to acts of terrorism. Through its programs and activities, ODP
equips, trains, exercises, and supports State and local homeland
security personnel--our nation's first responders--who may be called
upon to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.
OSLGCP has established an outstanding track record of capacity
building at the State, local, territorial, and tribal levels, by
combining subject matter expertise, grant-making know-how, and
establishing strong and long-standing ties to the Nation's public
safety community. Since its creation in 1998, as the Office for State
and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, this office has established
strong ties to the emergency response community, including the fire
service community. And since its inception, the importance of the fire
service to our Nation's preparedness has been recognized by this
office. One of the first training initiatives undertaken by what is now
OSLGCP was the provision of direct funding to the United States Fire
Administration for the development of a train-the-trainer course
entitled Emergency Response to Terrorism: Basic Concepts, a course
specifically developed to support the fire service. Additional funding
was provided by this office to expand this first-of-its-kind, train-
the-trainer awareness course to the more advanced operations level.
More recently, we have worked closely with U.S. Fire Administrator
David Paulison to review USFA-developed courses for delivery with our
State Homeland Security and Urban Areas Security Initiative program
funds. Through this effort, several USFA courses are eligible for
delivery with these OSLGCP program funds, including attendant support
costs that include overtime and backfill costs for trainees. We
continue to work with Chief Paulison to review additional course
materials developed by USFA's Emergency Management Institute and
National Fire Academy.
OSLGCP has provided assistance to all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories.
Through its programs and initiatives ODP has trained nearly 550,000
emergency responders from more than 5,000 jurisdictions and conducted
more than 380 exercises. And, by the end of Fiscal Year 2004, we will
have provided States and localities with more than $8.1 billion in
assistance and direct support.
OSLGCP's support to State and local public safety comes through a
number of different programs, including the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program, commonly known as the Fire Act program. Fiscal Year 2004
funding available for the program is $745,575,000. The President's FY
2005 budget request for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
will focus on those authorized program categories that support the
homeland security role of America's fire service. The administration
will continue to prioritize this mission in the future.
As part of the transfer of the Fire Act grants to OSLGCP, and to
ensure a smooth and seamless transition, we have worked very closely
with DHS' Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) and
the United States Fire Administration. We have conducted regular
meetings and had continuous contact with EP&R and the United States
Fire Administration's financial, information technology, regional,
program, and legislative affairs staffs.
This year, the Application Kit and Guidance for the Fiscal Year
2004 grant funds opened on March 1, and closed on April 2. To better
serve the fire service community, application materials, as well as
additional information and resource materials, were posted on the
Department and USFA Websites.
The FY 2004 Fire Act Grants will provide funding in three program
areas, which were selected based on discussions with the fire services
community. These areas are: Firefighting Operations and Safety (which
includes Training, Equipment, Personal Protective Equipment, Wellness
and Fitness Programs, and Modification of Facilities); Fire Prevention;
and Firefighting Vehicles.
In administering the FY 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program, OSLGCP, in consultation with fire service organizations,
consolidated the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program area into the
Fire Operations and Safety program category. This change was made
because, in most fire departments, firefighters have multiple roles,
including suppressing fires, performing rescues, and providing EMS
services. The Department anticipated that this change would increase
the number of requests for EMS equipment and training, since it permits
departments to request EMS funding without excluding funding from other
support areas. We believe this change has been successful. We have seen
a twelve-fold increase in EMS-related applications--from 216 in FY 2003
to over 2,500 in the current Fiscal Year 2004 application cycle.
Funding requests for EMS-related purposes increased from $14 million in
FY 2003 to over $66 million in the current application cycle.
Additionally, in FY 04, in an effort to provide local fire
departments with greater flexibility and discretion to meet their
equipment needs, they may also use Fire Act Grant funds to purchase
additional equipment related to WMD response similar to what may be
purchased under OSLGCP's State Homeland Security and Urban Area
Security Initiative grant programs. This type of equipment has always
been eligible for funding under the Fire Act Grants, but, given the
dual-use nature equipment, the Department believes it important to
highlight the acquisition of this type of equipment. In instances where
a fire department is requesting equipment or training that is related
to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives,
(CBRNE), the Department asked the state's homeland security office to
review the application to ensure that it is consistent with the state's
homeland security strategy. Each State was asked to provide the Fire
Act program office with a representative to carry out a technical
review of applications from the State that include CBRNE-related
requests and that had been rated as fundable by OSLGCP's peer review
panelists. During this technical review, the State homeland security
representative attested to, and certified that, any CBRNE-related
requests were consistent with the State's homeland security plan, and
that the requests did not duplicate Department assistance already
provided or about to be provided.
The transfer of the Fire Act Grant Program has been highly
successful. This year, OSLGCP received 20,348 applications, which is
slightly more than the number received last year.
66 percent of these applications requested funds for the
``Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety program;''
33 percent were for Firefighting Vehicles; and
1 percent were for Fire Prevention.
I would like to clarify for the Committee this last figure. The
authorizing statute allows the Department to make grants for fire
prevention to organizations that are not fire departments, provided,
that these organizations are recognized for their work in fire
prevention. The Department will open an additional application period
this fall for both fire department and non-fire department
organizations that may wish to pursue fire prevention activities. This
second application period will surely bolster fire prevention
activities under the Fire Act Grant program.
During the current year's application cycle, the Department
received applications from different types of fire departments,
including:
67 percent from ``volunteer'' fire departments;
19 percent from ``combination'' departments; that is,
departments whose members are comprised of both volunteer and
career firefighters;
9 percent from ``career'' departments; and
5 percent from ``paid on call'' departments, whose members
are available in an emergency but are paid only when called
upon to respond.
Through these applications, fire departments across the country
requested more than $2.3 billion in Federal support. The average
request for funds varied according to the type of department. For
instance, the average request for funds from urban fire departments was
$180,991. Suburban fire departments requested on average $155,439,
while rural fire departments requested on average $107,445.
The Department fully supports the use of peer-review panels for
reviewing Fire Act Grant applications. This year's panels were convened
on April 13 and finished their reviews on May 7. As in past years, the
panel sessions were conducted at the National Fire Academy in
Emmitsburg, Maryland, in coordination with USFA and members of the fire
service. Based on the work of the panelists, and the number of
applications that we received, the Department anticipates that the
awards, begun in early June, will continue through the calendar year.
Throughout the FY 2004 application period, the Department was
committed to a successful program. In an effort to better prepare the
fire service, we provided new resources that were not available in the
past. We developed a CD-ROM that contains all pertinent FY `04 program
information, including a self-study tutorial on the grant application
process. The on-line tutorial received over 80,000 unique visits.
OSLGCP, along with EP&R and USFA, continued the successful practice
of holding local workshops for fire departments across the country in
order to provide valuable information and guidance on the application
process. These workshops provide invaluable assistance to fire
departments as they complete and submit their funding applications.
During the FY 2004 application period, OSLGCP, in coordination with
USFA and the FEMA Regional Field Offices, conducted nearly 400
workshops, which were attended by almost 10,000 fire department
officials.
Let me assure you that we at OSLGCP recognize the importance that
continued support for the fire service through the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program represents, particularly to rural and
volunteer fire departments, as well as to urban and suburban
departments. Funds provided through this program are critical to the
operations of many fire departments.
The Department of Homeland Security supports your effort, Mr.
Chairman, to reauthorize this important program. And we especially
appreciate that the legislation before this Committee, the Assistance
to Firefighters Act of 2004, will allow Secretary Ridge the discretion
he will need to ensure a streamlined and well-administered Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program over the years to come. Detailed
Department comments on S. 2411 will be provided to the Committee in the
near future.
We at OSLGCP look forward to continuing to provide the fire service
with the valuable resources available through the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program. The President's FY 2005 budget request
includes $500 million specifically for the Assistance to Firefighters
program for the first time as a request separate from other ``first
responder'' programs. The President's budget request for FY 2005
focuses Assistance to Firefighters grant funds on those categories of
equipment and training meant to better assist fire departments respond
to terrorist incidents. These categories of equipment and training,
much of which are dual use in nature, were initially authorized by
Congress in an amendment to the Assistance Firefighters Grant Program
passed in late 2001. The administration will continue to emphasize the
provision of homeland security-related assistance to our Nation's
``first responders'' as we move forward.
I am confident that by working with you and with our colleagues in
the fire service, we will make this an even more successful program in
the future. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Welcome back, Chief Paulison.
STATEMENT OF R. DAVID PAULISON, DIRECTOR,
PREPAREDNESS DIVISION AND UNITED STATES FIRE
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Chief Paulison. Good to see you again, Mr. Chair. Good
morning.
I'm David Paulison, the Director of Preparedness for FEMA,
and also the United States Fire Administrator, and I do
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you again on behalf
of Secretary Ridge.
As you're aware, each year, fire injures and kills more
Americans than all other hazards, natural hazards, combined.
And the death rates in the United States from fire per capita
are almost the highest in the industrialized world. Our mission
at the Fire Administration is to reduce loss of life and
property due to fire, and we work to prevent fire deaths, fire
injuries, and property loss through leadership advocacy, and
coordination.
And we support the fire service in four mission areas. We
support it in fire service training, public education and
awareness, technology and research, and data analysis. And to
accomplish our mission, we have to partner with several groups
of people in the fire service, other emergency responders,
state and local governments, other Federal agencies. And, also,
recently we've been working with private industry to provide
standardized compatible equipment, and that has been going very
well. The industry has responded very well to some of our
needs.
But today I want to focus my remarks on the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program, known as the FIRE Act, and that the
USFA has had the privilege of administering from its inception,
in Fiscal Year 2001, until Fiscal Year 2003, while we also
continue to partner with Sue Mencer's group in managing this
program.
The Firefighter Assistance Grant Program provides
competitive grants to address training, safety, prevention,
fire apparatus, personal protective gear, equipment needs, and
also a health and wellness program. One of the big successes of
this is our peer-review progress that allows more than 400 fire
service members to play a significant role in making award
recommendations. It allows those who know best to have a
substantive role in the decisionmaking process. The peer-review
process and the presence of outside groups and firefighter
involvement enhances this entire program, and we encourage its
continuation.
Also, in an effort to offer one-stop shopping, the
Secretary, with support from Congress, consolidated all first
responder grant award programs within the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. In 2004, the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness, along with the Fire Administration, managed the
Fire Grant Program together. I would have to make a personal
comment on the professionalism of this office, working together
with Sue Mencer and making this program transfer very, very
successful. I'm very pleased with the outcome and how the grant
program has been managed so far. We will continue to work
closely with the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness to ensure that the program's a
continued success. And I offer my personal commitment to make
sure that happens, also.
One of the examples of this cooperation is the joint
discussions that we're conducting to study the--to quantify the
program's impact. At present, there has been no evaluation of
the program's impact on the local fire departments and fire
safety. We believe such a study is necessary and will yield
valuable information as the Department continues its effort to
support the Nation's fire service. This program has provided a
tremendous amount of equipment, training, and educational
programs across this country. But, at present, there has not
been an evaluation of this grant program's impact because of
the nature in which these projects were undertaken, completed,
and the resulting impact on public safety. We are going to
continue with this process and make sure we put this evaluation
program in place.
In conclusion, it has been exciting to have managed this
program for the last 3 years. I look forward to continue in
assisting in any way possible, with the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, with this grant
process.
Mr. Chair, I personally think you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. Your continued support is greatly
appreciated. And, believe me, it does not go unnoticed by this
office or the fire service.
And I'll be glad to answer any questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Chief Paulison follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. David Paulison, Director, Preparedness
Division and United States Fire Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My
name is R. David Paulison. I am the Director of the
Preparedness Division and the United States Fire Administrator
in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today on behalf of Secretary Ridge.
Each year, fire injures and kills more Americans than the
combined losses of all other natural disasters. Death rates by
fire in the United States are among the highest in the
industrialized world. The U.S. Fire Administration's (USFA)
mission to reduce loss of life and property because of fire and
related emergencies is a sobering challenge, but also a hopeful
challenge, since most of these deaths are preventable.
As a part of DHS, the USFA staff works diligently to
prevent deaths, injuries, and the damage to property through
leadership, advocacy, coordination and support in four basic
mission areas: fire service training, public education and
awareness, technology and research, and data analysis.
To accomplish this mission, USFA works with the fire
service, other emergency responders and State, local, and
tribal governments to better prepare them to respond to all
hazards, including acts of terrorism. USFA also listens to
State, local, and tribal governments and works with private
industry to provide standardized, practical, and compatible
emergency response equipment. USFA assists first responders and
emergency managers at the local, State and Federal level as
they practice and refine their response plans. USFA continues
to provide training and education programs to prepare for all
routine hazards as well as the emergent threats posed by
weapons of mass destruction and terrorism incidents.
USFA Accomplishments
USFA is a national leader in fire safety and prevention and
in preparing communities to deal with fires and other hazards.
USFA works to support the efforts of local communities to
reduce the number of fires and fire deaths, champions Federal
fire protection issues, and coordinates information about fire
programs.
In terms of our preparedness programs, USFA recognizes the
importance of training as a vital step toward establishing a
first responder community that is prepared to respond to any
kind of emergency, ranging from a small fire to a terrorist
attack involving a large number of victims. We continue to
administer training and education programs for community
leaders and first responders to help them prepare for and
respond to emergencies regardless of cause or magnitude. FEMA
provides training in emergency management to firefighters, law
enforcement, emergency managers, healthcare workers, public
works, personnel, and State and local officials at our
Emergency Management Institute.
DHS provides equipment, vehicles, and training and wellness
programs through the Assistance to Firefighter Grant program to
help first responders perform their duties. For FY 2004,
Congress appropriated over $745 million for DHS to provide
grants directly to fire departments to build their basic
response capabilities for all types of emergencies, including
suppressing fires. This brings total funding for this grant
program to over $2 billion since the program began three years
ago. This program benefits communities as a whole and benefits
other first responder entities by building the base
capabilities of local fire departments to respond to all types
of incidents.
Today, I will focus my remarks on the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program, known as FIRE Act grants, which
USFA had the privilege of administering from its inception in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 through FY 2003.
Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program provides
competitive grants to address training, safety, prevention,
apparatus, personal protective gear and other firefighting
equipment needs as well as wellness and fitness issues of local
fire departments. DHS has streamlined the online application
process for fire grants and sped up the flow of resources to
first responders, while ensuring that the funds are used
effectively and appropriately. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, FEMA's
U.S. Fire Administration received over 20,000 applications each
year, from fire departments across the country.
In an effort to offer ``One Stop Shopping'' to the
applicants for FIRE Act grants--local fire departments--the
Secretary of Homeland Security, with support from the Congress,
consolidated all first responder grant award programs within
the Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (OSLGCP). This created a single point of entry for
States and localities into the Federal Government seeking first
responder assistance. In 2004, OSLGCP, with USFA assistance and
subject matter expertise, managed the FIRE Act grants program
within DHS. USFA continues to work closely with OSLGCP to
ensure the continued success of this vital program. In
addition, DHS is contributing to government wide efforts to
facilitate the Federal grants application process by posting
summaries of grant announcements on the Federal Government's
Grants.gov website.
As an example of the cooperation between OSLGCP and USFA,
for FY 2004 and FY 2005, we have discussed the need to
undertake a study to attempt to quantify the program's impact
on local fire departments and fire safety. Both USFA and OSLGCP
believe such a study is necessary and will yield valuable
information as the Department continues its efforts to support
the Nation's fire service.
Beginning with the 2001 Grant Program, the Emergency
Education NETwork (EENET), a satellite-based distance learning
system used by FEMA to bring interactive training programs into
virtually any community nationwide, broadcast valuable
information on the grant programs and process. Prior to the
application period in FY2003, EENET broadcast an actual
applicant workshop, which was rebroadcast several times during
the application period. FEMA heard from many organizations that
this eased the application process. We began announcing the FY
2003 awards to successful applicants in June 2003 and completed
them three months ahead of schedule in February of 2004.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program in its short
three-year existence has provided a tremendous amount of
equipment, training and educational programs across the Nation.
At present, there has not been an evaluation of this grant
program's impact because of the nature in which these projects
are undertaken, completed, and the resulting impact on public
safety. In many cases the vehicles purchased are just coming on
line, the training provided is just now being internalized, and
the public education campaigns are underway.
Lauded by many, the peer-review process for the fire grants
process has been a tremendous success. The process allows a
diverse sample of the national fire services community to
review and rank the applications. It allows over 400 fire
services members, both career and volunteer, from large and
small communities, from rural, suburban, and urban areas to
play a significant role in making award recommendations. This
allows the fire services, who best know the needs of their
communities, to have a substantive role in the decision making
process. The present process of outside groups and individual
firefighter involvement significantly enhances the entire grant
program.
Currently, S. 2411, the ``Assistance to Firefighters Act of
2004,'' has been introduced and would reauthorize the
Assistance to Firefighters (Fire Act) grant program for the
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010. The Department is reviewing
this proposed legislation and looks forward to providing the
Committee with comments on the bill in the near future.
Conclusion
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to
appear before you today. Your continued support is greatly
appreciated. I will be glad to answer any questions you and
other Members of the Committee may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And thank you both of
you for being here.
