[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8970-8978]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 2406. A bill to promote the reliability of the electric 
transmission grid through the Cross-Sound Cable; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a legislation to 
restore operation of the Cross Sound Cable.
  I was dismayed to learn last Friday that the Secretary of Energy had 
issued an order that effectively shut down the Cross Sound Cable. The 
cable had been operating since Secretary Abraham issued an order 
directing that the cable be turned on almost immediately after the 
August 14, 2003 blackout.
  I believe that last Friday's decision is shortsighted, and I am 
extremely concerned that it will put Long Island at immediate risk of 
power failures as we enter the summer peak demand months.
  The Cross Sound Cable has provided proven reliability benefits at a 
time when a shortage of generation and transmission facilities 
continues to exist on Long Island and in Southern New England. The 
Cross Sound Cable transmitted 300 MW of power over the Blackout 
weekend, enough to turn on the power in about 300,000 homes on Long 
Island. Since beginning full-time operation on September 1, 2003, the

[[Page 8971]]

Cross Sound Cable has transmitted nearly one-half million megawatt-
hours of electricity to help provide sufficient power to prevent more 
blackouts or brownouts on the island.
  Additionally, the extra power from the Cable makes more power 
available on Long Island to export over another submarine cable into 
Southwestern Connecticut when needed, thereby making the regional power 
grid more resilient. The independent grid operators have successfully 
tested sending power over the Cross Sound Cable to Long Island and then 
simultaneously sending power from Western Long Island over another 
submarine cable to Southwest Connecticut. During a severe cold spell in 
January, Long Island Power Authority was prepared to send 200 mw of 
power over Cross Sound Cable to help Connecticut if needed. Over the 
short- to long-term, the Cable thus allows excess New York-generated 
power to be transmitted to Connecticut to help prevent blackouts and 
brownouts.
  In addition, the vital role of the Cross Sound Cable was confirmed in 
the final report of the U.S.-Canada Task Force on the Blackout. The 
blackout report concludes that ``[r]eactive power problems were a 
significant factor in the August 14 outage, and they were also 
important elements in several of the earlier outages . . .'' During the 
August 14 blackout, the Cross Sound Cable provided critical reactive 
power to Long Island and Connecticut to help stabilize the system. 
Cross Sound has responded to and corrected 17 unanticipated reactive 
power problems such as lightning strikes and equipment failures. 
CONVEX, the Connecticut arm of the independent transmission system 
operator, ISO-New England, has relied on Cross Sound to provide 
reactive power for voltage support on a preventive basis 84 times. 
Cross Sound Cable is currently the only operating cable system in 
Connecticut and Long Island capable of providing dynamic reactive power 
support during sensitive energy demand periods.
  Nearly every day now, the Cable operates under the direction of 
CONVEX to provide voltage support to Connecticut.
  In summary, the Cross Sound Cable has provided reliability benefits 
at a time when a transmission and generation shortage persists in the 
region. I strongly believe that this critical energy link between New 
England and New York should remain operational until all reliability 
studies required by the Blackout Task Force are completed and all of 
the resulting recommendations are implemented to prevent further large-
scale blackouts in this region. Until all of these steps occur, I 
believe that an emergency situation clearly continues to exist.
  That is why I am introducing this legislation today. In essence, the 
legislation overrides the order issue by Secretary Abraham on May 7, 
2004, reinstates his order of August 28, 2003, and provides that that 
later order shall remain in effect unless rescinded by an Act of 
Congress. This would turn the cable back on and leave it on until 
Congress determines it is appropriate to shut it down. That day may 
indeed come, but for now, we are facing the prospect of power outages 
on Long Island as we head into the peak-demand months of the summer.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2406

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

     SECTION 1. CROSS-SOUND CABLE ORDER.

       Notwithstanding Department of Energy Order No. 202-03-4, 
     issued by the Secretary of Energy on May 7, 2004, or any 
     other provision of law, Department of Energy Order No. 202-
     03-2, issued by the Secretary of Energy on August 28, 2003, 
     is reinstated effective on the date of enactment of this Act 
     and shall remain in effect unless rescinded by Act of 
     Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2407. A bill to clarify the intellectual property rights of the 
United States Olympic Committee; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am introducing an amendment to the Ted 
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act that will serve to protect the 
limited resources available to the United States Olympic Committee 
(``USOC'') to support America's Olympic athletes. This amendment would 
not expand the protections afforded to the USOC under existing law, but 
would clarify the broad scope of the existing statutory language that 
guarantees the USOC's exclusive right to commercial use of Olympic 
marks and terminology in the United States. Congress originally granted 
these rights to the USOC so that the USOC, through its licensing and 
sponsorship program, would have the ability to raise funds privately to 
support United States athletes and programs. Unauthorized use of 
Olympic marks and terminology by third parties dilutes the value of 
these marks and terminology and diminishes the USOC's ability to 
fulfill the mission mandated by Congress. This amendment will help 
ensure that the USOC can devote more of its resources to assisting 
athletes as opposed to funding legal actions necessary to prevent 
foreign or domestic entities from circumventing the broad statutory 
rights granted to the USOC.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2407

       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 ``Support Our Olympic Athletes 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF 
                   UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE.

       Chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports 
     Act''), is amended in section 220506(c)(3) by inserting ``the 
     words `Olympik', `Olympick', `Olympika', `Olympicka', 
     `Olympica', or `Olympikus','' after ``the words described in 
     subsection (a)(4) of this section,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2408. A bill to adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this bill adjusts the boundaries of the 
Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in Montana.
  For the Helena and Lolo National Forests, these adjustments are 
necessary to continue the community-based Blackfoot Community Project. 
This community-driven project is a collaborative effort supported by 
local residents, elected officials, State and Federal agencies, and 
others who care about the future of the Blackfoot River Valley.
  The project will eventually result in the future ownership and 
management of nearly 88,000 acres of land in the Blackfoot River 
watershed. The project will protect the rural lifestyle of a large, 
intact landscape that supports agriculture, timber harvesting, 
recreation, and natural resources that are important both locally and 
nationally.
  The project will provide a model for forest management in the west, 
by creating a private-public partnership to manage a portion of the 
Blackfoot watershed as a community forest for sustainable timber 
products and other natural resources benefits. The local community has 
requested Forest Service acquisition of certain parcels outside the 
existing National Forest Boundary to ensure continued public uses of 
these lands including public access for recreation, hunting, livestock 
grazing, and watershed protection. The end result of this boundary 
adjustment Forest service will be consolidated ownership and improved 
forest management.
  The boundary adjustment on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 
reflects changes in the Forest as a result of the Watershed 
conservation project completed in 2003. About 11,000 acres of the 
Watershed Property that is currently adjacent to the proclaimed Forest 
will be more accurately classified as existing within the Forest 
boundary. The Forest Service purchased the property in partnership

[[Page 8972]]

with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The County Commissioners, local 
public, and conservation and sportsman's groups supported the project.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2410. A bill to promote wildland firefighter safety; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2004, along with my colleague Senator Murray, 
the senior Senator from Washington State. Earlier today, the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve held a hearing 
regarding the outlook for the 2004 fire season. I join many of my 
colleagues, who are very concerned about what appears to be yet another 
year of devastating drought throughout the West, and the hazards this 
could pose in terms of increased fire risk and threats to public 
safety.
  However, we in Washington State recognize the importance of an issue 
that is often overlooked in discussions of fire preparedness. This is 
the topic of wildland firefighter safety, and it's an issue that we 
care deeply about because a horrible tragedy occurred in our state in 
July 2001, when four young Washington firefighters lost their lives at 
the Thirtymile Fire. I come to the floor to introduce this legislation 
today, because we cannot forget the lives that were lost--and the 
families that are still grieving--as a result of the Thirtymile 
tragedy. What's more, we cannot allow the Forest Service and our 
Federal firefighting agencies to repeat the mistakes that the agencies 
themselves admit resulted in these avoidable deaths. Unfortunately, the 
recently-issued findings of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA)--stemming from the Cramer Fire that killed two 
Idaho firefighters just last summer--indicate to me that the lessons of 
Thirtymile are not being completely heeded. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  Many of my colleagues, particularly those from the West, are probably 
aware of the fact that every summer, we send thousands of our 
constituents--many of them brave young men and women, college students 
on summer break--into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural 
communities and public lands. These men and women serve our nation 
bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost 
their lives in the line of duty. According to the U.S. Forest Service, 
a total of 30 firefighters across this Nation perished in the line of 
duty just last year, during the 2003 fire season.
  These firefighters represented a mix of Federal and State employees, 
volunteers and independent contractors. And they lost their lives for 
an array of reasons. We all realize that fighting fires on our nation's 
public lands is an inherently dangerous business. But what we cannot 
and must not abide are the preventable deaths--losing firefighters 
because rules were broken, policies ignored and no one was held 
accountable.
  I have already mentioned the Thirtymile tragedy that pushed this 
issue to the fore in the State of Washington. On July 10, 2001, near 
Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst drought 
in the history of our State, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control.
  Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom 
Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and 
Devin Weaver, 21.
  Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and 
women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own 
report on the Thirtymile fire, the tragedy ``could have been 
prevented.'' At that time, I said that I believe we in Congress and 
management within the firefighting agencies have a responsibility to 
ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile fire ever happened 
again.
  I'd like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the distinguished 
Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Senator 
Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and 
Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene 
hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from 
the grief-stricken families.
  In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of 
one of the lost firefighters--put into focus precisely what's at stake 
when we send these men and women into harm's way.
  I can think of no worse tragedy that a parent to confronting the loss 
of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by 
better practices on the part of federal agencies.
  At that Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with 
experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve 
the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after 
those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an 
independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that led to 
unnecessary fatalities.
  Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the 
agency's training and safety protocols, and what I've heard when I have 
visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe the 
courage of the Thirtymile families to stand up and demand change has 
had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who are 
preparing to battle blazes as wildland firefighters.
  Yet, I'm deeply saddened by the fact that it's clear we haven't done 
nearly enough.
  In July 2003--two years after Thirtymile--two more firefighters 
perished, this time at the Cramer Fire within Idaho's Salmon-Challis 
National Forest. Jeff Allen and Shane Heath were killed when the fire 
burned over an area where they were attempting to construct a landing 
spot for firefighting helicopters. Certainly some 28 others lost their 
lives fighting wildfires last year, and we must recognize the sacrifice 
and grief befalling their families.
  After the Thirtymile Fire, however, I told the Weavers and the 
Cravens, the families of Karen FitzPatrick and Jessica Johnson that I 
believed we owed it to their children to identify the causes and learn 
from the mistakes that were made in the Okanogan, to make wildland 
firefighting safer for those who would follow. That is why the findings 
associated with the Cramer Fire simply boggle my mind.
  We learned at Thirtymile that all ten of the agencies' Standing Fire 
Orders and many of the 18 Watch Out Situations--the most basic safety 
rules--were violated or disregarded. The same thing happened at Cramer, 
where Heath and Allen lost their lives two years later.
  After the Thirtymile Fire, OSHA conducted an investigation and levied 
against the Forest Service fire citations for Serious and Willful 
violations of safety rules. It was eerie, then, when just this March 
OSHA concluded its investigation of Cramer. The result: another five 
OSHA citations, for Serious, Willful and Repeat violations. Reading 
through the list of causal and contributing factors for Cramer and 
putting them next to those associated with the Thirtymile fire, my 
colleagues would be struck by the many disturbing similarities. Even 
more haunting are the parallels between these lists and the factors 
cited in the investigation of 1994's South Canyon Fire on Storm King 
Mountain in Colorado. It's been 10 years since those 14 firefighters 
lost their lives on Storm King Mountain--and yet, the same mistakes are 
being made over and over again.
  Let me repeat: This is not acceptable. The firefighters we send into 
harm's way this year--and the ones we've already lost--deserve better.
  Training, leadership and management problems have been cited in all 
of the incidents I've discussed. Frankly, I have believed since the 
Thirtymile tragedy that the Forest Service has on its hands a cultural 
problem. What can we do, from the legislative branch, to provide this 
agency with enough motivation to change? I believe the first step we 
can take is to equip ourselves with improved oversight tools, so these 
agencies know that Congress is paying attention. Today I'm introducing 
legislation--the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004--that would do 
just that.
  I believe this is a modest yet important proposal. It was already 
passed

