[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7090-H7092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      GOOD SAMARITAN VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2004

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 1787) to remove civil liability barriers that discourage 
the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire companies, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1787

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer 
     Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY BARRIERS THAT DISCOURAGE 
                   THE DONATION OF FIRE EQUIPMENT TO VOLUNTEER 
                   FIRE COMPANIES.

       (a) Liability Protection.--A person who donates fire 
     control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company 
     shall not be liable for civil damages under any State or 
     Federal law for personal injuries, property damage or loss, 
     or death proximately caused by the equipment after the 
     donation.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a person 
     if--
       (1) the person's act or omission proximately causing the 
     injury, damage, loss, or death constitutes gross negligence 
     or intentional misconduct; or
       (2) the person is the manufacturer of the fire control or 
     fire rescue equipment.
       (c) Preemption.--This Act preempts the laws of any State to 
     the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, 
     except that notwithstanding subsection (b) this Act shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides additional protection 
     from liability for a person who donates fire control or fire 
     rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Person.--The term ``person'' includes any governmental 
     or other entity.
       (2) Fire control or rescue equipment.--The term ``fire 
     control or fire rescue equipment'' includes any fire vehicle, 
     fire fighting tool, communications equipment, protective 
     gear, fire hose, or breathing apparatus.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American 
     Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any other territory or 
     possession of the United States, and any political 
     subdivision of any such State, territory, or possession.
       (4) Volunteer fire company.--The term ``volunteer fire 
     company'' means an association of individuals who provide 
     fire protection and other emergency services, where at least 
     30 percent of the individuals receive little or no 
     compensation compared with an entry level full-time paid 
     individual in that association or in the nearest such 
     association with an entry level full-time paid individual.
       (e) Effective Date.--This Act applies only to liability for 
     injury, damage, loss, or death caused by equipment that, for 
     purposes of subsection (a), is donated on or after the date 
     that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. STATE-BY-STATE REVIEW OF DONATION OF FIREFIGHTER 
                   EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General of the United States 
     shall conduct a State-by-State review of the donation of 
     firefighter equipment to volunteer firefighter companies 
     during the 5-year period ending on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United 
     States shall publish and submit to the Congress a report on 
     the results of the review conducted under subsection (a). The 
     report shall include, for each State, the most effective way 
     to fund firefighter companies, whether first responder 
     funding is sufficient to respond to the Nation's needs, and 
     the best method to ensure that the equipment donated to 
     volunteer firefighter companies is in usable condition.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1787, the bill now 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1787, the 
Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004. I would 
like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), for bringing attention to an important issue.
  This straightforward, narrowly tailored legislation deserves our 
support, as do the volunteer firefighters who stand to benefit from its 
passage. The purpose of the bill is simple and clear: To encourage 
increased donation of surplus firefighting equipment to volunteer 
firefighting units by removing civil liability barriers that currently 
cause some corporation, individuals, and professional firefighting 
entities that destroy or mothball surplus or used equipment rather than 
to donate it.
  The Committee on the Judiciary had a hearing on H.R. 1787 on July 20, 
2004, at which Chief Philip Stittleburg of the National Volunteer Fire 
Council testified in favor of the bill. According to the testimony 
received by the committee, volunteer fire departments account for 75 
percent of all the Nation's firefighters and represent a cost savings 
estimated to be as much as $37 billion annually, which taxpayers would 
otherwise have to spend if those services that volunteers provide had 
to be replaced with full-time paid professional firefighters.
  Many of these volunteer departments are in rural areas, with fewer 
resources, and face a constant struggle to provide their members with 
adequate equipment to protect local communities. Volunteer fire 
departments have traditionally benefited from the donation of surplus 
or used equipment when professional fire departments or firefighting 
units of private enterprises upgrade or replace their own equipment. 
Surplus equipment may include hoses, oxygen masks, protective clothing 
or even fire trucks. However, today, some of this needed, usable, and 
safe equipment is being destroyed or put in storage by the better-
equipped fire units instead of being donated to the volunteer 
departments.
  Many times donations never occur because of the fear of legal 
liability exposure if such equipment were ever to fail, even through no 
fault of the donor. The legislation before us would remove both the 
fear and reality of such liability for potential donors of fire safety 
or fire rescue equipment to volunteer departments.
  The bill before us is a good, common-sense idea, but not an entirely 
original one. Ten States have already passed versions of this 
legislation at the State level. Texas, most notably, passed a law 7 
years ago granting liability relief to donors of firefighting equipment 
that have resulted in approximately $13 million worth of donations to 
over a thousand volunteer departments since 1997. However, volunteer 
firefighter advocates do not have the resources to wage legislative 
campaigns in the remaining 40 States.
  At a time when the Federal Government is more involved than ever in 
funding local first responders, Congress