For both of you, we continue to see press reports that--
anti-terrorism funds going to buy new equipment, including fire
equipment in sparsely populated parts of the country, while
densely populated areas, such as New York City, are not
receiving adequate funding to prepare for a response. First of
all, is that--are you bound, by legislation, to a certain
formula? And if not--if you are, what do you suggest? And if
not, then what do you think we ought to be doing?
I'll begin with you, Ms. Mencer.
Ms. Mencer. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should be mindful that the--
particularly in the urban areas, such as New York City or
Phoenix or Los Angeles--that they have the opportunity in the
firefighting community to apply for the FIRE Act grants, and
they also can receive funding, as well, under the Urban Area
Security Initiative and the Homeland Security Grant, as well.
So they have three places to look for funding for equipment and
other needs they may have.
I think we also need to remember that this is a dual-use
kind of issue. When they purchase equipment on behalf of
terrorism response, it also helps with their everyday
responses. So I think we need to keep that in mind, as well.
The Chairman. Chief?
Chief Paulison. The legislation does dictate to us how we
distribute the funds across--from rural, suburban, and urban
departments, and we are--we did that; and, also, the Office of
State and Local Government is doing the same.
There is an issue that we do need to deal with. Ms. Mencer
is correct, there are other funds for them to gather, to apply
for, for some of these major cities. Having been out of the
program for a year, as far as officially handling it, and
stepping back and looking at it, I think that maybe what we
want to look down the road is maybe increasing the amount of
funds that some of the bigger cities can gather, because there
is an issue there where $750,000 max does not have a big impact
on departments like New York or L.A., or Houston or some of the
other big cities around the country.
Obviously, this is a legislative issue, just a
recommendation that I think that maybe we need to--I would ask
you all to look at very closely.
The Chairman. Well, I agree, Chief. And, Ms. Mencer, I
understand--I don't disagree with anything you've said, but if
I had an anti-terrorism expert here on this panel, he would
tell you--because I've heard their testimony--that there are
certain areas of the country--i.e., large urban areas--that are
more likely targets than rural areas are. I mean, it's just a
fact. And I can't guarantee that they won't go to the remotest
part of America to seek to harm America, but it's pretty
obvious that any terrorist is going to go where they can
inflict the most damage. And so I hope that you all will work
up the courage to take on rural legislators and go with the
opinions of the experts on how we can best combat terrorism in
this country, and that, I think, probably argues at least for a
thorough examination of this formula.
I've always been somewhat opposed to sending so much money
to the East Coast, certainly in the form of Amtrak funds, but I
do believe that you should make recommendations to the Congress
based on the best opinions you can get, as far as the anti-
terrorism experts are concerned. And I hope you will undertake
to get that input from various agencies of government.
So I think it's an important issue, because funds are not
unlimited. We are going to face some kind of fiscal crunch here
in America, given the burgeoning deficits, and cuts are going
to be made, even in the Department of Homeland Security, I'm
sorry to say.
Finally, Ms. Mencer, concerns have been raised by some of
the fire-service's organizations that the President's budget
would not fund grant applications to support fire-prevention
education, EMS, and firefighter wellness and fitness
initiatives. Can you respond to that?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, we do have a
separate application process, beginning in September of this
year, for fire prevention. So it is about, I believe, 78
million for fire prevention. So we are looking at doing that in
the fall of this year.
The Chairman. Chief?
Chief Paulison. And I have to support exactly what she
said. When the--we allowed the departments to apply for what
they wanted to apply for, and the bulk of the applications come
in for operational needs. Very little of the moneys--I think
it's less than 1 percent--are actually asked for fire-
prevention programs. So we do have a separate fire-prevention
program set-aside, and we've done that for the entire length of
the grant process, and it works very well. We have some really
unique programs that are happening out there.
State of Delaware, for instance, Delaware Firefighters
Association received a grant to put a smoke alarm in every home
in the state of Delaware. Quite a task they took on. Did a
great job at it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Since we have inaugurated a lot of new programs, I hope
that you will continue to audit each for its effectiveness and
best use of the taxpayers' dollar. The one thing we don't want
to see is to hear about X millions of dollars that have been
spent on a program that was wasted. And when we're talking
about the kinds of money you will continue to receive, I would
strongly recommend you keep a close eye on which programs, and
have a system in place so that you can gauge the effectiveness
or lack of effectiveness of various programs. Many of these are
new, as we all know.
I thank you. Thank you for your testimony here this
morning. And we will, as I mentioned, hold a markup next week,
and try and get this done. I know that the House is eager to
get it done, as well.
Thank you very much.
Chief Paulison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Mencer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Our next panel is Chief Ernest Mitchell, the
President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr.
James Monihan--he's the Legislative Committee Chairman of the
National Volunteer Fire Council; the Honorable James M.
Shannon, who is the President and Chief Executive Office of the
National Fire Protection Association; and Mr. Billy Shields,
who is the President of the United Phoenix Firefighters, and
Vice President of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona.
Please come forward. Welcome to the witnesses. And, Chief
Mitchell, we'll begin with you, and thank you for your
appearance here today.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF ERNEST MITCHELL, (RET.), PASADENA,
CALIFORNIA FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS (IAFC)
Chief Mitchell. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee. And thank you for holding this hearing on
this very important Federal grant program.
I'm Ernest Mitchell, recently retired Fire Chief of the
City of Pasadena, California, and I appear today as President
of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, which
represents the leadership and management of America's fire and
emergency services.
America's fire service is the only entity that is locally
situation, staffed, and equipped to respond to all types of
emergencies across our country. America's fire service is an
all-risk, all-hazard response entity. The FIRE Act helps raise
the level of capability for all departments for all hazards.
For that reason, the FIRE Act is one of the most important
relationships between the Federal Government and the fire
service.
Mr. Chairman, the FIRE Act works. It works because of the
notion of local control. Local fire chiefs, in consultation
with their firefighters and community leaders, decide what is
most important to the community. These requests are then
competitively reviewed by the people that are most familiar
with the needs, local fire-service representatives from across
the country. Finally, the local community must buy into the
grant by providing matching funds and agreeing that Federal
dollars will not supplant regular local funding to the fire
department. This consistent level of local involvement and
control lies at the very heart of the FIRE Act's sustained
success.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a written statement for the
record today. I would like to highlight two key points of the
statement.
The Chairman. All written statements will be made part of
the record.
Chief Mitchell. First, I respectfully ask the Members of
this Committee to amend this bill and restore jurisdiction over
the FIRE Act to the U.S. Fire Administration. The IAFC
supported placing the U.S. Fire Administration in charge of the
FIRE Act in the initial authorization, and we support it in the
House version of this bill. We remain concerned that the Office
of Domestic Preparedness is turning the FIRE Act into a
terrorism-based program. This is despite ODP's assurances that
the FIRE Act would remain an all-hazards program, and despite
explicit directions from Congress that it remain an all-hazards
program.
In my written testimony, I describe the experience of one
of my colleagues, Chief Ben Estes, retired chief of the
Pocatello, Idaho, fire department, and current president of the
Idaho Fire Chiefs Association. ODP invited representatives from
several state homeland security departments, including Chief
Estes, to come to Washington, D.C. this past May to participate
in the review of FIRE Act grant applications that request
equipment or training related to chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, or explosive threat. And this is a new
level of review instituted by ODP. Unlike the peer-review
process in place for the remainder of the FIRE Act
applications, the reviewers were almost exclusively employees
of state homeland security departments. Very few had any fire
service experience. Chief Estes was the rare exception.
As I describe in my written testimony, the questions this
panel asked gave the state officials effective veto power over
a fire department's funding request if the state intended to
provide the training or equipment. This means that legitimate
fire department needs could be vetoed if the state even had the
vaguest intention of providing the training or equipment.
And, Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure you are well aware,
government agencies often intend to do things that, in reality,
are often long delayed, if ever actually delivered.
Chief Estes also gathered, during the group's discussions,
that they would like to exert significantly more control over
the fire--over all FIRE Act funding. If that were to happen,
one of the reasons the FIRE Act is success a success, the
element of peer review, would be lost. Also lost would be the
crucial focus on all hazards.
My second request of this Committee, Mr. Chairman, is to
strike the provision in this bill that would make volunteer EMS
organizations eligible to receive grants. The FIRE Act is meant
to improve the readiness and response of local fire
departments. Opening up the program to non-fire-service
recipients would erode this singular focus. Once the door has
been opened to expand the list of eligible agencies, Congress
would get requests to further expand the program from EMS
agencies affiliated with hospitals, third-service career
agencies, and from private for-profit corporations. The FIRE
Act would then cease to be a core fire service program.
Also, please bear in mind that EMS is an integral part of
local fire services, and one that currently benefits from the
FIRE Act, particularly under changes made in Fiscal Year 2004.
In order to increase the amount of funding directed toward the
EMS program category, EMS was incorporated into the operations
and firefighter safety category. By doing so, grant requests
for EMS training and equipment have increased, because fire
chiefs are able to work them into larger requests that address
other fire department functions.
To give one example of the success of this change, the
total dollar amount requested for EMS increased from less than
$17 million in Fiscal Year 2003 to more than $66 million in
Fiscal Year 2004. This is close to a four-fold increase.
The fact that this bill will place a special priority on
automatic external defibrillators is also a benefit to fire-
based EMS services. While we generally do not endorse favoring
one piece of equipment over another in the FIRE Act grant
process, we do endorse this provision, because heart attacks
are consistently the number one cause of firefighter
fatalities. I'm convinced that if more emergency-response
vehicles had AEDs available, we could save more firefighter
lives.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize
that volunteer EMS agencies have significant EMS-specific
funding streams available to them that are not available to
many fire departments--most significantly, third-party
reimbursement for ambulance transport.
Pre-hospital emergency medical care is composed two
distinct services: first responder, and ambulance transport.
The fire service is the overwhelming provider of EMS first
response across the United States. This service is very
expensive, and local taxpayers are responsible for it.
The other component of EMS is ambulance transportation. A
much wider variety of providers are available for this service,
including for-profit corporations, hospitals, government third-
service, and volunteer EMS agencies. This broader mix is likely
explained by the fact that ambulance transport is eligible for
third-party reimbursement. As a result, most ambulance
transport providers bill patients and their insurance companies
for every ambulance response. Medicare alone reimburses more
than $3 billion for ambulance transportation annually.
Additional reimbursement comes from Medicaid, private insurers,
and the patients themselves. As I noted earlier, first response
services are not eligible for any of this funding. The
financial burden falls almost exclusively on the fire service.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify, Mr.
Chairman, and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Chief Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief Ernest Mitchell, (Ret.), Pasadena,
California Fire Department; and President, International Association of
Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Ernest Mitchell,
recently retired Chief of the Pasadena (CA) Fire Department. I appear
today as President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs
(IAFC), which represents the leadership and management of America's
fire and emergency service.
America's fire and emergency service reaches every community across
the nation, protecting urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods. Nearly
1.1 million men and women serve in more than 30,000 career, volunteer,
and combination fire departments across the United States. The fire
service is the only entity that is locally situated, staffed, and
equipped to respond to all types of emergencies. Members of the fire
service respond to natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes,
and floods as well as to manmade catastrophes, both accidental and
deliberate. As such, America's fire service is an all-risk, all-hazard
response entity.
The FIRE Act Grant Program Works
Mr. Chairman, in your invitation you asked witnesses to address S.
2411, the bill to reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program, better known as the FIRE Act. The FIRE Act is one of the most
important relationships between the Federal government and the fire
service. On behalf of the members of the IAFC, I thank you for holding
this hearing.
We consistently hear from our members that they have a great number
of needs to be met, ranging from fire apparatus to self-contained
breathing apparatus to training. We are pleased to note, Mr. Chairman,
that this bill would authorize a new survey to determine the current
level of need in America's fire service. We are also very pleased that
this bill would reauthorize a highly effective Federal grant program.
Congressional, administration, and fire service officials alike
have called the FIRE Act one of the very best Federal grant programs.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a program analysis in
2003, proclaiming that the FIRE Act works. In USDA's own words, the
FIRE Act ``has been highly effective in increasing the safety and
effectiveness of grant recipients . . . 99 percent of program
participants are satisfied with the program's ability to meet the needs
of their department . . . [and] 97 percent of program participants
reported positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-
related incidents.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Agriculture Executive Potential Program Team
6, Survey, Assessment, and Recommendations for the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program, Final Report, prepared for the U.S. Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, January 31, 2003,
p. 40 (emphasis removed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are good reasons for the FIRE Act's success, and they are the
five pillars of the program.
First, funds go directly to local fire departments for the purposes
intended. There is no opportunity for the money to get bottlenecked at
intermediate levels as is the case with so much other first responder
funding.
Second, grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and not based on
a pre-determined formula. We cannot equip this Nation's fire service
with a one-size-fits-all formula. Formulas cannot account for whether a
particular community is a city with mostly high-rise buildings, or
whether it is an area out west that is more susceptible to wildland
fires. Formulas cannot account for local budgets, or the age and level
of use of the equipment in each of this Nation's 30,000-plus fire
departments. If a fire chief can make a good case for a grant, the
competitive process will acknowledge that.
The third pillar of the FIRE Act is that grant applications are
peer-reviewed. That means fire service people are looking at fire
service grants. Experienced and informed members of the fire service
community know what kinds of equipment and training we really need.
The fourth point is that grants are supplemental only; they may not
supplant local funds. The point of the FIRE Act is to raise the
capability of fire departments across the country, not to replace line
items in local budgets. A local community may not reduce the
department's budget to offset a FIRE Act grant.
The fifth and final pillar of the FIRE Act's success is that it
requires a co-payment by the community. This is really a requirement of
community ``buy-in'' to the idea of improving the fire service and,
therefore, advancing public safety. It is a clear demonstration of a
community's partnership with the Federal government to increase the
capability of protecting this Nation's critical infrastructure.
Local Control Must Be Maintained
Perhaps the most prominent theme that unifies the five pillars of
the FIRE Act is local control. Local fire chiefs, in consultation with
their firefighters and community leaders, decide what is most important
to the community. These requests are then competitively reviewed by the
people that are most familiar with the needs: local fire service
representatives from across the country. Finally, the local community
must ``buy-in'' to the grant by providing matching funds and agreeing
that Federal dollars will not supplant regular local funding to the
fire department. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this consistent
level of local involvement and control lies at the very heart of the
FIRE Act's sustained success.
We are concerned that this local control is being eroded. One
example is the fact that the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP),
which is now in charge of administering the FIRE Act, for the most part
administers grants that go through the states. FIRE Act grants, on the
other hand, go directly to local fire departments.
Another example is the current emphasis by ODP on the fire
service's response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and
explosive (CBRNE) incidents. As you are aware, formal management of the
FIRE Act was transferred this fiscal year from the U.S. Fire
Administration (USFA) to ODP. While ODP has committed to running this
program in substantially the same manner as the USFA, we are concerned
about the strong emphasis on terrorism response. Acts of terrorism are
just some of the many hazards to which America's fire service responds.
Congress has made it clear that the FIRE Act is intended to build the
basic tools of firefighting in order to enhance our all-hazards
response \2\. We are concerned that ODP's emphasis on terrorism might
undermine this overarching goal and begin the transformation of the
FIRE Act into a terrorism response program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, for example, appropriations report language for FY2003:
``The conferees have agreed to establish this new appropriations
account for firefighter assistance grants [the Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance account] so that there will be no doubt as to
the importance of this program and to protect this program from being
lost in the morass of the Department of Homeland Security'' (H.R. Rep.
No. 108-010, Title III (2003)).
In report language for FY2004, Congress said: ``This Committee . .
. recommends the program remain in the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate in a separate appropriation so there is no doubt
as to its importance, and to protect this program from being lost in
the first responders grant programs'' (H.R. Rep. No. 108¬ 169,
Title III (2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate this point, I would like to talk about the experience
of one of my colleagues, Chief Ben Estes, retired chief of the
Pocatello (ID) Fire Department and current president of the Idaho Fire
Chiefs Association. ODP invited representatives from several state
homeland security departments to come to Washington, DC this past May
to participate in the review of FIRE Act grant applications that
request CBRNE-related equipment or training. The state of Idaho asked
Chief Estes to attend on its behalf. This is a new level of review
instituted by ODP. I believe it is meant to ensure that money is not
duplicative and is spent in a coordinated fashion, both of which are
important goals for any Federal program.
However, unlike the peer-review process in place for the remainder
of the FIRE Act applications, the reviewers were almost exclusively
employees of state homeland security departments. Very few had any fire
service experience; Chief Estes was the rare exception.
Chief Estes said that the panel asked three main questions of grant
applications:
1. Is the application consistent with the state's homeland
security plan?
2. Does the requested training duplicate anything the state has
provided, or intends to provide, the applicant?
3. Are there any specific items that you recommend not receive
FIRE Act grant money?
Chief Estes thought that question one was within the appropriate
scope of this group's review, although he expressed concern that this
particular group of individuals had little understanding of what fire
departments do and how they do it. Chief Estes had serious concerns
with questions two and three.