[[Page 8973]]

once by the Senate, as an amendment to last year's Healthy Forests 
legislation. However, I was disappointed that it was not included in 
the conference version of the bill. But it is absolutely clear to me--
particularly in light of OSHA's review of the Cramer Fire--that these 
provisions are needed now more than ever.
  First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 will require the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies 
expend for firefighter safety and training.
  Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire 
preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials 
in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role--
ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, 
and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time--
without a separate break-down of these funds.
  Second, this legislation will require the Secretaries to report to 
Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety 
and training programs.
  I assure my colleagues who have not spent time dwelling on this issue 
that the maze of policy statements, management directives and curricula 
changes associated with federal firefighter training is dizzying and 
complicated. The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise 
their policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the 
fire line. Meanwhile, Congress has the responsibility to ensure needed 
reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the 
agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. 
I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and 
healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues.
  Third, my bill would stipulate that Federal contracts with private 
firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of 
Federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to 
monitor compliance with this requirement. This is important not just 
for the private contractor employees' themselves--but for the Federal, 
State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on 
the fire line.
  This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are 
just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout 
the country over the past two years--and notwithstanding the Clinton 
Administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new 
firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private 
contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has 
tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry 
estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 in 
1998 to 300 this year--with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest.
  In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber 
communities and provide important jobs--especially given the fact the 
agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight 
the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have 
been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety 
records.
  Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, 
there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take 
advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This 
is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and State 
officials. Last summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on 
the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence 
from the field.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  Among the contractor practices cited in the Seattle Times article: 
breaking safety rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; 
falsifying or forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training 
requirements; hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire 
line commands--and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a 
single crew from fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal 
firefighters are not allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row.
  The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph 
Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we 
don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are 
going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or 
three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 
that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that 
training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.''
  Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National 
Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have 
varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some 
were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while State government and 
feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with 
documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's 
probably more.''
  The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 is a modest beginning in 
addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and Federal 
contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's 
safety on the fire line.
  I understand that the Federal and State agencies are already 
attempting to push contractors in this direction--and this provision 
will bolster that momentum.
  And so, I hope my colleagues will support this simple legislation. 
Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical 
component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat 
of catastrophic wildfire.
  Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send 
into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training 
programs.
  We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and 
their State partners--and to future wildland firefighters.
  The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 will provide this body 
with the additional tools it needs to do the job. Thank you.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Seattle Times, July 20, 2003]

Risky business; Growth of Private Fire Crews Worries Forest Officials. 
  Some Fear Training and Safety Are Compromised by Burgeoning Use of 
                         Contract Firefighters

                            (By Craig Welch)

       Crewuch Valley, Okanogan County.--While the Forest Service 
     was retooling safety training after the deaths of four 
     firefighters in this rugged valley two years ago, a new 
     danger was quietly mushrooming in the woods.
       Private businesses eager to get into the increasingly 
     lucrative wildfire-fighting industry were breaking rules, 
     skirting training and falsifying records to send 
     inexperienced men and women to battle blazes, according to 
     government records. Some churned out crews that fell asleep 
     on the fire line or couldn't understand commands in English. 
     Others arrived hours late to fires that then ballooned out of 
     control.
       Private crews are now essential in the West's battle 
     against flames a war once fought primarily by government 
     employees. The number of private 20-person firefighting crews 
     sent by companies that contract with the government to fight 
     fires around the nation more than tripled since 1998, from 88 
     to 301 this year. About 95 percent of those crews are based 
     in the Northwest.
       But some federal officials worry the quality varies 
     dramatically from experienced, well-respected contractors to 
     crews that present significant safety concerns.
       And government oversight has struggled to keep pace.
       The problem grew so acute last year that Joseph Ferguson, a 
     deputy incident commander for the Forest Service, wrote in an 
     internal memo in November: ``If we don't improve the quality 
     and accountability of this program, we are going to kill a 
     bunch of firefighters.''
       Last year's fire season was a record breaker, scorching 6.9 
     million acres and costing $1.6 billion to fight.
       With a new fire season under way, officials are still 
     working to week out contractors and private trainers who cut 
     corners and put employees or other firefighters in harm's 
     way. Several private crew operators are also urging the 
     government to crack down on problem contractors.