[[Page H7091]]

has the responsibility to do whatever it can to help volunteer 
firefighters get better equipment at zero taxpayer cost. What the bill 
does is simply provide that a person or entity who donates fire control 
or rescue equipment to a volunteer department will not be liable for 
civil damages for damage or loss proximately caused by the equipment 
after donation.
  Despite some allegations by trial lawyers and other opponents, what 
the bill does not do is to protect the manufacturer of such equipment. 
It does not protect any donor whose actual mission constitutes gross 
negligence or intentional misconduct. Furthermore, the bill does not 
endanger the safety of firefighters. As Chief Stittleburg testified at 
the committee's hearing, fire chiefs are responsible for inspecting 
donated and purchased equipment alike, and no chief would allow their 
firefighters to answer an alarm using equipment that was not properly 
inspected and deemed fit for use.
  Given a choice between no equipment and donated equipment that they 
inspect before using, volunteer fire departments are clearly in favor 
of the latter. And given a choice between believing trial lawyers 
versus volunteer firefighters about the need for use and safety of 
donated equipment, I will choose the latter.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to provide some limited, 
commonsense relief to Good Samaritan donors of needed equipment to 
Members' own local fire departments and to the communities that rely 
upon volunteer firefighters. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 1787.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation. While I salute the hard work 
of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me we have before us a 
very extreme solution to a problem that does not exist. Although H.R. 
1787 is supposed to encourage donation of firefighting equipment by 
eliminating civil liability barriers, there are no reported cases of 
businesses refusing to donate equipment, nor cases of volunteer 
firefighting companies suing their donors. The so-called problem could 
be solved without congressional action.
  First, we heard during our committee deliberations that a volunteer 
fire department could simply sign a contract waiving liability of the 
donors from negligence resulted from the donated firefighting 
equipment. This tactic would ensure that fire companies are informed 
and have consented to the immunity of the donor. We do not have to 
mandate the immunity. They can agree to it if they want or if the donor 
insists.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this is not a Federal issue. It is a matter 
that can be dealt with by the States. There is nothing Federal about 
local volunteer fire departments. This liability issue is a State 
issue, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed 
out that many States have already dealt with the issue on a State 
basis. Companies should not be given blanket immunity for donating fire 
equipment. While it may be true that most of the equipment is perfectly 
usable, companies should be prevented from donating obsolete equipment 
known to be of dubious safety. Certain equipment, like protective gear 
and breathing apparatus, can deteriorate over time and may not be 
suitable for reuse.
  With all of the other pertinent issues we have before Congress, I 
find it problematic that we are focusing our attention and problems on 
something that is frankly not a problem. I urge my colleagues to reject 
this bill which may in fact endanger firefighters.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
in support of the legislation which I introduced, the Good Samaritan 
Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, and I find it stunning that 
anyone would oppose this legislation. It just never occurred to me that 
could happen.
  The legislation removes a barrier which currently prevents some 
organizations from donating surplus firefighting equipment to fire 
departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability 
has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment rather than 
donating it to volunteer rural and other financially strapped 
departments.
  We know that every day across the United States, firefighters respond 
to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work 
to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We may presume 
that firefighters work in departments with the latest and best 
firefighting and protective equipment when in reality there are an 
estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack 
of basic personal protective equipment.
  In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it 
difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. There is 
rarely enough money to buy new equipment. At the same time, certain 
industries are constantly improving and updating their fire protection 
equipment to take advantage of new state-of-the-art innovation. 
Sometimes the surplus equipment has never been used to put out a single 
fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to 
destroy, rather than donate, millions of dollars of quality fire 
equipment.
  Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable 
service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer 
firefighters nationwide save State and local governments $36.8 billion 
a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than 
19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer. While 
volunteering to fight fires, these same selfless individuals are asked 
to raise funds to pay for new equipment. Bake sales, potluck dinners, 
and raffles consume valuable time that could be better spent training 
to respond to emergencies. All this, while surplus equipment is being 
destroyed.
  In States that have removed liability barriers, such as Texas, fire 
companies have received millions of dollars in quality firefighting 
equipment. In the 7 years of the Texas program, more than $12 million 
worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to needy 
departments. This includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles and more than 
1,500 pieces of communications equipment. In total more than 33,000 
items have been donated.
  The generosity and goodwill of private entities donating surplus fire 
equipment to volunteer fire companies are well received by the 
firefighters and the communities. The donated fire equipment will 
undergo a safety inspection by the fire company to make sure 
firefighters and the public are safe.
  We can help solve this problem. Congress can respond to the needs of 
fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. This bill 
accomplishes this by raising the current liability standard.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this bipartisan legislation to better equip our Nation's firefighters.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the threat of civil liability causes 
some to think twice about donating dangerous equipment, equipment which 
may place our firefighters in danger. If this bill passes, they will 
not have to be concerned about donating dangerous equipment. I am not 
sure that is a good thing. I would hope that we would defeat the bill, 
allow the volunteer firefighters to waive liability if they see fit, 
but not impose this mandated waiver on everybody whether they want it 
or not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the choice in this bill is either pass the bill 
and allow for the donation of the equipment, or do not pass the bill 
and no equipment is going to be donated at all because the donor does 
not want to be on the hook for a civil liability lawsuit merely as a 
result of the donation.
  This bill does not immunize the manufacturer of the equipment so if 
the equipment was defectively manufactured, a lawsuit would still lie 
against