Question two allowed state officials to effectively veto a fire
department's funding request if the state ``intended'' to provide the
training or equipment. This question means that legitimate fire
department needs could be vetoed if the state had only the vaguest of
intentions to provide the training or equipment. Mr. Chairman, as you
are well aware, government agencies often intend to do things that in
reality are often long-delayed, if ever actually delivered.
Question three is problematic because it allowed state officials
effective veto power over particular classes of equipment or training
that departments may request. Chief Estes was also concerned about the
general discussions among this group that they wanted to exert
significantly more control over all of the funding that went out
through this program.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you amend this bill to move the FIRE Act
back within the jurisdiction of the USFA. The IAFC supported placing
the USFA in charge of the FIRE Act in the initial authorization, and we
support it in H.R. 4107, the companion reauthorization bill in the U.S.
House of Representatives. The USFA has very successfully managed this
program, and we commend Administrator David Paulison for his
outstanding leadership.
The FIRE Act Should Remain a Fire Service Program
We are also concerned about the provision in this bill to make
volunteer emergency medical service (EMS) organizations eligible to
receive grants. Providing financial assistance to volunteer EMS
organizations--indeed, any EMS organizations--is a laudable goal.
However, modifying the FIRE Act is not the best way to accomplish that
goal. The FIRE Act is meant to improve the readiness and response of
local fire departments. Maintaining this clearly defined purpose is
critical to the long-term success of the program. Opening up the
program to non-fire service recipients would erode this singular focus.
Once the door has been opened to expand the list of eligible agencies,
Congress would get requests to further expand the program from EMS
agencies affiliated with hospitals, third service career agencies, and
from private, for-profit corporations. The FIRE Act would then cease to
be a core fire service program.
Also, please bear in mind that EMS is an integral part of
firefighting. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of
firefighting is: ``Control and extinguish fires or respond to emergency
situations where life, property, or the environment is at risk. Duties
may include fire prevention, emergency medical service, hazardous
material response, search and rescue, and disaster management.'' \3\
The Fair Labor Standards Act defines an ``employee in fire protection
activities'' to include ``a firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical
technician, rescue worker, ambulance personnel, or hazardous materials
worker . . .[.]'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Standard
Occupational Classification 33-2011: Fire Fighters (emphasis added)
\4\ 29 U.S.C. 203(y) (as amended by P.L. 106-151).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fire-based EMS community does benefit under the current version
of the FIRE Act, particularly under changes made in Fiscal Year 2004.
In order to increase the amount of funding directed toward the EMS
program category, EMS was incorporated into the operations and
firefighter safety category. Representatives from fire service
organizations recognized that by incorporating EMS funds into this
larger category, grant requests for EMS training or equipment would
increase because fire chiefs could work them into larger requests that
addressed other fire department functions. Preliminary data from the
USFA, which is listed below, indicates that this administrative change
has significantly increased both the number of applications and the
total dollar amount of funding requested in the EMS program area. \5\
For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Since no awards have yet been made, only statistics for
application requests are available.
The number of EMS applications increased from 216 to 2,584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nearly an eleven-fold increase.
The total dollar amount requested for EMS increased from
less than $17 million to more than $66 million. This is close
to a four-fold increase.
As a percentage of total applications, requests for EMS
funding increased from one percent to 12.7 percent.
As a percentage of total funding requests, EMS increased
from 0.7 percent to 2.5 percent.
We also note, with appreciation and support, that S. 2411 would
allow applicants to request funds for automated external defibrillator
(AED) devices, and that the bill would provide a match reduction
incentive to apply for these devices. According to USFA statistics, the
leading cause of fatal injuries to firefighters is heart attack. In
fact, in a retrospective study of firefighter fatalities from 1984 to
2000, the proportion of firefighter fatalities from heart attacks
remained constant over that 16 year period.\6\ I am convinced that if
more emergency response vehicles had an AED available, we could save
more firefighters' lives. Therefore, while we generally do not endorse
favoring one piece of equipment over another in the FIRE Act grant
process, we do endorse this provision to promote the use of AEDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ TriData Corporation, Firefighter Fatality Retrospective Study,
prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States
Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center, April 2002, pp. 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize that volunteer
EMS agencies have significant EMS-specific funding streams available to
them that are not available to many fire departments, most
significantly, third-party reimbursement for ambulance transport. Pre-
hospital emergency medical care is composed of two distinct services:
first response and ambulance transport. The fire service is the
overwhelming provider of EMS first response across the United States.
Strategically placed in the community for rapid response, fire
departments quickly get trained medical personnel to a patient's side
after 9-1-1 is called. As you can imagine, sustaining this level of
rapid response is very expensive and the burden of this cost falls
exclusively on local taxpayers. Because of antiquated Federal Medicare
laws, EMS first response is not eligible for third-party reimbursement.
The other component of EMS is ambulance transport. This service is
provided by a much wider variety of providers, including for-profit
corporations, hospitals, government third-service, and volunteer EMS
agencies, as well as fire departments, which provide only one-third of
ambulance transports.\7\ This broader mix of providers is explained by
the fact that ambulance transport is eligible for third-party
reimbursement. As a result, most ambulance transport providers bill
patients and their insurance companies for every ambulance run.
Medicare alone reimburses more than $3 billion for ambulance transport
annually. Additional reimbursement comes from Medicaid, private
insurers, and the patients themselves. As noted earlier, EMS first
response services are not eligible for any of this funding and this
financial burden falls almost exclusively on the fire service. The FIRE
Act is one of the only sources of funding--aside from local taxpayer
dollars--for fire departments that provide this important, and
expensive, service to their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Findings from the 1999 National Survey of Ambulance Providers,
Final Report, March 2000, p. 13. This report was conducted by Project
HOPE Center for Health Affairs in conjunction with the negotiated
rulemaking process that accompanied the development of the Medicare
ambulance fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the significant funding already available for ambulance
transport, the administrative changes that are targeting more funding
toward EMS, and the fact that S. 2411 would promote the use of AEDs, I
urge you, Mr. Chairman, not to open this grant program beyond America's
fire service. When we look at the potential number of increased
applicants, the potential decrease in available appropriations over the
next few years, and the significant number of basic unmet needs in the
fire service, we remain very concerned about the impact of the EMS
language in this bill.
Funding Caps Must Be in Place
The IAFC is concerned also about two provisions of the bill that
deal with funding levels. The first is about the cap on grant funding.
The bill would set a grant cap of the greater of $2,250,000 or the
amount equal to one-half of one percent of the total amount of
appropriated funds. This formula could grant an unreasonable amount of
money to any one jurisdiction. We support the grant cap language in the
House bill (H.R. 4107), which simply says, ``no single recipient may
receive more than one half of one percent of the funds appropriated
under this section for a single Fiscal Year.'' This language would
ensure an equitable distribution of funds no matter what a particular
year's appropriation may be.
The bill would also increase the funds available for fire
prevention and firefighter safety programs from five percent to six
percent. Five percent is the amount that we supported in the original
law, and it is the amount that we support in the House bill. The IAFC
is committed as much to preventing fires as we are to extinguishing
them. We are also committed to promoting and ensuring firefighter
safety. However, funds for those types of activities must be balanced
against the dire need for improving emergency response equipment and
training. Increasing the amount of funds available for fire prevention
and firefighter safety would start us on a slippery slope of dedicating
more of the funding that is needed to serve the FIRE Act's core
purposes.
Technical Corrections
We suggest three technical corrections to this bill, which I will
simply outline in bullet form below. The suggested changes are
underlined.
Page 4, lines 16-21 should read: ``(ii) ANNUAL REVIEW OF
CRITERIA.--Not less often than once each year, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Administrator,
shall convene a meeting of individuals who are members of
national fire service organizations. . . [.]'' The current
wording--``members of a fire service''--would be overly vague.
We would also like to see the bill specify the organizations to be
involved. In February of 2004, 10 major fire service
organizations submitted to Congress a white paper detailing our
requests for this reauthorization. In our suggested bill
language, we specified the organizations that represent
America's fire service experts in an effort to be as clear as
possible about who should be involved in setting grant
criteria.\8\ Congress often specifies organizations to be
involved in particular studies or projects, and this should be
no exception. The organizations we specified are longstanding
and well-established, and are likely to still be in business in
2010, when this reauthorization is set to expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The organizations listed in the white paper are the
Congressional Fire Services Institute, International Association of
Arson Investigators, International Association of Fire Chiefs,
International Association of Fire Fighters, International Fire Service
Training Association, International Society of Fire Service
Instructors, National Fire Protection Association, National Volunteer
Fire Council, North American Fire Training Directors, and ``any other
non-federal fire service organization the Secretary deems necessary.''
Page 5, lines 5-12 should read: ``(i) REQUIREMENT FOR
REVIEW.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall award grants
under this section based on the review of applications for such
grants by a panel of fire service personnel appointed by
national organizations recognized for expertise in the
operation and administration of fire services.'' The current
wording--``by a national organization''--would allow only one
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
organization to select the reviewing panel.
On pages 10-11, the term ``first due emergency vehicles''
should be replaced with ``emergency response vehicles.'' The
term ``first due'' literally applies to the vehicle that
arrives first on the scene. It is a term used by the fire
service that the bill as currently written would incorrectly
define.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
cosponsoring this bill and for holding this hearing on a most important
Federal grant program. The FIRE Act is an endeavor for which the
taxpayers and the Federal government can--and should--be proud.
I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We're joined by our Senate colleagues, Senator Dodd and
Senator DeWine, who are the prime sponsors of this legislation.
I'd like to welcome them.
And, Senator Dodd, if you'd like to begin any remarks, and
then Senator DeWine--and we know you have a very heavy
schedule, and we appreciate you coming by the Committee to
discuss this important legislation with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
we apologize in arriving a bit late here. We're having this
briefing up in room 407, and so please forgive us for coming a
little bit late and interrupting the flow of your testimony
here this morning.
And I'd ask unanimous consent that some opening comments
that we have here be included in the record, if that's
appropriate.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Thank you, Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings, for holding this
hearing on the reauthorization of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Initiative, or the FIRE Act. I also want to commend both of you for
your outstanding leadership on behalf of firefighters in your state and
across the Nation.
I am pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague Senator
DeWine, who is the co-author of this important legislation. We worked
together on the original FIRE Act four years ago when the world was a
very different place.
In fact, I remember testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee
in July 2000 on how local fire departments across America lacked the
resources to handle such challenges as an interstate highway accident,
an airplane crash, an incident involving hazardous materials, or a fire
spread over a large area. The challenges associated with responding to
an act of terrorism were mentioned, but few of us dared to imagine that
a large-scale terrorist attack within the borders of the United States
was an imminent possibility.
Of course, our worst fears became a reality on September 11, 2001.
On that tragic day, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made
the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of people
trapped in the World Trade Center. Many firefighters in the Washington,
D.C. area also demonstrated their heroism by rescuing people trapped in
the burning ruins of the Pentagon.
In the aftermath of that terrible day, and nearly a year after the
original FIRE Act was enacted, firefighters are facing new and profound
challenges. In addition to their traditional responsibilities of
extinguishing fires, promoting fire safety, and ensuring that fire
codes are inspected, they have new homeland security responsibilities
such as responding to chemical, biological, and nuclear threats. It is
therefore not an exaggeration to say that the Nation's firefighters are
literally serving on the front lines of the War on Terror, protecting
the homeland from the real and present danger of future terrorist
attacks.
According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire
Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the
necessary resources and training to properly handle acts of terrorism
and large-scale emergencies. A June 2003 Council of Foreign Relations
report authored by former Senator Warren Rudman further underscored
this issue when it concluded that ``if the Nation does not take
immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of
emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even
more devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.''
Since the original FIRE Act was enacted, firefighters are in fact
able to do more. They can respond more quickly to the 21 million calls
that come in each year to local fire departments. They can reduce the
number of people who die or suffer injuries in fires each year.
Furthermore, they are better prepared to handle what once seemed
unthinkable, but what we now know after September 11 can happen
anywhere at anytime. I know from speaking to firefighters in my home
state of Connecticut what a difference the FIRE Act has made over the
last four years. It has benefited fire departments large and small,
paid and volunteer, urban and rural. Firefighters are able to purchase
equipment they once could not afford, undergo training that they never
had, and provide more effective protection to groups such as children
and the elderly that have long been at high-risk for fire-related
injuries. In fact, a report last year by the Federal government found
that ``overall. . .the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program was
highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of
firefighters across the Nation.'' The FIRE Act grant initiative is
truly a success story.
The reauthorization bill that Senator DeWine and I have introduced
makes a number of significant improvements to the original FIRE Act. It
builds on the recommendations given to us last February by the paid and
volunteer fire services which know from first-hand experience the
impact that these FIRE Act grants have had. For example, the
reauthorization legislation makes the size of the FIRE Act grants and
the local matching requirements more equitable. It also enhances fire
safety and fire prevention programs, and it tackles the leading cause
of death among firefighters in the line of duty--heart attacks--by
creating an incentive for fire departments to acquire life-saving
automated external defibrillator equipment for every first-due vehicle.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, Senator Hollings,
and the entire Senate Commerce Committee to ensure that this important
initiative is quickly reauthorized. I am especially grateful to you,
Chairman McCain, for your willingness to consider this bill as part of
the FY2005 Department of Defense Reauthorization Act.
There is an immediate need for the Committee to act, given that the
program expires at the end of the current Fiscal Year. The legislation
that Senator DeWine and I have authored also has significant support
among Senators from both sides of the aisle as well as from the fire
services.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and for
your commitment to the Nation's firefighters.
Senator Dodd. And let me begin by thanking both you and
Senator Hollings for doing this. You and I have talked about
this on numerous occasions, and no one has been more generous,
in terms of Committee jurisdiction than allowing this measure
to go forward in the manner it has over the last few years by
being a part of the Defense Department authorization bill. And
you've been tremendously understanding and tremendously
forthcoming in your willingness to work on a bill that would--
that we think makes a significant difference. And I think
having this hearing and developing a piece of legislation out
of the appropriate Committee of jurisdiction, to then become a
part of whatever the DOD authorization conferences involves, is
the proper way to go, and I'm particularly grateful to you for
that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. And I want to commend my colleague from Ohio.
We work on a lot of legislation together, serve on committees
together, and there's no better partner to have in the U.S.
Senate than Mike DeWine when you work on issues together. And
so I'm pleased to be joined together with him this morning in
making a few opening comments to you about all of this.
Obviously, the--I remember testifying before the Commerce
Committee in July 2000, about 4 years ago, on how local fire
departments across the country lack the resources to handle
such challenges as interstate highway accidents, airplane
catastrophes, incidents involving hazardous materials, and the
like. The challenges associated with responding to the act of
terrorism were mentioned. Few of us in the year 2000 would
imagine that we'd be faced with the events that we faced on 9/
11, where 343 firefighters paid the ultimate price on that
horrible, horrible day. Many firefighters in Washington, D.C.,
have also demonstrated their heroism by rescuing trapped people
in the burning ruins of the Pentagon.
In the aftermath of that terrible day, nearly a year after
the original FIRE Act was enacted, firefighters are facing new
and profound challenges. In addition to their traditional
responsibilities of extinguishing fires and promoting fire
safety, ensuring that fire codes are inspected, they have a new
homeland security responsibility, such as responding to
chemical, biological, and nuclear threats. It's, therefore, not
an exaggeration to say that the Nation's firefighters, the
33,000 departments across this country who respond to 21
million calls every year, are literally serving on the front
lines of the war on terror, protecting the homeland from real
and present danger of future terrorist attacks.
According to the National Needs Assessment Study of the
U.S. Fire Service published in 2002, most fire departments lack
necessary resources and training to properly handle acts of
terrorism and large-scale emergencies. A June 2003 Council of
Foreign Relations Report authored by our former colleague,
Warren Rudman, further underscored the issue when it concluded,
and I quote, ``If the Nation does not take the immediate steps
to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency
responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even more
devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.''
Mr. Chairman, since the original FIRE Act was enacted,
firefighters are, in fact, able to do more. They can respond
more quickly, as I mentioned, to 21 million calls that come in
each year to local departments across the country. They can
reduce the number of people who die and suffer injuries in
fires each year. And, furthermore, they are better prepared to
handle what once seemed unthinkable, but we now know, after
September 11, can happen anywhere at any time.
I know, from speaking to firefighters in my home state of
Connecticut, what a difference the FIRE Act has made over last
4 years. It's benefited fire departments, large and small, paid
and volunteer, urban and rural. Firefighters are able to
purchase equipment they once could not afford, undergo training
they never had, and provide more effective protection to groups
such as children and elderly, who have long been at high risk
for fire-related injuries. In fact, a report last year by the
Federal Government found, and I quote, ``Overall, the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is highly effective in
improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across
the Nation.''
And the reauthorization bill that we've proposed in this
hearing, which will further shape that legislation, we think
will make some improvements to the original FIRE Act, including
raising the caps, providing for additional resources to larger
cities, recognizing the distinction between smaller towns, mid-
sized cities, and larger ones, and not allowing an excessive
amount to go to large urban areas, but certainly getting above
the 750,000 cap and recognizing that large cities, like New
York, like Phoenix, like L.A., deserve far more consideration
than the amounts they were getting before for the problems that
they're likely to face; not to suggest that smaller communities
don't face challenges and may not be on the front lines when
emergencies occur, but certainly trying to take into
consideration.