[[Page 8974]]

       In May, in a first-of-a-kind action, a regional 
     firefighting group composed of federal and state agencies 
     suspended a Twisp-based contractor from training any more 
     pacific Northwest firefighters. Employees of Charles ``Bill'' 
     Hoskin, who has trained hundreds of private firefighters, 
     told investigators that Hoskin put firefighters through a 
     required 32-hour training course in 12 hours.
       He was accused of teaching Spanish-speaking firefighters 
     with instructors who spoke only English, of selling red cards 
     the photo ID that shows carriers have met requirements to be 
     a firefighter to people he had not trained, and of giving 
     firefighters bogus fitness tests.
       Hoskin, former chief of the Twisp rural volunteer fire 
     department, has denied all charges of improper action and 
     says he will be vindicated.
       Last month, Rue Forest Contracting, of Mill City, Ore., 
     agreed to $25,000 in fines after 23 of its firefighters were 
     found with forged or phony training credentials. 
     Investigators believe some were sent to fires with no 
     training at all. Owner Larry Rue's attorney declined comment.
       Last year, the Oregon Department of Forestry, which 
     oversees fire contractors for Oregon and Washington under an 
     interagency agreement, cited 45 private crews for various 
     violations and banned 13 from firefighting for up to a month.
       The reason: Firefighters showed up late to fires, skipped 
     safety briefings, drank or used drugs at fire camp, engaged 
     in sexual harassment, had falsified training records or were 
     part of a crew with no English-speaking leaders, according to 
     the department.
       Oregon labor officials, meanwhile, said they were 
     investigating 30 private firefighter-training or pay 
     violations at any one time last year.
       Ferguson, the Forest Service incident commander who fought 
     fires in Oregon, Utah and Colorado, complained in his 
     November memo that Northwest private crews in 2002 were ``the 
     worst we've ever seen.''
       ``Although there were two or three good to excellent crews 
     on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly 
     worth having,'' Ferguson wrote. ``It was apparent that 
     training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not 
     at all.
       Bill Lafferty, head of Oregon's fire program, oversees most 
     of the country's private 20-person ``hand crews.'' He's 
     beefing up enforcement but admitted that ``we really don't 
     know the magnitude of the cheaters in the system.''
       ``We're struggling as best we can,'' he said. ``But we're 
     barely scratching the surface.''
       On a recent 90-degree day, firefighter Dustin Washburn, 21, 
     rolled a boulder from the charred dirt and saw smoke rise 
     from smoldering embers. He attacked it with a pulaski, an 
     axlike firefighting tool, smothering the fire.
       This 20-person private hand crew was trying to douse 
     hotspots on portions of a 34,000-acre blaze that still burns 
     in the Chewuch River high country in Okanogan County.
       ``Who was working this area?'' asked Myron Old Elk, the 
     crew leader for a private unit of Oregon-based Ferguson 
     Management. ``Get over here. It's still hot.''
       Private crews typically dig lines, knock down spot fires or 
     burn areas to reduce fuels. They're supposed to get the same 
     training as government crews.
       Many, such as this Ferguson unit, are run by respected, 
     experienced hands. Old Elk has fought fires for a dozen 
     years. Private Ferguson Management crews have battled blazes 
     since 1981.
       ``Myron's great,'' said Lonnie Click, a supervisor on this 
     roiling blaze. ``If he doesn't understand directions, he'll 
     ask, then double-ask, until he gets it exactly right.''
       But the industry has grown so quickly that some new 
     companies supply firefighters however they can.
       Contractors have hired illegal immigrants and paid them 
     under the table, or deducted so much for food and incidentals 
     that some earned only 50 cents in a two-week pay period, 
     according to Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries. 
     Underage firefighters ``borrowed'' Social Security numbers to 
     fake certification.


                            feast or famine

       Firefighters aren't allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days 
     in a row without a rest day, but some private firefighters 
     have rotated from fire to fire for 50 days straight, 
     according to Forest Service memos. A crew removed from one 
     Oregon fire for poor safety ratings last year showed up two 
     weeks later on a nearby fire.
       ``There's a lot of money to be made here, and when there's 
     a lot of money at stake, people figure out angles,'' said 
     Scott Coleman, owner of Oregon's Skookum Reforestation, which 
     for decades has provided contract crews.
       The nation's private wildfire firms have grown out of 
     Oregon's logging, tree-planting and forestry labor pool. As a 
     result, Oregon now manages the bulk of them.
       For years, it was feast or famine. New contractors started 
     after busy fire years, then disbanded during slow ones.
       But wildfires had grown increasingly unruly in the 1990s, 
     just as federal agencies had downsized their own crews. So 
     the government increasingly has turned to contractors.
       After 2000, when firefighting help was enlisted from as far 
     away as New Zealand, more contractors, including several from 
     Washington, saw opportunity. Contractors typically charge the 
     government $22 to $36 an hour per worker. The contractor buys 
     vehicles, equipment and clothing, provides training and pays 
     firefighters from $9 to $18 per hour.