[[Page H7092]]

that manufacturer for either product liability or negligence.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) also says, well, the way to 
deal with this is to defeat the bill and have every volunteer fire 
company sign a waiver when they receive donated equipment. Well, that 
means that there is going to have to be a lawyer sitting in the 
firehouse drafting these waiver documents. Most of the volunteer fire 
companies that I am familiar with in my State, and I do not think they 
are any different from volunteer fire companies in other States, are 
staffed entirely by volunteers. These are people who donate their time 
to deal with emergency situations. Many of the volunteer fire companies 
in Wisconsin also run the first responder and emergency medical 
technician teams, and they ought to be spending their time and efforts 
doing training and raising money to purchase equipment that could not 
be donated, rather than paying for lawyers' fees to draft up waiver of 
liability agreements.
  I think this is a very sound bill. It is a commonsense bill. It 
should be passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
  I really find it amazing that anyone would come to the floor and vote 
against this legislation. There are nine States which have this in 
place at this time, and they are large States. I mentioned Texas, but 
there are also other large States such as Florida and California.
  This is clearly something which has worked in these States. They have 
received contributions of communications and firefighting equipment. In 
most instances, it is far better equipment than what they have already. 
In every single case, the fire companies inspect the equipment to make 
sure it is safe, contrary to what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) has stated regarding the safety aspects. In the research I have 
done, it has proven to be extremely safe.
  But a lot of companies, frankly, in other States, corporations, 
absolutely refuse to make donations because they are worried about 
liability. We are simply trying to clear the way to do that. What is in 
the best public interest, to worry that somebody does not inspect the 
equipment properly, that is just not very likely to happen, or saving 
people's lives in firefighting, which is really what this legislation 
is all about.
  There is no doubt the scale on this one is overwhelming in terms of 
doing something such as this. This protects the donor only, not the 
manufacturer. No one is donating dangerous equipment in this particular 
circumstance. There is no reason whatsoever not to support this 
legislation, not to support the volunteer firefighters, not to support 
the public who will benefit from this, not to support the use of the 
equipment rather than destroying the equipment because of concern about 
litigation and concerns such as those.
  Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I hope when the time comes there 
is only one vote against this, and that is the gentleman from Virginia, 
and all other Members are aware of the benefits and what this 
legislation does.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation, H.R. 1787, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter 
Assistance Act of 2003, but will express the reservations that I had 
during the Judiciary Committee oversight and markup hearings. The 
purpose of this legislation--purportedly, is to ensure that an 
individual or entity that donates fire control or fire rescue equipment 
to a volunteer fire company is not held liable for State or Federal 
civil damages for personal injuries, property damage or loss, or death 
caused by the equipment after the donation.
  On its face, this legislation has beneficial purpose, that is, to 