There have been other recommendations in the bill, and I
won't go into all the details of it. I know the Chairman and
others are familiar with them. Once again, I just want to
express my gratitude to you. This has, I think, been a good
program. I think it's made a difference. I think first
responders certainly--and the firefighters are in that
category, without any question--are deserving of some help in
addition to the local and state support they get. And we're
grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for listening to these ideas.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Dodd. And I appreciate you
bringing up the issue of this funding. I just brought it up
with the previous panel. We're going to have to wrestle with
that----
Senator Dodd. Yes.
The Chairman.--issue, and my suggestion is that we get the
input from the relative agencies of government--and maybe from
outside government--that assess terrorist threats. It seems to
me that that should have some impact on distribution of funds.
I represent a state that's both urban and rural, and I have
no problem with trying to make sure that the fire station at
Snowflake is well taken care of. But I think there is a general
appreciation that the targets that terrorists would have as a
priority are large areas of population. It just is a matter of
logic. And I think it's--it's my understanding that the formula
has been legislated as to how this distribution of funds--is
that not correct, Mr. Shannon?
Mr. Shannon. I believe that the authorization bill deals
with the formula.
The Chairman. Well, I hope that, as we move this
legislation forward quickly--and it needs to be done quickly,
as we appreciate--that we at least include some provision for a
way of hashing--resolving, I think, a very important issue;
because, unfortunately, the funding is not unlimited. So I hope
that you and Senator DeWine, as prime people involved--Senators
involved in this issue, would take that on, as well as the rest
of us.
Senator Dodd. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think--I
don't have any particular--wedded to a formula here. Initially,
we had authored the bill--we were trying to get resources out.
I don't disagree with you. Clearly, the larger areas are faced
with more complicated issues that arise, and that certainly
should be taken into consideration, which is, in part, what we
try to do in the reformulation of this a bit.
And I would say, in defense, I guess, of smaller
communities, that times can arise when they're called upon
today. I presume, in Arizona, as in Connecticut, I have smaller
communities along major interstate highways, for instance,
where we just had a major problem on Route 95 in Connecticut,
and it was some of the smaller departments that actually
responded to that chemical spill on Route 95. So it's--your
point is well taken, and I agree with it, and I don't think
you're going to argue with me that there are occasions when,
obviously, smaller communities can be drawn into some pretty
serious situations.
The Chairman. And it may not be necessary.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
The Chairman. But there seems to be, at least emanating
from some major cities, a lot of complaints. So it at least
ought to be looked at.
I thank you, Senator Dodd. And I know you have a heavy
schedule. I thank you for coming by.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Appreciate it.
The Chairman. Senator DeWine?
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for holding
this hearing.
And let me also say what a pleasure it is to work with
Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd and I originally wrote this bill,
worked on it. And, frankly, the times have changed a little
bit. We originally wrote this bill, and it passed, and our
concern, I think, was that there were many jurisdictions in
this country--and I'm sure the Senator has the same situation
in Arizona as I do in Ohio and the Senator does in his state--
that fire departments, who also are called upon, many times, to
be the emergency response--there are many people in this
country that, if you have a heart attack or if you break your
arm, as my daughter did a couple of years ago, it was our local
fire department that came out and transported her to the
hospital. Many of these departments just did not have the
resources to do the job they had to do. And because we found
that as we traveled around our states, we introduced this
legislation.
Based on that criteria, of trying to solve that problem,
this bill has been stunningly successful. I've spent the last
four or 5 years taking a week every summer, and my wife and I
and our kids get in an RV, and we travel around the state. And
one of the things that we do is stop at fire departments, after
this bill passed.
The Chairman. That's a large RV?
Senator DeWine. And we--pardon me?
The Chairman. It's large RV?
[Laughter.]
Senator DeWine. It is a large RV, yes, sir, and it's--and,
Senator, it's getting bigger, actually, and we're having to get
a bigger one this year. It's one of the issues we're dealing
with.
But we stop and see how this money is being spent. And with
very, very little overhead, administrative costs from
Washington, this money is working, and it's being spent for
safety issues, local education programs in the communities run
by the fire departments, EMS. It's being spent for much-needed
equipment. So it's working. It's working very, very well.
We now are in an era where we are dealing with terrorism,
and we are looking at these fire departments to deal with the
spills, the terrorism issues, and other things. And so maybe
the way we look at this has changed a little bit.
When Senator Dodd and I, this year, started to put this
bill together, we had heard the concerns that had been raised,
that you're talking about, and by the cities, and we looked at
this, and saw, yes, there is something wrong when Cleveland,
Ohio, or Phoenix, under the old law, could only get up to
$750,000, the same cap that my home community of Cedarville, of
4,000, has. And they're not going to get $750,000, but it's the
same cap, and there's just something wrong with that. So when
we wrote this legislation, we came up with a cap--any city over
a million dollars--the way this bill is written right now, any
city over a million dollars--or over a million population has a
cap under this bill, per year, of $2.25 million; any City of
between a half a million and a million has a cap of $1.5
million; and below $500,000, it's a cap of a million. Now,
those are arbitrary figures, and that may not--those may not be
the right figures. But I think it's a fundamental--Senator Dodd
and I think it's a fundamental change from what we have done in
the past, and I think it's going to help a great deal to do
what we know we have to do, is to target finite dollars that we
have here in Washington to the places where it's needed the
most, while, at the same time, trying to keep the original
intent of the bill, which is also to worry about some of these
remote jurisdictions, whether in Arizona or Connecticut or Ohio
or wherever, that, frankly, just don't have the resources. And
if my grandmother or my mother or someone is having a heart
attack, they need to get out there and take care of them. So
it's a balance, and I think I speak for Senator Dodd, we're
certainly willing to work with this Committee and with your
good guidance in trying to come up--we have to change these
numbers and come up with something that works. But that was our
intent, and that's what we're trying to do.
We did make, I think, one--another conceptual change in
this bill, and that is, put more emphasis on safety. And it's
already been addressed by the panel a little bit, and I think
it's a movement in the right direction. The reality is, when
you go around and talk to the fire departments, most of these
fire departments are doing EMS, and they're doing a great job.
Their runs--seven out of eight runs, seven of those runs are
usually EMS runs. And that's not to say that fire runs are not
important; they're vitally important. But the EMS runs are also
there, and they're very, very significant. The way this bill is
written, more of the dollars than in the past--under the old
bill, only about 1 percent of the dollars went to EMS
services--more of the dollars are going to go to EMS.
The only area that there has been a little bit of
contention about has to do with the freestanding or independent
EMS departments that are separate and apart from fire. We have
written this bill so that they could get--share a limited
amount of this money. That causes, frankly, as you have already
heard, a little bit of concern from the fire departments. I
don't think it should. Frankly, Senator Dodd and I, in future
reauthorizations of this bill, if we are around, are not going
to open this bill up. It's not our intent to do that. But there
is a need. And, frankly, these freestanding, nonprofit--
nonprofit--EMS services are the ones who are delivering the
services to some our citizens in this country. And it makes
sense that they get a small amount of the money coming from the
taxpayers in this bill to provide some help to them, as well.
So I think we've got a very good bill here. We're open to
suggestions from you, Mr. Chairman, and from the Committee. And
we just look forward to working with you. And we thank you very
much for the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you for coming. Thank you for your long
involvement in this issue. And, as I had mentioned earlier,
we'll have this bill marked up next week and try to get it done
in an expeditious fashion. I know the House shares our same
sense of urgency for reauthorization.
Thank you both. Thanks for coming.
Mr. Monihan, I apologize for the delay. I'm sure you were
illuminated and entertained by--during the delay.
Mr. Monihan. Yes, I must say, you three gentlemen are very
impressive in your knowledge of this subject. You just about
gave my testimony.
The Chairman. Well, then we'll move to Mr. Shannon.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Monihan. I said ``just about.''
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF E. JAMES MONIHAN, PAST CHAIRMAN AND DELAWARE STATE
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VOLUNTEER FIRE COUNCIL
Mr. Monihan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am James
Monihan. I'm Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the
National Volunteer Fire Council, and a former Chairman of the
Council. I've been a firefighter in Lewes, Delaware, EMT and
fire officer for 47 years.
The Council provides a voice for the 800,000 men and women
who staff some 27,000 departments across the Nation. In
addition to their obvious contribution to their communities as
first responding domestic defenders, these volunteers represent
an estimated annual savings of $37 billion. On behalf of these
folks, I appreciate the opportunity to address the needs of the
volunteer fire service, and to voice our strong support for
Senate Bill 2411.
Passage of that bill is a top priority of the Council. The
events of 9/11 were a stark reminder to all Americans that the
fire service is the first responder to all emergencies and the
first line of defense against terrorist attacks this Nation may
face. However, we cannot lose sight of the 21 million calls we
answer each year involving structural fires, wild-land fires,
EMS responses, hazardous- materials incidents, et cetera--and,
yes, the cat in the tree, the dog in the drain, and the horse
in a well.
Often, local government alone is unable to afford the
extensive training and equipment that these challenges require,
and the program assists local fire departments by providing a
percentage of the needed money, while not supplanting local
responsibilities to provide adequate fire and emergency medical
services.
The FIRE Act is proven to be the most effective program to
date in providing all fire departments, large and small,
volunteer, career, and combination, not only with the tools
they need to perform their day-to-day duties, but also enhances
their ability to respond to large disasters, such as a
terrorist incident.
As we move to prepare for terrorist events at home, we must
first ensure that local departments have the basic tools they
need. The program has been successful because it is the only
Federal program that provides funds directly to the fire
department, and the fact that the members of the fire service
have been involved in almost every aspect of the program.
As written, the bill will codify many of the current
program regulations that have made it so successful. It
mandates the current peer-review process, guarantees national
fire service organizations are represented in setting the
criteria, and ensures that the program continues to address
basic fire department needs. It reduces the current local fire
department matching requirements from 30 to 20 percent for
departments serving 50,000 or more; and from 10 to 5 percent
for departments serving 20,000 or fewer. Also, as you
mentioned, it also realigns the caps. And while we know that
this is going to shift money to larger departments, the Council
supports these changes, and we believe that this will target
areas in need, while still ensuring that the program makes a
wide impact across the country.
This legislation opens the program up to volunteer and
nonprofit emergency medical services providers. And I must
disagree with Chief Mitchell that, in many parts of the
country, they are the only emergency medical service providers,
and, in fact, do protect the fire department.
It creates an incentive for fire departments to acquire
automatic external defibrillators--every first new piece of
equipment. The Council has long advocated the wide
proliferation of AEDs within the fire service, and this bill
will help further our efforts.
I'd also like to address certain provisions which we
support that are included in the House version, H.R. 4107, but
not in this bill. In an effort to consolidate the first
responder program, the FIRE Act, as you heard earlier, was
transferred to the Office of Domestic Preparedness. However,
the U.S. Fire Administration, under the leadership of Dave
Paulison, has spent the last 4 years developing and refining
the program, and has clearly demonstrated the capability to
efficiently distribute these funds to local fire departments.
This is no surprise to us, because the personnel of the Fire
Administration have--many of them have backgrounds in the
emergency services. By the way, I've never met a more
dedicated, hardworking group of staff people.
In addition, there's a substantial concern within our
organization that, because ODP's mission only deals with
terrorism preparedness, and because the agency does not have
experience working with local departments and jurisdictions,
this shift could be detrimental to the program. Therefore, we
also support all efforts to once again have the U.S. Fire
Administration take the lead in administering this program.
The House version also includes important volunteer
nondiscrimination language prohibiting a fire department that
receives grant funds from discriminating against, or
prohibiting members from engaging in, volunteer activities in
another jurisdiction during off-duty hours. This clause,
similar to the language that was included in the SAFER bill,
passed in Congress last year, begins to address the growing
concern we have about an individual's right to volunteer, since
some cities currently prohibit their firefighters from
volunteering.
I'd like to also stress that this clause does not affect
union organization. It only applies to the jurisdictions
applying for the grants. We understand--or, I'm sorry--I'd also
like to take this time to encourage Members of Congress and
your colleagues in the Senate to support the program in the
upcoming fiscal year.
The President's budget came through at $500 million. That's
a $250 million cut from last year's appropriation by Congress.
Our anxiety level was further raised when we saw that, while
the budget called for the grants to continue to be made
directly to fire departments, and awarded through the
competitive process, it dictated that preference be given to
applications that enhanced terrorism preparedness. It also only
requested funding, as you've said, for certain parts of the
program. It leaves out funding for fire prevention, education,
EMS, firefighter wellness and fitness, and station renovation.
We're not only concerned about the cuts, but also the potential
shift of the focus to terrorism.
The House appropriation bill, which has already been
passed, increases homeland security by $1.6 billion. It cuts
the FIRE Act to $600 million. The Senate Committee has reported
the bill out with $700 million, which is a cut of $50 million
from last year.
Many of the departments who are receiving the rural--are
rural departments struggle the most to provide their members
with adequate protective gear, safety devices, and training to
protect their communities. The funding problems in America's
volunteer service are not limited to rural areas. As suburbs
continue to grow, so does the burden on the local fire and EMS
departments. Even though many of these departments have the
essentials, they're unable to gain access to new technologies.
At no other time in our history have advances been greater
in equipment to protect firefighters and make their jobs safer.
Yet because the new technology is so expensive, many volunteer
and career departments, alike, are forced to forego the
purchase of new technology.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program is one of the most effective programs in the
Federal Government because it provides local fire departments
with the tools they need to respond to any incident they may
encounter, no matter what the origin. It ensures local support
through a matching requirement, and allows firefighters
themselves to play a role in the process. The program also
provides a direct connection between the Federal Government and
local fire departments without dollars being lost in
administrative overhead.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your Committee for
your time today, and also for your strong leadership in
Congress. And, you, personally, sir, I want to thank for your
time and attention, and also for your unwavering support.
I'll answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Monihan follows:]
Prepared Statement of E. James Monihan, Past Chairman and Delaware
State Director, National Volunteer Fire Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is E. James
Monihan and I am the former Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire
Council (NVFC) and currently serve as the Delaware State Director and
Chairman of the Legislative Committee. The NVFC represents the
interests of the Nation's more than 800,000 volunteer firefighters, who
staff over 90 percent of America's fire departments. I currently serve
as a volunteer firefighter with the Lewes Fire Department in Lewes,
Delaware. I have served as a firefighter for 44 years and still respond
regularly to calls. I have had experience in all phases of the life of
a first responder, including chemical and hazardous materials
incidents, EMS, rescue and fire.
In addition to serving as Chairman of the NVFC's Legislative
Committee, I have represented the NVFC on a variety of panels and
committees, including the 1998 Blue Ribbon Panel, which provided
recommendations on improving the operation of the U.S. Fire
Administration (USFA). I earn my livelihood in hospital administration,
which has allowed me to get a unique view of the emergency services
from both the medical and fire service perspectives.
According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
nearly 75 percent of all firefighters are volunteers. In most years,
more than half of the firefighters that are killed in the line of duty
are volunteers. In addition to the obvious contribution that volunteer
firefighters lend to their communities as the first arriving domestic
defenders, these brave men and women represent a significant cost
saving to taxpayers, a savings sometimes estimated to be as much as $37
billion annually.
On behalf of our membership, I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the needs of America's volunteer fire service. More
specifically, I would like to express our strong support for S. 2411,
the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which will reauthorize the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, also known as the FIRE Act,
through Fiscal Year 2010. In addition, this bipartisan legislation will
make some changes to the program, which will build upon its tremendous
effectiveness and success.
The events of September 11, 2001 was a stark reminder to all
Americans that the fire service is the first responder to all terrorist
attacks this country may face. As America's domestic first responders,
the fire service will be on the front lines of any incident and must be
prepared to respond to and defend our citizens from a terrorist attack
involving conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction.
However, we cannot lose sight of the 21 million calls the fire
service responds to annually involving structural fire suppression,
emergency medical response, hazardous materials incidents, clandestine
drug labs, search and rescue, wildland fire protection and natural
disasters. Many of these emergencies occur at Federal facilities and
buildings and on Federal lands. In addition, these incidents can damage
America's critical infrastructure, including our interstate highways,
railroads, bridges, tunnels, financial and agriculture centers, power
plants, refineries, and chemical manufacturing and storage facilities.
We as a fire service are sworn to protect these critical facilities and
infrastructure.
Often, local governments alone are unable to afford the extensive
training and equipment that these challenges require. The Assistance to
Firefighters Grant program assists local fire departments by providing
a percentage of the needed funds to pay for these necessities, while
not supplanting local responsibility to provide adequate fire and
emergency medical services.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program (AFGP) has proven to
be the most effective program to date in providing all fire
departments--both large and small, volunteer, career and combination--
not only with the tools they need to perform their day-to-day duties,
but it has also enhanced their ability to respond to large disasters as
well. As we move to prepare for terrorist incidents at home, we must
first ensure that local fire departments have the basic tools they need
to do their jobs on a daily basis.
This legislation will address these concerns by continuing to
ensure that the program will meet the basic firefighting and emergency
response needs of our fire departments, rather than becoming an
additional anti-terrorism grant program. The Federal government must
not forgo its commitment to the basic needs of America's fire service
in the name of Homeland Security.