                        new emphasis on training

       Last year, 270 20-person private crews in the Northwest 
     were paid $91 million. Several companies grossed $1 million 
     apiece.
       ``Overhead can be enormous, but if you have a good fire 
     season and get sent out a lot, you bet there's profit in 
     it,'' said Coleman, vice president of the National Wildfire 
     Association, which has pushed to weed out unscrupulous 
     contractors. ``But if you don't train someone well, you're 
     basically endangering his life.''
       Five federal agencies the Forest Service, National Parks, 
     Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs fight fires.
       The agencies renewed efforts to make safety the top 
     priority after 14 Forest Service firefighters were trapped by 
     flames during the July 2001 Thirty Mile fire in the Chewuch 
     Valley. Jessica Johnson, Karen FitzPatrick, Devin Weaver and 
     Tom Craven were asphyxiated by superheated gases after 
     deploying their shelters.
       Investigators determined crew leaders violated all 10 
     standard safety rules. The agency put new emphasis on 
     training, communication, spotting hazardous situations and 
     handling emergencies.
       But among new private crews, training issues can be even 
     more basic. Firefighters have bought fire IDs from former 
     firefighters and spliced in their own photographs.
       ``Just yesterday, I got a call from a woman who wanted to 
     verify that I'd trained these two guys who had '03 dates on 
     heir certification,'' said Harry Winston, who trains contract 
     firefighters through First Strike Environmental in Oregon. 
     ``I hadn't. They'd scratched out '02 on their red cards and 
     put in this year's date.''
       Don Land, who worked for Hoskin, the suspended contract 
     trainer, was made an ``engine boss'' a person who operates a 
     wildland firetruck without any training, according to the 
     state Bureau of Labor and Industries.
       Land was released from prison after a three-year sentence 
     in 2001. He said that Hoskin hired him for the fire season. 
     Land said he had not completed the required training and 
     lacked even a driver's license, but was given the job of an 
     engine boss.
       The state accused Hoskin of giving his students answers to 
     written tests and allowing them to use a 5-pound weight in a 
     fitness test that requires hiking with a 45-pound pack.
       Hispanic crews now make up half of the Northwest's private 
     firefighters, and contractors have been disciplined for 
     sending crews with no English speakers to fires a potential 
     hazard when communicating risk.
       New rules require crew and squad leaders to speak both 
     English and the language of the crew. But an internal Forest 
     Service memo suggested that bilingual leaders on Oregon's 
     Tiller Complex fires last year appeared to be there mainly 
     for their language skills. Five crew bosses confessed to not 
     understanding their leadership responsibilities.
       Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National 
     Interagency Fire Center, said the private crews he's seen 
     varied from ``fantastic to a hell of a lot less than good and 
     some were real safety concerns.''
       A contract crew on an Oregon fire Broyles worked last year 
     was stationed to make sure a rolling inferno stayed behind a 
     fire line. Instead, the crew watched as flames crossed the 
     line, never informing a nearby elite ``hotshot'' crew of the 
     danger headed its way, he said.
       The state and the federal government are strengthening 
     oversight and tightening controls on documentation, said 
     Broyles. Still, he said, ``the assumption is, where there's 
     one problem, there're probably more.''
       This year, Oregon plans to investigate private crews more 
     heavily. The state now inspects training classes and expects 
     to hire new compliance officers.
       But much of the training is designed to be self-policing.
       Wildfire contractors form associations, which sign 
     agreements with federal and state agencies. The association 
     then guarantees that contractors meet regulations.
       Of eight such associations, some are vastly more qualified 
     than others, said Ed Daniels, who oversees Oregon's 
     certification and training.
       Qualifications to form an association: ``Thirty-five 
     dollars and a pen to sign a memorandum of understanding,'' he 
     said.
       Hoskin was president of his association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Hollings, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Sarbanes, 
        Mr. Specter, Mr. Biden, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Graham of 
        South Carolina, Mr. Rockfeller, Mr. Smith, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Gregg,

[[Page 8975]]

        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Baucus, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Corzine, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 2411. A bill to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 
of 1974 to provide financial assistance for the improvement of the 
health and safety of firefighters, promote the use of life saving 
technologies achieve greater equity for departments serving large 
jurisdictions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine and 34 co-
sponsors to introduce the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which 
will revitalize the FIRE Act grant program for an additional six years.
  Senator DeWine and I authored the original FIRE Act four years ago. 
It has been a tremendous success, helping fire departments throughout 
our Nation purchase firefighting equipment as well as train 
firefighters. Nationwide, nearly $2 billion has been appropriated for 
FIRE Act grants throughout the country.
  A report last year by the Federal Government found that 99 percent of 
grant recipients were satisfied with the FIRE Act's ability to meet the 
needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants 
reported that it had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle 
fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, 
the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that 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.
  It is important to remember that the defenders of our Nation are not 
dressed only in combat fatigues. They wear firefighter uniforms. They 
risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and we 
all appreciate their efforts greatly.
  The fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it 
takes to get their jobs done. As a country, we are fortunate to have 
first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are 
underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequipped to deal with 
many emergencies that may arise. 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 terrorist attacks 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.''
  The responsibilities of America's firefighters have also changed. 
They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in 
colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch form the town 
well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the 
fire was extinguished.
  Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional 
responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical 
services, and ensuring that fire codes are obeyed. Now the fire service 
has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to 
biological and chemical threats.
  The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply 
do not have the resources needed to single-handedly safeguard their 
populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal 
with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time.
  According to the aforementioned U.S. Fire Service's 2002 national 
Needs Assessment study, most fire departments lack the necessary 
resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-
scale emergencies. The study found that: Using local personnel, only 11 
percent of fire departments can handle a rescue at a collapse of a 
building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments 
consider such an incident beyond their scope.
  Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle 
a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological 
agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to 
direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation.
  An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in 
hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most 
of them serving smaller communities.
  Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not 
have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time 
guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with 
sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a 
structural fire.
  These statistics are startling. The threats to which firefighters are 
expected to respond have far outgrown the ability of local governments 
to equip firefighters to do what these dangerous times require them to 
do. This situation demands continued action by the Senate to address 
these concerns, which is why Senator DeWine and I are introducing this 
legislation to further strengthen the FIRE Act grant initiative for the 
future.
  Our bill builds on the recommendations given to us last February by 
the paid and volunteer fire services. First, we are authorizing $5.85 
billion over the next six years for FIRE Act grant assistance. This 
amount represents a substantial increase over current law.
  Second, we are both increasing the size of the awards and making the 
grants more equitable. Presently, the maximum amount of an award is 
$750,000, regardless of the size and type of department. For a large 
department, this cap has caused some difficulties because departments 
in smaller communities get a substantially larger share of the funds 
per capita. Our legislation will increase the size of the awards for 
large jurisdictions to $2.25 million, a threefold increase. For 
jurisdictions between 500,000 and one million people, the cap will be 
$1.5 million. For jurisdictions less than 500,000, the maximum award 
will be $1 million. The bill also empowers the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to waive these caps in instances of extraordinary need.
  Third, we have restructured the matching requirements of current law. 
We have heard from the fire services that the current matching 
requirement imposed on local jurisdictions in many instances exceeds 
the funds available in their budgets. Our bill will reduce the non-
Federal matching requirement from 30 percent to 20 percent for 
departments serving populations of more than 50,000 people. It will 
also cut the match by one-third for departments serving communities 
between 20,000 and 50,000 people, and by one-half for departments 
serving 20,000 or fewer residents.
  Finally, we have enhanced the fire safety and fire prevention 
programs under the FIRE Act, and we have made volunteer, non-profit 
emergency medical service (EMS) providers that serve municipalities 
with separate fire and EMS departments eligible for FIRE Act grants. In 
addition, we tackle the leading cause of firefighter death 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 emergency vehicle.
  These are some of the provisions in the legislation that Senator 
DeWine and I are introducing. We look forward to working constructively 
with the other body in the coming months to fashion legislation that 
the entire fire service can support.
  I am concerned, however, about a provision in the House bill that 
would seem to disadvantage paid fire departments over volunteer fire 
departments. This provision would prohibit a paid fire department from 
receiving FIRE Act assistance if it includes in its collective 
bargaining agreement a clause