encourage large companies that own new or virtually new equipment to 
donate it to rural area fire companies or those that lack resources. 
This purpose is definitely consistent with America's need to support 
its first responders as terror threats continue to loom and cause 
continual rise in threat level.
  However, records--or the lack of record shows that there is currently 
no need for this legislation. There have been no reported cases of 
volunteer firefighting companies bringing suit to recover from damages 
caused by defective equipment. Moreover, we have no record of numbers 
of companies that have refused to donate their used or new fire 
equipment to volunteer fire companies.
  This legislation preempts State law in terms of shielding donors of 
equipment from liability. We in Congress have a duty to uphold the 
Constitution, and given the lack of immediate need, it seems 
``frivolous'' to contravene the 10th amendment and erode the rights of 
the individual States to handle matters relating to their local 
firevcompanies.
  In Texas, this issue is already legislatively addressed in 1997, as 
it is in the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, 
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and South Carolina. Therefore, if we 
refrain from taking this unnecessary congressional action, other States 
will follow suit and pass similar measures to achieve positive results.
  Therefore, I would have offered two amendments. I would have offered 
an amendment that would limit this legislation to situations where the 
donee has not executed a waiver of liability.
  The text of the first amendment read ``if the volunteer fire company 
waives all liability claims against the donor with respect to that 
equipment.''
  This amendment would have appropriately narrowed the scope of this 
legislation by specifying that a donor of fire equipment will be exempt 
from liability only if the donee fire company has executed a waiver of 
liability. Moreover, by adding this provision, ``frivolous lawsuits'' 
would be prevented with minimal congressional action and with minimal 
effects on the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

  Additionally, this amendment would have protected both the donor and 
the donee by requiring a legal showing that there was acceptance as to 
the quality of the equipment donated in any given circumstance.
  I also planned to offer an amendment that called for the State-by-
State review of the amount of equipment donated to volunteer 
firefighter companies for 5 years after enactment of H.R. 1787. This 
provision would have shown the public the results of this legislation 
in order to reveal its effectiveness or the lack thereof. The second 
part of this amendment would have required the Attorney General to 
submit a report to Congress of the results of the State-by-State 
review.
  The Jackson-Lee ``State review'' amendment would have allowed 
Congress to clearly analyze how our first responders benefit from this 
legislation against the effects it will have on the execution of State 
law. If the legislation fails to serve its purported purpose, the study 
would have clearly revealed it to Congress so that corrective measures 
may be taken.
  The two amendments above would have helped to narrow the scope of 
this vague legislation as well as to even the scale for the donee 
firefighting corporation as well as the donor. It is critical that we 
protect and preserve the rights of the individual States as well, 
consistent with the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  Nevertheless, I ask that my colleagues support this legislation 
recognizing the points that I have made above.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1787, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________