The program has been successful because it is the only Federal
program that provides funding directly to fire departments. In
addition, the program's success is directly attributed to the fact that
members of the fire service have been involved in nearly every aspect
of the program to ensure that it addresses our current needs. We have
helped to set the criteria for each funding category, and have staffed
panels to grade the applications through an excellent peer-review
process.
Program Reauthorization
As I stated earlier, passage of S. 2411, the Assistance to
Firefighters Act of 2004, is a top priority for our organization. The
bill authorizes $900 million for Fiscal Year 2005, $950 million in
Fiscal Year 2006, and $1 billion annually in Fiscal Years 2007 through
2010 for the grant program, for a total six-year authorization of $5.85
billion.
As written, the bill codifies many of the current program
regulations that have made it so successful. The legislation would
mandate the current peer-review process, guarantee national fire
service organizations are represented in setting the criteria, and
ensure that the program continues to address basic fire department
needs.
In addition, it improves access to the program for departments
serving rural communities, and eliminates barriers to participation
faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions.
Specifically, the bill would:
Reduce the current local fire department matching
requirements from 30 percent to 20 percent for departments
serving communities of 50,000 or more. For departments serving
20,000 or fewer residents, the local match is reduced from 10
percent to 5 percent in order to address extreme budgetary
difficulties and encourage increased participation by such
departments.
The current FIRE Act caps grant amounts at $750,000,
regardless of the size of the fire department. The
reauthorization bill re-structures these caps so that they
better reflect the needs and the size of the department. The
bill has a ceiling of $2,250,000 for departments serving one
million or more, $1,500,000 for departments serving between
500,000 and one million, and $1,000,000 for departments serving
fewer than 500,000 residents.
While we feel that the cap increases will clearly result in a shift
of funds from smaller departments to larger ones, the NVFC supports
these changes and we believe that these figures will help target the
areas most in need while still ensuring that the program makes a wide
impact across the country.
The legislation also opens the program up to volunteer, non-profit
emergency medical service (EMS) providers. Although many jurisdictions
maintain separate fire and EMS departments, under current law, only
emergency medical services that are part of fire departments are
eligible for funding. To ensure that these agencies do not siphon off
too much funding, the legislation caps the amount these entities may
collectively receive to 3.5 percent of appropriated funds. The bill
also creates an incentive for fire departments to acquire automated
external defibrillator (AEDs) for every first-due emergency vehicle.
The NVFC has been a long-time advocate for wide proliferation of AEDs
within the fire service and this bill will help further our efforts.
Finally, the legislation commissions a comprehensive assessment by
the National Fire Protection Association to help identify the areas of
greatest need among departments nationwide and requires the Government
Accounting Office to report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of
the program.
I would also like to address certain provisions, which we support,
that were included in the House version (H.R. 4107) of this
legislation, but were omitted from this bill.
In an effort to consolidate first responder grant programs, the
AFGP was transferred to the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) in
FY 2004. However, the U.S Fire Administration (USFA), under the
leadership of Chief R. David Paulison, has spent the last four years
developing and refining the program and has clearly demonstrated the
capability to efficiently distribute these funds to local fire
departments. This is no surprise to us because the personnel at USFA
know the fire service like no other agency and many of their personnel
have emergency services backgrounds themselves.
In addition, there is a substantial concern within our organization
that because ODP's mission only deals with terrorism preparedness and
because the agency does not have experience working with local fire
departments or local jurisdictions, this shift could be detrimental to
the program. Therefore, we support all efforts to once again have USFA
administer the program.
The House version also includes important volunteer non-
discrimination language prohibiting a fire department that receives
grant funds from discriminating against, or prohibiting its members
from engaging in volunteer activities in another jurisdiction during
off-duty hours. This clause, similar to the language that was included
in the SAFER Bill passed in Congress last year, begins to address the
growing concern we have about an individual's right to volunteer.
Cities such as Hartford, West Hartford, East Hartford, Waterbury,
Fairfield, New Britain, Connecticut, West Allis, Wisconsin and Ft.
Wayne, Indiana currently prohibit their firefighters from volunteering.
We feel that these types of provisions are a violation of the basic
First Amendment right of free association. It is very alarming that any
city would try to a tell a firefighter how they should or should not
spend their off-duty time, especially when they are spending that time
doing good in their community. This comes at the same time there is a
revived push for volunteerism across our country led by President Bush.
Moreover, many career firefighters who work in larger cities often
live in smaller communities and belong to their local volunteer fire
departments at their choice. These individuals should be able to
provide their invaluable skills, knowledge and expertise to their local
departments, which are responsible for protecting their own homes and
family, without harassment and retribution from employers.
Some proponents of this type of prohibition contend that it is a
health and safety issue and that firefighters must be given time off to
recoup and relax. However, we have not heard anything about fire
departments that bar their firefighters from strenuous and equally
hazardous second jobs in construction and other trades. In addition,
there appears to be no fire departments that prohibit their
firefighters from partaking in potentially dangerous hobbies like
skiing or skydiving. Volunteer fire and EMS are the only activities
that appear to be singled out.
I would like to also stress that this clause does not affect any
local unions who may attempt to prevent their members from
volunteering. It simply would give incentives to municipalities to
allow their employees to volunteer in their hometown fire departments.
We understand that S. 2411, the Assistance to Firefighters Act of
2004, has been attached as an amendment to the Senate version of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (S. 2400). We
look forward to quickly passing this bill and working in Conference to
craft final legislation that will benefit the entire fire service in
its efforts to protect our Nation and its citizens.
FY 2005 Appropriations
I would also like to take this time to encourage members of the
Committee and your colleagues in the Senate to support the program in
the upcoming Fiscal Year. On February 2nd of this year, President Bush
sent Congress his FY 2005 budget, which requested only $500 million for
the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Although this was the
same amount the Administration requested in the FY 2004 budget, it
represented a cut of $250 million (33 percent) from the final amount
that was appropriated by Congress.
While the budget called for the grants to continue to be made
directly to fire departments and awarded through a competitive, peer-
review process, priority was to be given to applications that enhance
terrorism preparedness. It also only requests funding for the training,
apparatus and equipment sections of the FIRE Act, leaving out funding
initiatives for fire prevention and education, EMS, firefighter
wellness/fitness and station renovation.
The NVFC is not only concerned about the proposed cut from FY 2004
funding levels, but we are also worried about the potential shift in
focus of the program exclusively to terrorism. This program, which was
created before September 11, 2001, maintains its objective to bring
every fire department up to a base-line level of readiness, which in
turn will prepare them for large-scale incidents. This budget request
only strengthens our argument that Congress needs to take action to
ensure the program is protected. Quick passage of the reauthorization
bill will once again reiterate to the Administration that the
Assistance to Firefighters grant program is intended to address basic
fire service needs and enhance the capability to respond to all
hazards.
On June 18, the U.S. House of Representatives passed their FY 2005
House Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4567). While
providing a $1.6 billion (5.3 percent) overall increase for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the bill reduces Assistance to
Firefighters Grant program funding to $600 million for FY 2005, down
from nearly $750 million.
The Senate version of the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (S.
2537) passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 17. The
Senate bill funds the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program at $700
million for FY 2005, $100 million more than the House but still a cut
over FY 2004 levels.
Considering that nearly $3 billion in applications were submitted
for the current program year and while also taking into account a
variety of recent reports outlining the tremendous needs of America's
emergency services, including the NFPA Needs Assessment Survey, the
NVFC requests that Congress work to fund the program at or near the
fully authorized amount of $900 million.
A History of Success
After this current grant cycle (FY 2004), the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant program will have distributed nearly $2 billion to
almost 16,000 fire departments across the country for apparatus,
personal protective equipment, hazmat detection devices, improved
breathing apparatus, wellness and fitness programs, fire prevention and
education programs and interoperable communication systems. This is the
basic equipment our fire departments need to effectively respond to all
hazards.
In FY 2003, the program received $750 million and awarded nearly
8,700 grants to fire departments. There are no discrepancies as to the
location of this funding. It is all in the hands of local fire
departments. The Federal government is not blaming the state
government. The state government is not blaming the county and local
governments. The program simply works.
Many of these departments who are receiving aid are rural volunteer
fire departments that struggle the most to provide their members with
adequate protective gear, safety devices and training to protect their
communities. In these difficult times, while volunteer fire departments
are already struggling to handle their own needs and finances, they are
now forced to provide more services.
The funding problems in America's volunteer fire service are not
just limited to rural areas. As suburbs continue to grow, so does the
burden on the local fire and EMS department. Even though many of these
departments have the essentials, they are unable to gain access to new
technologies. At no other time have advances been greater in equipment
to protect them and make their jobs safer. Yet because the newer
technology is so expensive, many volunteer and career fire departments
are forced to forgo the purchase of the new technology or use outdated
equipment.
Conclusion
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program is one of the most
effective programs in the Federal government because it provides local
fire departments with the tools they need to respond to any incident
they may encounter, no matter what the origin of the emergency. It
ensures local support through a matching requirement and allows
firefighters themselves to play a large role in the process.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you Chairman McCain,
Ranking Member Hollings, Senators Dodd and DeWine and all of the fire
service's supporters in the U.S. Senate for their strong leadership on
this issue as well as other issues important to the fire service.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and your attention to the
views of America's fire service, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
E. James Monihan, FACHE
Professional
Graduated from Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science
in Philadelphia
Degree: Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy
Post-graduate studies in Pharmacy at Philadelphia College of
Pharmacy and Science
Registered Pharmacist--State of Delaware
Residency in Hospital Pharmacy--Memorial Hospital,
Wilmington, Delaware
Staff Pharmacist--Memorial Hospital, Wilmington, Delaware
Director of Pharmacy and Supply Services
Beebe Hospital, Lewes, Delaware
Emily P. Bissell Hospital, Wilmington, Delaware
Assistant Administrator/Vice President, Operations
Beebe Hospital Beebe Medical Center
Acting Administrator/Interim President
Beebe Medical Center, Lewes
Vice President, Professional Affairs & Quality Commitment
Beebe Medical Center, Lewes
Currently Vice President, Administration/CCO (Chief
Compliance Officer)
Beebe Medical Center, Lewes
Fellow and Past Regent for Delaware--American College of
Healthcare Executives
Member and Past Delegate to the House of Delegates--American
Society of Hospital Pharmacists.
Founding Secretary, Vice President and President
Delmarva Council of Hospital Executives
Fire Service
President and Deputy Chief--Lewes Fire Department
President Sussex County Volunteer Firemen's Association
President, Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association
Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council (12 years)
Chairman, Joint Council of National Fire Service
Organizations
United States Director, Federation of World Volunteer
Firefighters Association
Currently Delaware Director, National Volunteer Fire Council
and Chairman, Legislative Committee
Associations
Represent Delaware Healthcare Association (appointed by
Governor)
Delaware Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (DEMSAC)
Delaware Paramedic Advisory Council
Founding Chairman, Association of Delaware Hospital
Committed Group Purchasing Program (10 years)
Chairman, City of Lewes (Delaware) Project Impact Hazard
Mitigation Steering Committee
Publications
``Improved Productivity through Cooperative Planning,'' Published
in the International City Management Association's publication, Fire
Management.
Awards
``Board of Hygeia,'' 1975, Delaware Pharmaceutical
Association for Community Service
American Red Cross Service Award
Personality of the Year, 1994, The Coast Press
Regent's Award, 1998, American College of Healthcare
Executives
First Annual Mason Lankford Award for Fire Service
Leadership from the Congressional Fire Services Institute,
April 1999.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Monihan.
Welcome, my former colleague in the House, Mr. Shannon.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. SHANNON, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA)
Mr. Shannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
inviting me to appear before this Committee today. My name is
Jim Shannon, and I'm President and Chief Executive Officer of
the National Fire Protection Association.
NFPA is a nonprofit organization founded more than a
hundred years ago with a mission to save lives through
consensus codes and standards, fire and life safety education
and training, and fire research and analysis. NFPA consensus
codes and standards were adopted by state and local
jurisdictions throughout the United States and widely used by
the Federal Government. Just a few months ago, the Department
of Homeland Security adopted five of our standards for personal
protective equipment for use in the Fiscal Year 2005 State and
Urban Area Security Grant Programs. And this past May,
Secretary Ridge, in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, cited
NFPA's national preparedness standard, NFPA 1600, as the
foundation that the private sector can use to improve
readiness, and we hope and expect that that will be a
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission when that report is
released.
Now, as you consider the reauthorization of the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program, the FIRE Grant Program, I want
to testify in support of S. 2411. This legislation ensures that
the work the United States Fire Administration has done in
administering this crucial grant program to best meet the
critical fire protection needs of the Nation will continue.
Now, first, let me state emphatically that the
reauthorization of the FIRE Grant Program is extremely
important to the effectiveness of the fire service throughout
the United States. This program addresses every element of the
fire service, including fire suppression, prevention, code
enforcement, and emergency medical response. And while it's not
specifically a terrorism program, the FIRE Grant Program
provides the foundation on which terrorism preparedness must be
built. These basic levels of preparedness, which we know so
many departments lack, must be adequately met.
In 1973, the National Commission on Fire Prevention and
Control transmitted to President Nixon its final report,
``America Burning.'' And in that report, the Commission
recommended establishment of the Fire Administration to, among
many other functions, provide grants to state and local
governments. Before Congress created the FIRE Grant Program,
USFA was unable to perform that key function with the scale and
breadth needed to help America's fire service achieve full
effectiveness in its role of protecting the public. And now,
with this continuing support of Congress and with diligent
administration by USFA, the program is addressing the needs of
the fire service and promoting public safety. And I think that
staff at the USFA has done a tremendous job in administering
this program.
The program, since Fiscal Year 2001, has provided more than
a billion dollars in financial resources directly to fire
departments. Fire departments, however, have applied for more
than seven billion. And, as I shall discuss, the real needs of
the fire service are even greater. It is crucial that the FIRE
Grant Program be maintained as a separate and distinct funding
source where fire departments can receive direct funding from
the Federal Government and avoid unnecessary red tape. And I
would also urge the Congress to fund the program at a level no
less than its authorized amount of $900 million.
Now, when I said that the needs are much greater than the
currently authorized and appropriated amounts for the FIRE
Grant Program, I was speaking about the needs-assessment survey
of the fire service which was commissioned by Congress as part
of the FIRE Act, and published by NFPA in cooperation with FEMA
and the Fire Administration in 2002. This survey, Mr. Chairman,
preceded--or at least the authorization for the survey preceded
the events of 9/11/2001. But I think it sheds considerable
light on the deficiencies post-9/11, and the work was done
post-9/11. The NFPA needs assessment shows deficiencies in
almost every role that the fire service plays, and across all
community sizes.
Later this summer, NFPA will release a needs assessment for
each of the 50 states based on further analysis of the data
collected from the National Fire Service Needs Assessment, and
we fully expect these reports to demonstrate that fire
departments in every part of the Nation share in the national
needs and require the help that this grant program has been
providing. And, as I said, that needs assessment began before
September 11, but because of the foresight of the Fire
Administration and the people who worked on the assessment, the
survey includes extensive attention to terrorism preparedness.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation takes the next appropriate
step, and that is to provide the resources to update the
original needs assessment. Now that the FIRE Grant Program is
in its fourth year, it is important to have the empirical data
to show how this program is addressing the needs documented in
the original assessment. This updated study will measure the
impact of the FIRE Grant Program on the shortfalls identified
by NFPA's original assessment.
And S. 2411 continues the fire prevention and education
portion of the FIRE Grant Program. Although it's only 5 percent
of the total funding, fire prevention and education activities
conducted by our fire departments, our educators, and other
community leaders address a pressing need. These programs often
reach out to high-risk groups who disproportionately die in
fires--children, older adults, and the disadvantaged.
And just a couple of statistics about these groups.
Children five and younger and adults 65 and older have a death
rate from fire and burns that is roughly twice the rate of the
population as a whole. And these two groups account for over 40
percent of all civilian fatalities. And fire risk is highest in
rural areas and large urban areas, the same communities where
poverty and other high-risk conditions are most widespread.
Fire protection has always been, and I think always will
be, primarily a local responsibility. And the FIRE Grant
Program doesn't change this. However, our firefighters, who are
nearly always the first responders in any crisis, need more
help. And when we're telling the Nation's fire departments to
prepare and be ready for attacks on our homeland, whether
initiated from abroad or domestically, we can't expect them to
pay for sophisticated equipment and training by relying solely
on local taxes and fundraisers. There are those that have
called for the establishment of national preparedness standards
for our first responders. Surely, meeting the basic needs of
our fire departments is one standard we can't afford to leave
unfulfilled. The Federal Government must continue to provide
adequate resources through this program and to support our
firefighters to meet the many challenges they face every day.
This legislation will help to ensure that the program does
that.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could just make one comment on something that you said
earlier, I just want to say that NFPA fully supports trying to
ally the resources that are available for our first responder
community, generally, to the threat that we have to face. I am
deeply concerned that we haven't done nearly enough to address
this serious threat. You talk to a lot more people who assess
these threats than I do, but they all come to the same
conclusion, and I'm deeply concerned that we haven't adequately
addressed these questions.