[[Page 8976]]

prohibiting its firefighters from serving as volunteer firefighters in 
another jurisdiction.
  This provision would needlessly put Congress in the awkward position 
of dictating to local fire departments not only how to manage 
themselves, but what issues they can and cannot bargain over in their 
contract. The consequences of such a provision would be far-reaching. 
In fact, I am unaware of any other Federal grant initiative that 
imposes a limitation of such as this on collective agreements.
  Of course, there are larger issues also at stake--namely, the fact 
that the Federal government does not provide for firefighters to 
bargain collectively. Where bargaining does occur, it exists because 
firefighters have won the right at the state or local level. In fact, I 
have strongly supported separate legislation currently pending before 
Congress that would grant each and every firefighter the right to 
discuss workplace issues with their employer. It would therefore be 
inconsistent if firefighters are told what issues over which they can 
or cannot bargain at the same time that it is the current policy of the 
Federal Government that it is up to the states whether they can bargain 
in the first place. How can collective bargaining rights be restricted 
when they are not even granted?
  The legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing does not 
include the House provision, because we are committed to ensuring that 
all firefighters are treated fairly, and have an equal opportunity to 
obtain the assistance they need to do their jobs safely.
  In closing, it is important to recall the vital role that 
firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. 
In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most 
illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first 
volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington 
himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in 
Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from 
England in 1765.
  Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire 
Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save 
thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played 
by those firefighters who died in the line of duty on that tragic day 
made our Nation proud. We will never allow their noble sacrifice to be 
forgotten.
  On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and 
the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of 
others. They stare danger in the face because they know they have a 
duty to fulfill.
  The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well, and to the 
citizens of our Nation who need the protection of the fire service. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to 
ensure that this important bipartisan homeland security legislation is 
enacted into law.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, each day, we entrust our lives and the 
safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of 
the brave men and women in our local police departments. These 
individuals are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a 
dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service.
  We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives, as well, 
every time they respond to an emergency fire alarm, a chemical spill, 
or as we saw on September 11, terrorist attacks. We ask them to risk 
their lives responding to the nearly 2 million reports of fire that 
they receive on an annual basis. Every 18 seconds while responding to 
fires, we expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for 
the lives of our families, neighbors and friends. One hundred 
firefighters lost their lives in 2002 in the line of duty, and nearly 
450 lost their lives in 2001. The unyielding commitment these 
individuals have made to public safety surely deserves an equally 
strong commitment from the Federal Government.
  In 2000, Congress affirmed the value of having a properly trained, 
equipped and staffed fire service by passing the Firefighter Investment 
and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act--legislation that Senator Dodd and 
I introduced, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Weldon, and many others, 
on the House side. In the 4 years since the FIRE Act become law, fire 
departments have made significant progress in terms of filling the 
substantial needs outlined in the National Fire Protection 
Association's ``needs assessment.'' To date, Congress has appropriated 
nearly $2 billion for the FIRE Act program. Virtually every penny of 
that amount has gone directly to local fire departments through FIRE 
grants to provide firefighter personal protective equipment, training 
to ensure more effective firefighting practices, breathing apparatus, 
new firefighting vehicles, emergency medical services supplies, fire 
prevention programs, and other important uses. The direct nature of the 
FIRE Act grant program--funds literally go straight from the Federal 
Government to local fire departments--is an extremely important aspect 
of the law, particularly in light of the difficulties we are seeing 
with other homeland security grant programs getting money to flow 
directly to the intended recipients.
  FIRE Act grants are awarded based on a competitive, peer-review 
process that helps ensure that the most important needs are filled 
first and that funding will be used in an effective manner. I am proud 
to note that 86 of Ohio's 88 counties have received FIRE Act funding up 
to this point and that the fire service in my home State is much better 
prepared to respond to emergencies as a result. The bottom line is 
this: The FIRE Act program has proven to be an extremely valuable tool 
for fire-based first responders.
  The time has come to reauthorize this important legislation--to build 
upon the successes of the original FIRE Act and to refine the program 
where improvements can be made. Just as we did in 2000, Senator Dodd 
and I have come together, along with the support of several national 
fire service organizations, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the FIRE 
Act. Our bill focuses on four central themes. First, we take steps to 
make the grant program more accessible for fire departments serving 
small, rural communities and to eliminate barriers to participation 
faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions. Second, 
we codify changes made in program administration since its transfer to 
the recently created Department of Homeland Security. Third, the bill 
increases the emphasis within the program on life-saving Emergency 
Medical Services and technologies. And fourth, we evaluate the program 
through a series of reports to help ensure that resources are targeted 
to the areas of greatest need. These priorities have been developed 
jointly with the fire service, and represent a means to strengthen the 
FIRE Act program for years to come.
  First, our new legislation would help the FIRE act program be more 
accessible for fire departments serving the very largest and smallest 
jurisdictions in America. Our experience over the past 4 years has been 
that a number of features in the program make participation difficult 
for departments serving these populations. Career fire departments, 
most of which serve populations well in excess of 50,000, have been 
receiving only a small percentage of the total grants thus far. After 
consulting with the fire service organizations, fire chiefs in my home 
State of Ohio, and officials administering the program at the 
Department of Homeland Security, we've found that there are two main 
reasons why this has been the case.
  First, matching requirements for large departments, currently fixed 
at 30 percent, have been particularly difficult to meet. Second, 
current law dictates that departments--whether they serve a large city, 
such as Cleveland and have numerous fire stations, or a small town, 
such as Cedarville, OH and have only one station--are eligible for the 
exact same level of funding each year: $750,000. These two elements of 
the current program have caused a number of large fire departments to 
forego applying for FIRE grants. With respect to smaller, often 
volunteer-based departments serving populations of 20,000 or less, 
budgets are often so limited that meeting the current