I want to say that I understand the budget concerns
completely. I think that we should target the resources where
we think the threat is greatest. But I also think we have to
keep in the back of our minds two things. One is that the needs
assessment shows that the needs are everywhere in this country,
and, at some point, they have to be addressed. And the second,
I would remind you, Mr. Chairman--and I know I don't have to
remind you--is that on September 11, 2001, one of the fire
departments that was asked to respond to that terrorist threat
on that horrible day was the volunteer fire departments in
Shanksville, Pennsylvania, that had to address one of the plane
crashes. And so that when we look at this whole question of how
we're going to allocate these resources, we have to keep that
in mind, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon follows:]
Prepared Statement of James M. Shannon, President and CEO,
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings and members of the
Committee, I am honored to appear before this Committee today. My name
is James M. Shannon, and I am President and Chief Executive Officer of
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA is a non-profit
organization; founded more than 100 years ago, with a mission to save
lives through scientifically based consensus codes and standards, fire
and life safety education and training, and fire research and analysis.
NFPA consensus codes and standards are adopted by state and local
jurisdictions throughout the United States and widely used by the
Federal government.
Today NFPA has nearly 300 codes and standards addressing safety,
each accredited by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and
developed by technical experts, the fire service, and others
participating as volunteers in a consensus process. This process
ensures that all interested parties have a say in developing standards.
Congress affirmed its support for voluntary consensus standards in the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113)
and reaffirmed that support in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the
law that created the new department. Just a few months ago, the
Department of Homeland Security adopted five of our standards for
personal protection equipment for use in the FY 2005 state and urban
area security grant programs, and this past May Secretary Ridge in
testimony before the 9/11 Commission cited NFPA's national preparedness
standard (NFPA 1600) as the foundation that the private sector can use
to improve readiness.
As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program, known at the FIRE Grant Program, I wish to
testify in support of S. 2411, the ``Assistance to Firefighters Act of
2004.'' This legislation ensures that the work the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) has done in administering this crucial grant
program to best meet the critical fire protection needs of the Nation
will continue.
First, let me state emphatically that the reauthorization of FIRE
Grant Program is extremely important to the effectiveness of the fire
service throughout the United States. This program addresses every
element of the fire service including fire suppression, prevention,
code enforcement, and emergency medical response. While it is not
specifically a terrorism program, the FIRE Grant program provides the
foundation on which terrorism preparedness must be built. These basic
levels of preparedness, which we know so many departments lack, must be
adequately met.
In 1973, the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control,
transmitted to President Nixon its final report ``America Burning.'' In
that report the Commission recommended establishment of the United
States Fire Administration to, among many other functions, provide
grants to state and local governments. Before Congress created the FIRE
Grant Program, USFA was unable to perform that key function with the
scale and breadth needed to help America's fire service achieve full
effectiveness in its role of protecting the public. Now, with the
continuing support of Congress, and with diligent administration by
USFA, this program is addressing the needs of the fire service and
promoting public safety.
The staff at USFA has done a tremendous job in administering the
FIRE Grant Program. Since its creation in FY 2001, this program has
provided more than $1 billion in financial resources directly to fire
departments. Fire departments, however, have applied for more than $7
billion, and, as I shall discuss, the real needs are even greater. It
is crucial that the FIRE Grant Program be maintained as a separate and
distinct funding source where fire departments can receive direct
funding from the Federal government and avoid unnecessary red tape. I
would also urge the Congress to fund the program at a level no less
than its authorized amount of $900 million dollars.
When I said the needs are much greater than the currently
authorized and appropriated amounts for the FIRE Grant program, I was
speaking on the basis of the ``Needs Assessment Survey'' of the fire
service, which was commissioned by Congress as part of the FIRE Act and
published by NFPA in cooperation with FEMA/USFA in 2002. Let me share
with you a few of the major findings from that survey.
Only one in every 10 fire departments has the local
personnel and equipment required to respond effectively to a
building collapse or the release of chemical or biological
agents with even minimal to moderate casualties;
50 percent of our firefighters involved in ``technical
rescue'' lack formal training, but technical rescue involving
unique or complex conditions is precisely the skill they would
need to respond to a terrorist attack;
There are other huge gaps in training--there has been no
formal training for 21 percent of those involved in structural
firefighting; for 27 percent of those involved in EMS work; and
for 40 percent who are sent in to deal with hazardous
materials;
And we don't protect our firefighters as we should. One
third of the protective clothing worn by firefighters sent into
a burning building is more than 10 years old, and an estimated
57,000 firefighters lack any protective clothing at all;
On a typical fire department shift, 45 percent of first
responding firefighters lack portable radios; 36 percent lack
self-contained breathing apparatus; and 42 percent answer an
emergency call without a Personal Alert Safety System (PASS)
device that is critical in locating an injured or trapped
firefighter;
Finally, at least 65 percent of cities and towns nationwide
don't have enough fire stations to achieve widely recognized
response-time guidelines. Those guidelines recommend that
firefighters be on the scene of any situation within 4 minutes,
90 percent of the time.
There are those that have called for the establishment of national
preparedness standards for our first responders; surely meeting the
basic needs of our fire departments is one standard we can't afford to
leave unfulfilled.
Later this summer, NFPA will release a needs assessment for each of
the 50 states, based on further analysis of the data collected for the
national fire service needs assessment. We fully expect these reports
to demonstrate that fire departments in every part of the Nation share
in the national needs and require the help this grant program has been
providing.
The Needs Assessment began before the horrific events of September
11, 2001, but because of the foresight of USFA and our fire service
advisors, the survey included extensive attention to terrorism
preparedness. When the Council on Foreign Relations began an exercise,
under former Senator Warren Rudman, to develop cost estimates of
terrorism preparedness for the entire first responder community at all
levels of government, the Needs Assessment permitted NFPA to develop
and substantiate the fire service portion of these cost estimates with
unusual detail.
In its report released last year, the Council estimated that it
would take $98.4 billion in additional funds above current spending
(estimated at $26-76 billion) over the next 5 years, or $19.7 billion
per year, to meet the needs of our first responders to handle the
additional responsibilities of homeland security. The fire service
portion of this, based on the Council's use of NFPA's analysis of the
Needs Assessment Survey, was $26.5 billion in initial costs and $7.1
billion per year in ongoing costs.
Chairman McCain, this legislation takes the next, appropriate step,
and that is to provide the resources to update the original needs
assessment. Now that the FIRE Grant Program is in its fourth year, it
is important to have the empirical data to show how this program is
addressing the needs documented in the original assessment. This
updated study will measure the impact of the FIRE Grant program on the
shortfalls identified by NFPA's original assessment.
S. 2411 continues the fire prevention and education portion of the
FIRE Grant program. Although, it is only five percent of the total
funding, fire prevention and education activities conducted by our fire
departments, educators, and other community leaders address a pressing
need. These programs often reach out to high-risk groups who
disproportionably die in fires: children, older adults and the
disadvantaged. Some disturbing statistics about these groups:
Children five and younger and adults sixty-five and older
have a death rate from fire and burns that is roughly twice the
rate of the population as a whole
These two groups account for over 40 percent of all civilian
fatalities
Fire risk is highest in rural areas and large urban areas-
the same communities where poverty and other high-risk
conditions are most widespread
Fire protection has always been and always will be primarily a
local responsibility. The FIRE Grant program does not change this.
However, our firefighters, who are nearly always the first responders
in any crisis, need more help. When we're telling the Nation's fire
departments to prepare and be ready for attacks on our homeland,
whether initiated from abroad or domestically, we can't expect them to
pay for sophisticated equipment and training by relying solely on local
taxes and fundraisers.
The Federal Government must continue to provide adequate resources
through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and to support our
firefighters to meet the many challenges they face every day. This
legislation will help to ensure that this program does just that. Thank
you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I am happy to
answer any questions you have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Welcome, Mr. Shields.
STATEMENT OF BILLY SHIELDS, PRESIDENT,
UNITED PHOENIX FIRE FIGHTERS AND VICE PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL
FIRE FIGHTERS OF ARIZONA
Mr. Shields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name's Billy Shields. I serve as President of the United
Phoenix Fire Fighters, Local 493 of the International
Association of Fire Fighters. I appear before you today on
behalf of General President Harold Schaitberger and the 263,000
men and women of the IAFF. The IAFF is, by far, the largest
fire service organization in the nation, and our members
protect over 80 percent of the United States population.
I will, with your permission, depart from my oral comments
at junctures to try and address some of the specific questions
and issues you've raised today from the participants.
And I do appreciate this opportunity to share our views on
reauthorizing the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program,
more commonly known as the FIRE Act.
Before beginning, Mr. Chairman, I must take a moment to
comment you and your staff on your long history of championing
fire-service issues. We are especially appreciative of your
leadership on improving fire-technology standards and better
coordination among fire departments. Your authorship of the
Firefighting Research and Coordination Act has not gone
unnoticed within the IAFF, and it goes hand in hand with the
FIRE Act, in terms of bringing the best-quality equipment to
local fire departments and helping to achieve a coordinated
response.
In Arizona, we have worked feverishly since October of 2001
to try and build a response capability to these incidents; and
not just terrorist incidents, but major catastrophic incidents
that we face, as first responders. Anticipating the arrival of
UASE monies and these sorts of things, we have put together a
statewide response plan I have shared and briefed your staff
with last March, and I know you're aware of, that is
essentially a system of heavy rescue units with cross-trained
firefighters in hazardous materials expertise, technical-rescue
expertise, as well as the standard firefighter, EMS, and
paramedic training. We see this as a way that all of these
things come together. The FIRE Act assists the fire departments
around the country in developing a basic level of response
based on what they locally have identified as their needs, and
whether that be Bisbee or Nogales or Lake Havasu or Phoenix.
These UASE moneys, I think, help to determine and develop a
larger response to these threats, and there are issues with how
departments design and develop an approach to these. In the
case of Phoenix, as the central receiving point of the UASE
moneys, we have shared them with the Metro Phoenix area, and
purchased--with the 2003 monies we just received, we've ordered
five heavy-rescue units; three to go in Phoenix, one to go in
Tempe, one to go in Glendale. In the 2004 moneys, we would
provide an additional five that get placed around in Tucson,
Flagstaff, and Nogales and Mesa. In the coordination of this--
and I think back to the Act that you authored--it assumes some
mutual cooperation and basic standards and mutual aid. And the
Governor in Arizona did sign a mutual-aid agreement statewide
between all the fire departments.
But these things come together in a very complex way, and
I'd like to just say that I'm proud of the way, in Arizona, we
have worked together with all of the organized fire-service
agencies, including the volunteers, the fire districts, the
fire chiefs--both rural and metro fire chiefs--and the fire
unions, to create this strategic approach to try and meet these
needs.
Today, I'm here to testify specifically on S. 2411 and the
reauthorization of the FIRE Act. As I appeared before you
before, 4 years ago, to testify about the challenges faced by
the fire service and the millions of calls to help the fellow
Americans, today I can testify that, Arizona and nationwide,
the FIRE Act has provided direly needed funds for equipment and
training to local fire departments. It has been a model of
efficiency. And by sending funds directly to local fire
departments using a peer-review process, the FIRE Act has
distributed over a billion dollars. More than 15,000 grants
have been awarded.
There is a distinct difference in the effectiveness of the
FIRE Act and, I believe, the way that the statewide homeland
defense and security monies are distributed. The larger monies
that come down to states, as you know, the state can first take
20 percent from the top, and then distribute the balance,
typically through counties. The counties then have an
extraordinary say. This becomes, as you might guess, a very
politicized process.
And to develop the intensive statewide coordinated response
system I described to you, it is very difficult to navigate
this process of the state and of the counties and of all of the
entities. And then you have fire and police response--police
more concerned with protection and preparedness and
identification prior to; fire clearly identifying with response
afterwards. And so there is this melee in and about these
moneys. And I think, in Arizona, we are far ahead of the curve
on trying to get a handle and prepare ourselves, in a way that
we weren't before September 11. I think, in many other states,
they are caught in this, sort of, quagmire and, sort of, old
parochial fighting based on the percentages and how these
monies should be doled out, honestly, politically.
Arizona, alone, in the FIRE Act, has received over $12.5
million in grants. In the last fiscal year, our departments
received $7.6 million. And all over the state--there are over
60 fire departments--Ak-Chin Fire Department, Alpine Valley,
Apache Junction, Avondale, Beaver Dam-Littlefield Fire
District, the Beaver Valley Fire District, Benson Volunteer
Fire Department, Bisbee--the list goes on and on. And in each
one of these cases, the specific fire department has identified
their specific need, and these monies have gone, I think, to
the greater good.
Nevertheless, there are still large needs and areas that
can be improved. Since 2000, the population in Arizona has
increased by over 9 percent. During the same period, the income
to the state's general fund has fallen by slightly more than 13
percent. This results in a greater demand on our fire
departments, and our firefighters are protecting more people
with fewer resources. Also, I think, it explains why you see
larger cities not applying for these FIRE Act grants based on
the 30 percent match.
One of the issues that isn't addressed in either form of
the bill--the House or the Senate--is the timing of the grants.
The grants are--they are rated in May and distributed
thereafter. The budgeting process of local governments
typically runs in a fiscal-year process, and so they start
their budgeting process in January. And so for a fire
department of a large city, like Phoenix, to ask for a--even
under the new formula, a 20 percent match of a--let's say, a
$750,000 grant in a budgeting process that is concluded,
typically, by May, and saying that, ``We would like to have
this money in case we get this grant,'' typically doesn't fall
well on the ears of the people making the budgeting decisions
who have, in all cases--the five cities I directly represent--
cut the fire departments' budgets in the last--each of the last
2 years.
Many departments in Arizona are still plagued with problems
of the more than 60 professional departments, appear to be
deficient in an essential area, such as a minimum-staffing
levels, apparatus, equipment maintenance, and training provided
to new-hires. New problems continue to present themselves. The
transportation of thousands of tons of hazardous materials
every day through ports of entry in Nogales, San Luis, and
Douglas, the major forest fires driven by the extreme drought
and the bark beetles, the emerging public-health issues, such
as West Nile virus and anthrax scares, are just a few examples.
Mr. Chairman, let me discuss how these grants have helped
these two cities in Arizona. And I won't dwell on it long. But,
in Bisbee, I did mention, 4 years ago they were wearing 10-
year-old protective clothing, and they did receive a $40,000
FIRE Act grant, and today have new turnouts and gloves and
rescue ropes and all the things that it takes to do their job.
Additionally, Bisbee received $138,000 grant that actually
helped them purchase a piece of fire apparatus that was sorely
needed in that community.
Nogales had the issue of this burgeoning population. During
business hours and holidays, the town population swells from
40,000 to a quarter of a million, and they were really being
taxed, in terms of their EMS capabilities, to provide these
services. And, many times, people come over for emergency
treatment and medical treatments. And so they received a
significant FIRE Act grant that went toward their training and
equipment toward EMS.
And while the program has been very beneficial, we believe
it can be improved. When it was first developed, there was a
fear that smaller communities and volunteer fire departments
would not be able to compete with larger municipalities for
grants. As a result, several provisions were added to the
legislation to ensure that small jurisdictions received a fair
share of the funding. The IAFF fully endorsed these provisions
and worked with the National Volunteer Fire Council to address
issues of fairness.
We now know that these initial fears were unwarranted, and
the protections added to the legislation have had a detrimental
impact on larger municipalities. The fire departments that are
composed entirely of professional firefighters protect roughly
half the U.S. population, yet last year they received only 17
percent of the funding. In Arizona, 55 percent of all fire
grants were approved for volunteer fire departments, even
though they protect only 15 percent of the population.
And, again, to your question, the nature of this thing is
that you could have a county entirely protected by small
volunteer groups in, say, 20 different volunteer groups in fire
stations, and a county next door with one fire department that
has 20 fire stations. So the fire department in the county with
20 fire stations can apply for one grant. The county protected
by 20 different volunteer organizations can apply for 20
different grants, which would be $15 million under today's Act,
and $750,000 for the county with the professional fire
department. So the changes being recommended in these bills, I
think are highly called for.
Fortunately, the number of other national fire-service
organizations are joining us in suggesting these improvements.
Many suggested improvements were included in S. 2411, and we
are pleased to endorse that bill. We support the language in
the bill lifting the cap of $750,000 per grant and linking it
to population served. As currently written, the cap
discriminates against larger departments. We are appreciative
of the language which increases the cap and creates three
levels of grants, linked to population, with the largest cities
eligible for up to $2.25 million. Nevertheless, we would
support raising the cap even higher. The House bill, for
example, raises the cap to $3 million.
Another issue that has hindered participation by larger
departments, as I said earlier, is the matching request.
Currently, the larger jurisdictions must pay 30 percent, even
under the proposed changes. The City of Flagstaff, which I'll
pull out as an example, has never applied for a FIRE Act grant.
They are around 60,000 to 70,000 in population, and so they
meet that 30 percent match requirement just by a hair. Even
under the proposed changes, they would meet the 20 percent,
because the, sort of, threshold is 50,000 population. In a
suffering economy, based largely on the university, government,
and tourism, they have had severe budget cutbacks in the last 2
years, and the city manager and the mayor have forbidden them
from even applying for a FIRE Act grant.