[[Page 8977]]

match is simply not possible. Many of these departments struggle with 
even the most basic needs, such as having an adequate number of staff 
available to respond to a structure fire.
  Our bill addresses each of these problems in a simple and 
straightforward fashion. Specifically, the bill would reduce matching 
requirements by one third for departments serving communities of 
50,000, and by the one half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer 
residents in order to encourage increased participation by these 
departments. The bill also would restructure caps on grant amounts to 
reflect population served, with up to $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. Together, these two changes would go a long way 
toward increasing the accessibility of the program for the very largest 
and smallest departments in the United States.
  The second major component of our bill has to do with the transfer of 
the FIRE Act administration from the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration (FEMA) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
When FEMA's functions were transferred into the DHS, the FIRE grant 
program, along with the U.S. Fire Administration, also were transferred 
to DHS. As part of that transfer, formal administration of the FIRE 
grant program has been delegated to the Department to the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness (ODP), which oversees all DHS grant programs. 
While the U.S. Fire Administration--the real fire experts within the 
Federal Govenment--remains involved, we need to take steps to formalize 
the management of the program following the transfer to DHS.
  There are a number of reasons for solidifying program administration 
in law, chief among them being the ability of fire departments across 
our Nation to plan for the future, and the ability to ensure an ongoing 
role for fire experts in the process. First, our bill gives the 
Secretary of Homeland Security overall authority for the program. This 
just makes sense given the Secretary's current home within ODP. 
Additionally, the bill would codify in law practices currently in use 
by ODP--peer review by experts from national fire service 
organizations, a formal role for the U.S. Fire Administration, and 
collaborative meetings to recommend grant criteria.
  These steps would benefit the program for years to come and would 
help bring stability to the increasingly mature FIRE grant program. 
Perhaps more importantly, formalizing the role of the U.S. Fire 
Administrator and national fire service organizations would help 
resolve a fundamental tension between the mission of the FIRE Act 
program (to improve firefighting and EMS resources nationwide for all 
hazards) and the mission of its caretaker, ODP (to focus on terrorism 
prevention and response).
  It makes sense for ODP, as the central clearinghouse for grant 
program within DHS, to manage the FIRE grant program. Equally so, it 
makes sense to build features into the program which would help ensure 
that the FIRE grant program will remain dedicated solely to the fire 
and emergency medical services (EMS) communities and will not be 
diluted over time into a generic terrorism-prevention program. Our bill 
carefully strikes this balance.
  The third major focus of this reauthorization bill is on finding ways 
to improve safety and to save lives. We do this in a number of ways. 
First, we've teamed up with national fire service organizations to 
incorporate firefighter safety research into the fire prevention and 
safety set-aside program. This new research, supported by a 20 percent 
increase in funds for the prevention and safety set-aside, would help 
reduce the number of firefighter fatalities each year and would 
dramatically improve the health and welfare of firefighters nationwide.
  Second, we place an increased emphasis on Emergency Medical Services. 
In most communities, the fire department is the chief provider for all 
emergency services, including EMS. To illustrate this point, a 2002 
National Fire Protection Association study indicates that fire 
departments received more than seven times as many calls for EMS 
assistance as they did for fires. When our family members, neighbors, 
and friends need immediate medical help, we turn to EMS providers, and 
we rely on this help to be as effective and timely as possible. It is 
our duty in structuring the FIRE grant program, then, to do everything 
we can to give EMS squads the assistance they need to carry out this 
important mission.
  Despite the overwhelming ratio of EMS calls to fire calls, the FIRE 
grant program has not adequately reflected the importance of EMS over 
the past few years, with about 1 percent of all grants going 
specifically for EMS purposes. While there is no question that a number 
of other grants have indirectly benefited EMS and that departments do 
invest their own money into this service, more can and should be done 
through the FIRE Act to boost our EMS capabilities nationwide. To 
accomplish this goal, we do a number of things in the reauthorization 
bill, including specifically including fire-based EMS professionals in 
the peer review process and allowing EMS grant requests to be combined 
with those for equipment and training.
  Additionally, we include language to incorporate independent, non-
profit EMS squads into the FIRE grant program for the first time. While 
our work with national fire service organizations on this particular 
provision has been productive and is ongoing, its intent is clear--and 
that is to try to bring the emphasis within the FIRE grant program on 
EMS closer to the level of demand in the field for this life-saving 
service. I am pleased that we have this language in the bill and 
believe that through debate here in committee, and perhaps on the 
Senate floor, we can find an even better solution for increasing 
support for EMS.
  Third, we create a new incentive program within the FIRE Act that 
encourages departments to invest in life-saving automated external 
defibrillator (AED) devices. These devices are capable of dramatically 
reducing the number one cause of firefighter death in the line of 
duty--heart attacks. Our incentive program essentially says to fire 
departments that if you equip each of your firefighting vehicles with a 
defibrillator unit, we'll give you a one-time discount on your matching 
requirement. Congress has expressed, time and again, strong support for 
getting these devices out to communities through various grant 
programs. It is our hope that we can maintain that commitment by 
extending support for life-saving defibrillator technologies to fire 
departments across the country.
  Fourth, we eliminate a burdensome and unintended matching requirement 
for fire prevention grants. These grants generally go to non-profit 
organizations, such as National SAFE KIDS, to provide for fire safety 
awareness campaigns, smoke detector installations in low-income 
housing, and other important prevention efforts. Though no match was 
required in the first few years of the program, a recent legal opinion 
from the Office of Domestic Preparedness has reversed course and 
instituted a 10 percent match for grantees. This unanticipated 
requirement, which is extremely difficult for non-profits with limited 
capital, has had a debilitating effect on the prevention program and 
needs to be eliminated. Our bill does just that.
  Together, these common-sense features of our reauthorization bill 
would dramatically improve the safety of our communities, as well as 
the firefighters who bravely serve them.
  The fourth section of this reauthorization bill centers on a 
comprehensive review of the FIRE grant program. This review, to be 
conducted in part by the National Fire Protection Association, and in 
part by the General Accounting Office (GAO), seeks to evaluate the 
program with an eye toward ensuring that resources are targeted to the 
areas of greatest need. A similar study by the National Fire Protection 
association conducted shortly after passage of the initial FIRE Act was 
extremely helpful as far as identifying the nature of the fire service 
needs. Ultimately, this part of the bill is about