And so S. 2411 begins to address the match problems by
reducing the match to 20 percent. And while we thank you and
applaud this step, we encourage further reduction to create
parity and to place all departments on a level playing field. I
guess there is an assumption that small communities have less
resources and income and revenues than larger cities. And if
we, you know, sort of, think that through, we can realize that
it is not always true.
Another improvement contained in 2411 are provisions that
will measure the program's effectiveness. And, as the others
have stated, there are many anecdotal reports on the success of
this program, but we would wholeheartedly support the
measurements and studies in this legislation.
The IAFF also supports the provision which leaves to the
Secretary of Homeland Security the decision regarding which
agency should administer the FIRE Act. The USFA did an
exemplary job of administering--administrating the program
since its creation, and we believe the procedures developed in
the USFA should be retained, regardless of which agency has
authority over the program.
Mr. Chairman, there is one issue that we feel compelled to
raise, even though it is not in S. 2411. The House version of
the legislation contains an unfortunate provision that
dramatically alters the very essence of this program and which
has caused us to oppose the House bill, as currently drafted.
The provision would bar a fire department from receiving FIRE
Act funding if it contains in its collective bargaining
agreement a clause prohibiting paid firefighters from serving
as volunteer firefighters in another jurisdiction. While
perhaps well-intentioned in this effort to increase the number
of volunteer firefighters, the actual impact of this proposal
would be detrimental and far-reaching.
There are very local and cultural and economic issues
related to, obviously, any jurisdiction. In some localities,
the government, the city, the town councils, the managers,
mayors, fire chiefs, or the unions may determine that they are
not willing to accept the risk, in terms of disability and
workers compensation, presumptive cancer laws in some states,
and heart-and-lung presumption bills, for their firefighters
going and working, paid or otherwise, in another jurisdiction.
And we would just submit that that really is a local issue.
In Arizona, it is not, and has not been, a problem. As I
say, we work very closely together with all the fire service
entities. There was a case where this was happening in Arizona.
We simply asked the fire department to stop doing that, and we
worked that out, and they did. And, honestly, that is the best
fix of all, is just to work these things out at a local level.
In Arizona, like in most of America----
The Chairman. If I could ask you to summarize, Mr.
Shields----
Mr. Shields. OK, I'm sorry. Let me just cut to the chase.
In summary, let me say that the FIRE Act program is a good
one, and that it's making a difference in Arizona. I am
hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that our suggestions for improvement
will become part of the final bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shields follows:]
Prepared Statement of Billy Shields, President, United Phoenix Fire
Fighters and Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona
Mr. Chairman. My name is Billy Shields and I serve as President of
the United Phoenix Fire Fighters, Local 493 and Vice President of the
Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, both affiliates of the
International Association of Fire Fighters.
I appear before you today on behalf of General President Harold A.
Schaitberger, and the 263,000 men and women of the IAFF. The IAFF is by
far the largest fire service organization in the nation, and our
members protect over 80 percent of the United States population.
Before beginning my statement, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I
did not take a moment to commend you and thank you for your long
history of championing fire service issues. Many of us will never
forget the invaluable contributions you made to the legislation that
originally created the FIRE Act. Your support of the SAFER Fire
Fighters Act was crucial to its passage. And, perhaps most important,
every fire fighter in this Nation owes you a debt of gratitude for the
leadership and diligence you displayed in passing the Firefighting
Research and Coordination Act. I personally believe that ten years from
now we will look back on that achievement as one of the most
significant enhancements in public safety our government has ever
undertaken.
I appreciate this opportunity to share our views on reauthorizing
the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, more commonly known as
the FIRE Act. The FIRE Act was a true landmark in the history of the
fire service. Prior to its passage, the Federal Government had never
fully acknowledged a responsibility to help protect the health and
safety of its citizens from fires and other emergencies. With this
initiative, the Federal Government for the first time became a partner
with localities and with America's fire service.
Mr. Chairman, four years ago I appeared before you and testified
about the great challenges our fire fighters face in responding to
millions of calls for help from our fellow Americans. These calls range
from fires to hazardous materials incidents to search and rescue
operations to emergency medical care. In my previous testimony, I
stated the job of fire fighting was the most dangerous in the world and
we continue to accept that. I also told you we could not accept that
our safety was being recklessly and needlessly endangered because too
many fire departments were unable to provide the most basic training,
equipment and staffing.
Today, four years later, I am here to say the FIRE Act has made a
difference. I can testify that in Arizona and nationwide, the FIRE Act
has provided direly needed funds for equipment and training to local
fire departments. It has been a model of efficiency. By sending funds
directly to the local fire departments using a peer-review process, the
FIRE Act has distributed over $1 billion in just three years. There
have been more than 15,000 grants awarded to fire departments across
the Nation. Arizona alone has received over $12.5 million in grants. In
the last Fiscal Year, our departments received over $7.6 million. These
grants have purchased equipment, provided desperately needed training,
enhanced fire fighter wellness, and educated children and others about
fire safety. Americans are safer today as a result of this program.
Nevertheless, there are still large needs and areas that can be
improved. Just as in 2000, Arizona today remains a state that is
unique. Its varied demographics and geography make it a microcosm of
almost every region of our Nation.
In addition to Phoenix, which is now the fifth largest city in the
country, Arizona is home to mountain forests with significant wildland/
urban interface dangers and shares hundreds of miles of border with our
Mexican neighbors.
The Colorado River which is the single most important source of
fresh water in the western states, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Plant with its three reactors, and one of our Nation's greatest
treasures, the Grand Canyon, all belong in whole or part to our state.
While we are proud of our state's resources, we are also cognizant,
as fire fighters, of the response problems as well as the threats to
the safety of our communities that come hand in hand with these
important state and national assets. Arizona, like every other state,
is dotted with cities and towns, farms, highways and railroads.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, since 2000, the population of Arizona
has increased by over 9 percent. During the same period, income to the
State's General Fund has fallen by more than 13 percent. This results
in a greater demand on our fire departments. We have more people to
protect with less local resources.
While the FIRE Act has most definitely made a difference, many of
our fire departments in Arizona are still plagued by the kind of
problems they faced at the time of my appearance in front of this
committee in 2000. Most of our 60 full-time professional departments
are deficient in one or more essential areas, such as minimum safe
staffing levels, apparatus and equipment maintenance, and training
provided to new hires. Our trucks are going out without sufficient
personnel on them, and without adequate back up support. Most of our
departments cannot provide new hires with the basic level of training
identified by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) as
necessary to perform the job of a fire fighter safely and effectively.
These jurisdictions lack funds for instructors, training equipment and
training facilities.
National and local issues such as the transportation of thousands
of tons of hazardous materials every day through our ports of entry at
Nogales, San Luis and Douglas, major forests fires driven by extreme
drought, and emerging public health issues such as the West Nile Virus
and Anthrax scares continue to be national and local concerns for all
of us.
And added to these ongoing threats are the additional
responsibilities we face in the wake of September 11, 2001. Next to our
Armed Forces, the greatest impact of 9/11 has been on our public safety
providers--our police officers and fire fighters.
Understandably there has been a considerable focus on preventing
terrorist attacks in Arizona and nationwide. But despite our best
efforts at prevention whether it is in the field of public health, fire
prevention or international peace treaties, emergencies will occur. And
when emergencies occur, a response is required. Fire departments must
be prepared to respond to the emergency with proper equipment and
trained staff regardless of the cause.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back for a moment now if I may and
discuss the impact FIRE Act grants made to two of the Arizona cities
that I discussed in my testimony before you in 2000.
Bisbee
Four years ago, I testified that the historic, mountainous copper
and silver mining town of Bisbee had a fire department with no ladder
truck and fire fighters wearing ten year old personal protective
equipment. Today I am pleased to report that Bisbee has used a $130,000
FIRE grant to help them purchase a piece of fire fighting apparatus.
This previously unaffordable fire truck will be used to protect one of
Arizona's most historic cities.
A second grant for $41,000 was used to upgrade personal protective
equipment for fire fighters. This grant helps replace the decade old
coats, helmets, gloves, safety ropes and other critical gear that is
crucial to fighting fires.
While these grants are indispensable, the department still has
major problems due to a century plus old water system, narrow winding
streets and aging buildings.
A new opportunity for one of Bisbee's neighbors and a challenge for
Bisbee's under staffed fire department is the likely re-opening of an
old mine where newly found ore deposits will likely make it one of the
most productive copper mines in the world.
Research for redeveloping the mine is ongoing, yet the Bisbee Fire
Department cannot afford to train or equip a hazardous materials team
that will be needed.
Nogales
As I pointed out in 2000, Nogales is one of the busiest ports of
entry on the U.S.-Mexican border for the shipment of hazardous
materials. Millions of tons of dangerous cargo pass through Nogales
every year. Nogales highlights how the risk to a local community is
impacted by Federal policy and national issues.
Thanks to the FIRE Act, Nogales received an Emergency Medical
Services grant for $82,050. This award has already proven critical for
equipping the fire department with the necessary emergency needs in
case of accident.
While the Nogales Fire Department also obtained some hazardous
materials training funds from the state of Arizona, their hazmat needs
are still enormous. Every member of the department was trained to the
Technician level in Hazardous Materials, yet its effectiveness is
limited by the fact that the department cannot afford ongoing training
or the advanced tools, apparatus and protective suits that match the
hazards which are constantly in their community.
FIRE Act program
While the FIRE grants program has been successful we believe the
program can be improved. When the program was first developed, there
was a fear that smaller communities and volunteer fire departments
would not be able to compete with large municipalities for grants. As a
result, several provisions were added to the legislation to ensure that
small jurisdictions received a fair share of the funding. The IAFF
fully endorsed these provisions, and worked with other fire service
organizations to address issues of fairness.
Based on the experience of the last four years, we now know that
those initial fears were unwarranted, and the protections added to the
legislation have had a detrimental impact on larger municipalities.
Fire departments that are composed entirely of professional fire
fighters protect roughly half of the U.S. population, yet last year
they received only 17 percent of the funding. In Arizona, 55 percent of
all FIRE grants were approved for volunteer departments even though
they protect only 15 percent of the population.
Together with the other national fire service organizations, we put
together a proposal to begin to address some of these inequities. We
are grateful that a number of those proposals were included in S. 2411,
the bill authored by Senators Dodd and DeWine to reauthorize the FIRE
Act.
While we believe some fine tuning is warranted, the IAFF supports
the FIRE Act improvements contained in S. 2411, and we are pleased to
endorse the bill. Let me discuss some of the key subject areas of the
FIRE grant, and the adjustments proposed in S. 2411.
Size of Grants
One of the most important provisions designed to protect smaller
jurisdictions in the original law was a cap placed on the size of
grants. By limiting the size of any single grant to $750,000, the
authors hoped to increase the number of grants that would be awarded.
Many smaller grants were viewed as better than a few larger ones.
There were two flaws in this reasoning. The first is simply the
notion that the same cap should apply to all jurisdictions regardless
of size. Larger fire departments require more funds, and the cap proved
to be a disincentive for major cities to participate in the program.
The second flaw is that the cap fails to consider the differences
in organizational structure between volunteer fire departments and
professional fire departments. Volunteer departments are often
comprised of a single fire station, while professional departments are
more likely to have multiple stations. As a result of these different
systems, the FIRE Act has a built-in bias favoring volunteer fire
companies.
Consider, for example, two counties of approximately equal
geographic size, both of which are protected by 20 fire stations. In
the more populous, more industrialized of the two counties, the 20
stations are organized into a single fire department, while the less
populated county has 20 separate volunteer fire companies.
Under the current formula which limits the amount a single fire
department may receive, the larger of the two counties would be
eligible for $750,000, while the smaller one is eligible for a total of
$15 million. This is true regardless of the number of emergency calls
that come in, population served or property protected.
The cap on the size of grants must be raised and linked to
population served. We are appreciative of the language in S. 2411,
which addresses this need by creating three levels of grants linked to
population, with the largest cities eligible for up to $2.25 million.
Nevertheless, we would support raising the cap even higher. The House
bill, for example, raises the cap to $3 million, and even at this
elevated level, we feel obliged to note that it is just a step.
The fire departments in America's largest cities protect millions
of people, while some smaller fire departments number their
constituencies in the hundreds. Allowing the largest areas to apply for
less than 3 times more funding in the face of such vast disparities in
need is a problem we believe will need further attention in the years
ahead.
Local Match
Another provision of the law intended to protect smaller
jurisdictions is a lower local match for communities of less than
50,000 people. Currently, larger jurisdictions must match 30 percent of
the Federal funds, while smaller communities need only a 10 percent
match. The 30 percent match has proven to be problematic for many
communities.
In our own City of Flagstaff, Arizona, population 60,000, we have a
perfect problem case. Earlier in my testimony, I highlighted two
Arizona cities that benefited from FIRE grants. Unfortunately, another
city whose problems I highlighted in my 2000 testimony, Flagstaff, has
had quite another experience.
The fire department in Flagstaff has not received any FIRE Act
funds because it is barred from applying. Flagstaff's mayor has simply
forbidden the department to apply for funds because it cannot meet the
local match.
Yet the city continues to have great challenges. It sits at the
junction of two interstate highways, I-40, which is a nuclear waste
transportation corridor, and I-17. The fire department is responsible
not only for the safety of the citizens of the community, but also for
the millions of travelers and commercial vehicles passing through to
the Grand Canyon, historic Route 66 and Mexico. It has responded to
everything from wildfires to blizzard rescues. And the fire department
continues to be understaffed and underequipped.
While the Flagstaff Fire Department is protecting its forest
community during our severe drought, it is also involved in planning
preparations to treat the sick and injured should there be terrorist
incidents on Interstate 40. And due to a shortage of funding for staff,
one fire station has already been closed.
The city would be a perfect candidate for a FIRE grant, yet because
of other budgetary constraints it simply cannot come up with the local
matching funds.
And Flagstaff is not unique.
In Austin, Texas, the City Manager told the local fire fighters
union that he will never apply for a FIRE grant because he views the 30
percent match as excessive.
In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the city was forced to decline a
FIRE grant it had already been awarded because it could not come up
with the matching requirement.
In Cincinnati, Ohio, the city was only able to afford the 30
percent match for a flashover simulator it had requested by reducing
funding for other fire service needs. As a result, the city has been
unable to afford to use the simulator in training exercises.
Tragically, a Cincinnati fire fighter lost his life in flashover while
this technology sat idle in a nearby warehouse.
In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, the City Council was poised to vote
unanimously to decline a FIRE grant it had been awarded because it
could not afford the 30 percent match. At the urging of the local fire
fighter union, the Council agreed to postpone the vote to give the fire
fighters a chance to find an alternative. Ultimately, the fire fighters
were able to convince City Council to float a bond to pay the matching
requirement. It was the second consecutive year a special bond was
necessary to receive FIRE Act funding.
S. 2411 begins to address this problem by reducing the local match
for larger areas from 30 percent to 20 percent. While we thank you and
applaud this step, we encourage a further reduction to create parity
and place all fire departments on a level playing field.
The rationale given for the lower match for smaller communities is
that smaller communities have fewer resources. While that may be
generally true, smaller communities also have fewer emergency response
needs, and therefore apply for smaller grants. We are aware of no
evidence that shows that smaller communities have fewer resources on a
percentage basis when compared to larger areas.
Moreover, the notion that smaller means poorer is simply not true
in many cases. There are affluent rural areas and very poor urban ones.
We are even aware of some volunteer fire departments that have more
financial resources than urban professional fire departments. While
they are likely the exception, some volunteer fire companies have
proven extraordinarily adept at fundraising. Conversely, elected
officials in some larger municipalities are either unable or unwilling
to provide additional resources to fire departments due to severe
budget shortages and demands for increased spending on a variety of
other public needs.
Significantly, we have been unable to identify any other Federal
grant program that has different matches based on population. Such a
rigid formula has been deemed inapt for Federal assistance in other
areas, and we urge that the FIRE Act similarly adopt the generally used
practice of a single rate. If different matches are warranted, we urge
that the distinction be based on more relevant criteria than
population.
Expansion of the FIRE Act to EMS Providers
While the IAFF strongly supports the use of FIRE Act funds to
improve emergency medical services, we nevertheless have reservations
about expanding the FIRE Act to agencies other than fire departments.
While we understand and appreciate the argument to include EMS
providers in jurisdictions where fire departments do not provide EMS,
we are concerned that expanding the program to non-fire departments
will open the door for other public safety agencies, such as police
departments and private sector response organizations.
The majority of emergency medical services in our Nation are
provided by fire departments, and we believe that enabling fire
departments to apply for EMS grants is the best way to improve pre-
hospital patient care in our Nation.
If you choose to retain this language in the bill, the one
amendment we urge you to consider is to remove the limitation that only
volunteer EMS providers are eligible. While not many in number, there
are public, professional, single role EMS agencies, and there simply is
no reason to deny them access to this funding solely because they
choose to hire and pay professional paramedics rather than ask people
to work for free.
Measuring Effectiveness
While the anecdotal reports on the effectiveness of the FIRE Act
have been overwhelmingly positive, we are mindful that anecdotes alone
do not warrant continuation of a program. For this reason, we support
two provisions in S.2411 that will help us more accurately measure the
true value of the program.
The first provision is an update of the Needs Assessment authorized
under the original FIRE Act legislation. While the first Needs
Assessment clearly demonstrated the need for Federal assistance to
local fire departments, we believe a second survey will enable us to
measure the progress that has been made in the four years since the
FIRE Act was created.
Second, S.2411 contains language requiring that the General
Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress on the effectiveness of the
program. We are optimistic that GAO will be able to identify clear
measurements and specific benefits of the FIRE Act.
Administering Agency
We note that, unlike the House bill, S. 2411 formalizes the role of
the Secretary of Homeland Security in administering the FIRE Act in
consultation with the U.S. Fire Administrator. We are aware that many
organizations and Members of Congress strongly support returning
authority to administer this program to USFA. Other Members of Congress
and the Bush Administration want the program administered by a
different office in the Department of Homeland Security to create a
one-stop-shop for all grants.
While we concur with USFA supporters that the agency has done an
extraordinary job of running this program to date, we disagree that
only USFA is capable of administering the FIRE Act effectively and
efficiently. We believe the model and procedures developed by USFA can
be replicated, and we have received repeated assurances from Secretary
Tom Ridge, ODP Director Suzanne Mencer and others that whatever agency
runs the FIRE Act will do so in the same manner as USFA. We have no
reason to doubt their word.
We therefore concur with authors of S.2411 that the Secretary
should be granted the authority to determine which agency within the
Department of Homeland Security is best suited to administer the
program. We also support the inclusion of language guaranteeing that
USFA will continue to play a role in the program, regardless of which
agency has formal authority over it. This will ensure that DHS will
make full use of the fire service expertise housed at USFA.
Non-Discrimination Against Volunteer Fire Fighters
Mr. Chairman, there is one issue that we feel compelled to raise
even though it is not contained in S.2411. The House version of the
legislation contains an unfortunate provision which dramatically alters
the very essence of this program, and which has caused us to oppose the
House bill as currently drafted.
The provision would bar a fire department from receiving FIRE Act
funding if it contains in its collective bargaining agreement a clause
prohibiting paid fire fighters from serving as volunteer fire fighters
in another jurisdiction. While a perhaps well-intentioned effort to
increase the number of volunteer fire fighters, the actual impact of
this proposal would be detrimental and far-reaching.
I would like to begin my discussion of this issue by offering some
background. First, it is important to note that very few fire
departments in the nation, perhaps one percent or two percent, have
such clauses in their contracts. Most of them have been in place for
several years, and have never been a source of any controversy. There
is no controversy about this in Arizona that I am aware of.
Why would a fire department have such a clause in their bargaining
agreements? While the issues may vary from place to place, I believe
the most typical answer can be found in the agreement between the City
of West Allis, Wisconsin and the fire fighters union in the city. The
West Allis example is especially helpful to understand this issue
because the contract language includes a clear explanation of the
provision's intent. Allow me to quote from it:
``For the reasons stated below the Chief of the West Allis Fire
Department shall prohibit employees of the West Allis Fire
Department from performing fire fighting duties for
municipalities operating a paid or volunteer fire department
other than the City of West Allis.
1. The provision of fire protection services to the public is a
dangerous occupation requiring highly trained, capable
personnel using appropriate methods and equipment under the
direction of experienced supervisors. As such, the performance
of fire protection duties without the requisite training,
methods, equipment or supervision may threaten the health and
well being of employees and the public.
2. Employees who perform fire protection duties on a voluntary
basis or as the result of outside employment are subject to
increased exposure to hazardous conditions that may result in a
greater incidence of illness or injury. Consequently, the
performance of such duties for other municipalities may have a
direct bearing on employee's ability to perform fire protection
duties for the City of West Allis.
3. State statute has established a presumptive relationship
between an employee's fire suppression duties and heart and
lung disability the employee may develop. The City of West
Allis and its taxpayers are financially liable for the
employee's duty disability benefits, and must be confident that
such disabilities are the result of the employee's work for the
City of West Allis and not for other municipalities.''
In short, the City of West Allis has chosen to bar its fire
fighters from serving as fire fighters in other jurisdictions--either
on a paid or volunteer basis--to protect the health and safety of the
fire fighters and protect the city's taxpayers against unnecessary
financial liabilities. For similar reasons, the City of West Allis also
prohibits fire fighters from smoking off duty.
While I am not entirely clear why the city's desire to protect its
fire fighters and taxpayers is so objectionable, from our perspective
whether such a prohibition is good public policy or not is beside the
point. There are much broader issues at stake, and we ask that you
oppose including it in the FIRE Act reauthorization.
First and foremost, the language would mark the first time Congress
has attempted to use the FIRE Act to dictate local fire department
policies. To date, the only requirement is that a department has a
legitimate need. Once we begin the process of placing restrictions on
how fire departments choose to manage themselves, we are leading down a
very thorny path.
I do not mean to imply that the Federal Government has no
legitimate interest in fire department policies. Indeed, there are
many, many fire department policies that we believe may warrant Federal
oversight. Our question, however, is whether the FIRE Act is the
appropriate venue to address these issues.
For example, many fire departments fail to comply with OSHA
standards for safe fireground operation. This failure clearly
jeopardizes the lives of fire fighters, and we believe every department
should come into compliance with these basic safety standards. Many
fire stations have bars that serve alcohol to fire fighters and others.
We believe alcohol should never be present in a working fire station.
Hundreds of fire departments in this Nation refused to grant rank and
file fire fighters the opportunity to discuss with management their
concerns about their own health and safety.
We believe all of these issues are as important, if not more so,
than whether a handful of fire departments have clauses barring people
from volunteering in other jurisdictions. We have not, however,
previously advocated using the FIRE Act to address these important
matters because the program was never intended to compel changes in
local Fire Department policies.
Singling out this one restriction for inclusion in the FIRE Act
opens a door that invites Federal micromanaging of fire departments.
Does this extraneous issue truly warrant a radical redefinition of the
FIRE Act's purpose?
Second, the language establishes a precedent with implications far
beyond the FIRE Act. Since this issue arose, we have been researching
other Federal grant programs, and we have yet to find a single instance
in which a limitation was imposed on a Federal grant based on language
contained in collective bargaining agreements. While there are numerous
limitations placed on Federal grants, we are not aware of any other
attempts to redefine the scope of bargaining.
The potential implications for this precedent are staggering. Shall
Congress address the complex issue of health insurance coverage by
denying Federal funds to employers whose health benefits are deemed
inadequate? Shall we compel more teacher involvement in student
activities by cutting off education funding because a teacher contract
limits the number of evening events teachers can be required to attend
without additional compensation?
The issue of how to define the scope of permissible bargaining is
extraordinarily controversial, and the debate has raged for decades.
The notion of removing that debate from the context of labor law and
addressing it through grant limitations is a breathtaking reach. I can
only conclude that the advocates of this language do not fully
comprehend the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the proposal.
I hope you agree, Mr. Chairman, that this issue is far more complex
than merely protecting the rights of people to volunteer. It is for
these reasons, that when the national fire service organizations met to
discuss a draft version of the House bill, we unanimously agreed to
request that the provision be stricken. Even the National Volunteer
Fire Council joined in expressing opposition to the proposal.
Finally, placing a restriction on issues contained in collective
bargaining agreements must be viewed as part of the larger issue of
collective bargaining rights of the Nation's fire fighters. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government does not grant fire fighters
the right to bargain collectively. Where bargaining does occur, it
exists because fire fighters have won the right at the state or local
level.
The IAFF has for many years advocated a Federal right to bargain
for public safety employees, but to date the Federal Government policy
remains that such rights are outside the scope of Federal authority.
So the provision in the House bill contains something of a cruel
paradox. On the one hand, the legislation retains the current position
that the Federal Government does not have the authority to address
bargaining rights of public employees, while on the other hand, the
legislation would have the Federal Government restrict what we can
bargain over in those places where we have won the right.
We have to ask: is fire fighter bargaining a Federal issue or not?
The double standard inherent in restricting bargaining issues without
also granting bargaining rights is egregious and unsupportable.
Mr. Chairman, for all the foregoing reasons, I urge you to oppose
inclusion of this language as we move through the process.
Conclusion
The FIRE Act program is a good one, one that is making a difference
in Arizona and in communities across the Nation. I am hopeful, Mr.
Chairman, that our suggestions for improvement will become part of your
final bill. I look forward to working with you on these and other fire
service issues in the days ahead.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And on the issue of the match, I don't know exactly what it
should be. I understand that smaller entities in towns and
municipalities have a greater problem coming up with the money.
But there is one thing I've learned here, and that is, when you
don't require a match, the money is mismanaged. OK? There's a
clear record of that. And so I am not prepared, in any way, to
abandon the match idea. I'd be glad for us to fine-tune it.
Obviously, the reduction from 30 to 20 percent is a step in the
right direction. But to do away with it leads to enormous
mischief, and many times with the best of intentions.
Chief Mitchell, I think you should be given the opportunity
to, maybe, respond to Senator DeWine's comments about EMS.
Chief Mitchell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that, you know, this bill, fundamentally, is for
the all-hazard, all-risk community, which is the fire service
in this country. And we believe that the EMS funding should be
to go to fire-based EMS. As I mentioned earlier, there are
other revenue streams for third-party EMS, because they, for
the most part, do the transportation end of it. They don't--we
don't--we, the fire service, don't do all of the first
responder, but we do in excess of 90 percent across the
country. And pure first responder action does not lend itself
to reimbursement. If you are, in fact, in the transportation
end, then there is an opportunity to recover some of those
expenses. About a third of the departments also do
transportation. But over 90 percent, as I say, of the first
responder work is done by local fire departments, with no
opportunity for reimbursement to very many.
So it is just our contention that the tremendous need
exists in the fire community. And I've personally participated
in grant reviews this year--I spent a week doing that--and
found there's still a tremendous amount of need from the fire-
service community. We believe that this needs to be maintained
as a fire-based bill, and that is our reason for objecting to
including others--EMS providers.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Monihan, the Assistant to Firefighters Grant Program
was created, and it was desired to aid volunteer fire
departments in rural areas. How effective has that been in
responding to those concerns?
Mr. Monihan. It has been tremendously effective.
Departments across the country have upgraded their--as my
colleague was talking about--old turnout gear, and so forth,
that they could not have begun to think about purchasing. And
we're not talking about just ten-year-old gear; we're talking
about duck coats, cotton duck coats. So it's been tremendously
successful.
One thing about the match--and I agree with you, we need a
match; it can't be a gift, can't be a giveaway--but in the--I'm
sure the large communities have the same problem. I was talking
to a fire chief in Florida. He had a grant for a mini-pumper;
had to turn it back because he couldn't come up with the match
to make the grant. And----
The Chairman. Well, in all due respect, he should complain
to the mayor and the city council.
Mr. Monihan. There is no mayor and city council.
The Chairman. He should----
Mr. Monihan. Many volunteer----
The Chairman.--he should--there's bound to be a governing
authority. He's not an autonomous organization, or shouldn't
be.
Mr. Monihan. Well, it might be a county, but some of them
are at a crossroads, and there is no--you know, two houses and
a gas station. So--and the county doesn't listen to the
crossroads, I guess. I don't know.
The Chairman. Then I'd throw them out.
Mr. Monihan. That's entirely possible.
The Chairman. Look, I just know from experience, whenever
something is for free, there is not accountability. I mean,
it's just a fact. As I say, I would be glad to try to adjust
for those situations, but I keep hearing this, ``Well, the
match is too heavy.'' Well, if the match is too heavy, you've
got your priorities wrong. And so--anyway. But I thank you,
sir. But I'm very glad to hear about the success of this
program. And I thank you for your----
Mr. Monihan. It's excellent.
The Chairman.--involvement in it.
Mr. Shannon, is there a way to develop a standard set of
equipment and training requirements for every fire department,
and use those requirements to determine weaknesses that should
be addressed by the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program?
Mr. Shannon. A set of standards--well, I think that--I'm
not sure that there's a way to develop a set of standards that
you could apply ``one size fits all'' to every fire department
in America, but I think that the needs assessment that has
done--effectively does that, Mr. Chairman. And I think if you
look that, we're going to--we've taken all of that data, and
we've broken it down, state by state. I think if you take that
data, when we release it later on, and apply it to the
particular circumstances of a region or of an area or of a type
of fire department, there is a way of assessing whether the
needs are being met and where the deficiencies are.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Shields, what impact has this Act had on enhancing our
ability to prevent, detect, and mitigate destruction by forest
fires, such as is going on as we speak in Arizona?
Mr. Shields. Mr. Chairman, as you will see from the list of
fire departments that have received grants in Arizona, there
is, I think, a great disbursement of these funds in rural
Arizona and these areas that I think are most subjected to the
wildfire threats; and not just in terms of equipment, but in
training. In addition to the mutual-aid agreement reached 2
years ago, statewide between all the fire departments, I think
we have gone a far measure and improved greatly our abilities
to handle the threat.
The Chairman. So you think it is has enhanced our ability
to combat these forest fires.
Mr. Shields. It has.
The Chairman. Does every fire department in Arizona have
specific training on fighting forest fires?
Mr. Shields. The rural fire departments do have specific
training on fighting forest fires. Typically, the
municipalities, the larger ones that are away from the forests,
like the Phoenix area, don't. A lot of it is propagated through
the state fire marshal's office and the Firefighter I and II
training that is obtained by most firefighters in Arizona.
The Chairman. Could I recommend, without any particular
amount of expertise, if one of these things gets really big
we're going to call on everybody, and I would suggest that
perhaps maybe even Phoenix, Tucson--as you know, last year we
had one that came very close to Tucson, up in the mountain----
Mr. Shields. Yes.
The Chairman.--there, next to it. So I hope that that would
be looked at.
Mr. Shields. If----
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Shields.--I could respond, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Shields. We do have a basic level of wild-land
firefighting capabilities in these cities that are away from
the large forests. And typically, in these mutual-aid
scenarios, we're brought in to protect the cities that the
firefighters from those cities are out protecting the forests.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Chief Mitchell, you wanted to comment on that?
Chief Mitchell. I do--I would like to comment on that, Mr.
Chairman. I've spent nearly 33 years in the fire service in
Southern California, and----
The Chairman. So you know.
Chief Mitchell. And so, yes, I know. And what I--and four
of those was spent as President of the Los Angeles Area Fire
Chiefs, which includes Los Angeles City and County and 33 other
cities. The FIRE Act grants have helped tremendously in
equipping the other fire departments in the region that don't
have a specific wild-land fire threat. When it happens,
everybody comes. And it was expanded over the years from
structural protection to actually wild-land firefighting. And
people were responding without the proper gear, without the
proper training. Water tankers were needed in areas that didn't
have them. And this program has assisted greatly in remedying
those shortfalls.
The Chairman. Well, I don't mean to sound parochial, but I
think we all understand that the Southwest is in a horrific
drought that's going to last for a long time, in the view of
many experts. I think we have to plan on that. We pray that
that's not the case. And I think we're going to have to focus a
lot more of our firefighters' attention onto that, at least in
the Southwest.
The bark beetle, as you mentioned, Mr. Shields, is killing
off these trees, so, therefore, they've got more fuel;
therefore, the fires are going to be worse. And so I hope that
that would be given some priority.
Did you want to say something about that, Mr. Monihan?
Mr. Monihan. No, thank----
The Chairman. No?
Mr. Monihan. Well, I would say, you know, this is one of
the strengths of the FIRE Act, because you're talking about
wild-lands out there. We don't have too many wild-lands in
Montgomery County, Maryland. But the departments are applying
for the things they know they need. And somebody was talking
about ``one brush fits all''--that doesn't work. That's the
reason the FIRE Act works, is because they know what they're
deficient in.
The Chairman. Good. I thank the witnesses, and I appreciate
the information. And we'll move forward quickly with the markup
on this legislation. Thank you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator from South Carolina
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the needs of the
fire service. Our nation's firefighters are really on the front lines--
whether it's an auto accident, a house fire, a natural disaster, or an
incident of terrorism, nine times out of ten, the first responders on
the scene are fire fighters.
I am glad that the Committee is holding this hearing today, because
the needs of the fire service are great. As our second panel will tell
us, too often, fire fighters show up under manned and under equipped
for the job at hand. The Fire Administration's December 2002 report, A
Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service, pointed out that in most
small and medium-sized cities, the first trucks on the scene of a fire
often lack the 4 fire fighters needed to safely mount an attack on an
interior fire. Either the fire fighters are put at risk by disregarding
safety guidelines or the fire is allowed to burn longer while the first
crew waits for a second truck to arrive. When fire fighters have to
wait for additional assets in order to enter a building, the fire burns
longer and becomes more dangerous for the victims and the fire
fighters.
We are off to a good start at getting the fire service some of the
help it needs. Since the inception of the FIRE grant program, Congress
has provided more than $1 billion to fire departments for training,
equipment, vehicles, fire prevention, and other needs. Yet demand for
this funding still outstrips the amounts provided. I look forward to
passing this S. 2411 and making it easier for large cities and small
towns to gain access to this important funding source.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I
appreciate the opportunity to examine these important issues and look
forward to our witnesses' testimony.