[[Page 8978]]

making sure that the billions of taxpayer dollars authorized by this 
legislation are used in the most responsible and effective manner 
possible.
  Our bill is a good bill. It is comprehensive and collaboratively 
drafted with input from fire and emergency services experts from across 
the country. The National Safe Kids Campaign, the International 
Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the International 
Association of Arson Investigators, the International Society of Fire 
Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection Association, 
among others, all support our legislation. I am proud to introduce this 
bill with my friend and colleague from Connecticut and look forward to 
working to ensure that the Federal Government increases its commitment 
to the men and women who make up our local fire departments. We owe 
them and their service and dedication nothing less than our full 
support.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd and 
DeWine and my other colleagues in introducing the Assistance to 
Firefighters Act of 2004, which will reauthorize the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program. This program, which is also know as the 
FIRE Grant program, addresses a critical need by ensuring that our 
Nation's firefighters have adequate funding for training and equipment 
to deal with the many hazards that they face.
  As Chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I am 
familiar with the success of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
Program. Funding under the FIRE grant program is provided directly to 
local jurisdictions. Applications undergo a competitive, merit-based 
process, which helps to ensure that funding is spent responsibily and 
productively. The grant program includes a matching requirement to 
ensure that the local community is committed to spending the grant. It 
also includes a ``maintenance of expenditures'' provision to ensure 
that the grant will supplement, not replace, local firefighting funds. 
In addition, the program ensures that new technology that is bought 
with FIRE Grant funds meet standards set by voluntary consensus 
organizations, so that local fire departments will buy effective 
equipment.
  For Fiscal Year 2004, the program received over 20,000 applications 
from local fire departments across the country. These requests totaled 
approximately $2.3 billion. The program also received around 20,000 
applications in 2001, 2002, and 2003, which clearly demonstrates the 
need and importance of this program to the firefighting community.
  The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program recipients use such 
funds to help meet their basic needs. The uses for these grants 
include: personal protection and firefighting equipment; training; 
firefighting vehicles; fire prevention campaigns; fire code 
enforcement; and arson detection and prevention. I would like to 
emphasize that these grants are dedicated to improving the local 
response to ``all-hazards,'' including natural disasters, structural 
fires, and acts of terrorism.
  I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, and urge 
the Senate to support passage of this legislation this year. As we have 
witnessed recently, our Nation's fire services face a myriad of 
threats, and we should work to ensure that they are adequately trained 
and equipped to meet them.

                          ____________________