[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 27995-27999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3791, FIRE GRANTS REAUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 2009

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 909 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 909

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3791) to amend sections 33 and 34 of the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science and Technology now printed in the bill modified by 
     the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 
     clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Science and Technology or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).

[[Page 27996]]

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 909.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 909 provides a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants 
Reauthorization Act of 2009. The rules waive all points of order 
against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 
or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology. The 
rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Science and Technology Committee modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report shall be 
considered as adopted and shall be considered as read. The rule waives 
all points of order against the substitute amendment, except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the 
amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report and waives 
all points of order against such amendments except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all five of the 
amendments submitted for consideration. The Chair may not entertain a 
motion to rise unless offered by the Chair of the Committee on Science 
and Technology or his designee, and may not entertain a motion to 
strike the enacting clause.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3791 reauthorizes funding for two vital programs 
that support our local firefighters and our communities: the Assistance 
to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire 
and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program. These two programs go 
hand in hand by providing assistance that keeps local fire departments 
prepared and able to respond, while assuring that each department is 
adequately staffed to meet the needs of the community. The AFG program 
provides funding for local fire departments to purchase equipment, 
vehicles and training, and the SAFER grants program helps local 
departments maintain and hire firefighters.
  The success of both programs has been indisputable and their impacts 
have been felt in each of our districts. Since 2001, the AFG program 
has provided over $4.8 billion in funding to local fire departments to 
purchase emergency response training and equipment. Since 2004, the 
SAFER program has competitively awarded $700 million to local 
departments for hiring, recruitment and retention of fire fighters. The 
effect of both programs can be simply stated. Each dollar saves lives 
and jobs.
  While this funding has been essential, the unmet needs of our local 
departments remain staggering. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency received over 20,000 applications from fire 
departments requesting over $3 billion. In the same fiscal year, FEMA 
also received over 1,000 applications for SAFER grants, requesting over 
$500 million. The National Fire Protection Association estimates that 
65 percent of fire departments in the United States do not have enough 
portable radios to equip all firefighters, and that 36 percent of all 
fire departments involved in emergency medical responses do not have 
enough adequately trained personnel to respond to these emergencies.
  The numbers speak for themselves. During these tough economic times, 
the needs of our local fire departments have been exacerbated and local 
resources have been stretched to the breaking point. Communities in 
rural areas, which have always been strapped for resources and 
struggled to compete for Federal funds, have been hit exceptionally 
hard by this economic downturn.

                              {time}  1145

  In Portland, Maine, one of the more urban areas that I represent, 
nine firefighters in the Portland region were recently laid off due to 
significant budget cuts. But the local unions stepped up and 
unanimously stood up to support their laid-off colleagues out of their 
own pay checks.
  While this is a great example of people pulling together during tough 
times, and it may exemplify part of what we admire about first 
responders, this is simply an unacceptable solution. The Federal 
Government has no higher charge than to provide for the common 
protection and the common good of its citizens and to support this work 
at the local level. It is time to reinvest in our emergency responders 
and renew our commitment to these critical programs.
  This funding is also critical in rural towns across the country. 
Raymond, Maine, in my district, for example, is a town of less than 
5,000 residents and a fire department that is mostly made up of 
volunteers. In 2008 when they realized that their SCBAs, self-contained 
breathing apparatus, on all of their trucks were outdated and didn't 
meet the current requirements, they turned to this program. And thanks 
to a $150,000 grant, Raymond, Maine, was able to purchase the equipment 
they so desperately needed. Stories like this are now more common 
because of the SAFER program.
  The safety of our homes and our neighborhoods has never been a 
partisan issue, and the bravery and service of our local fire 
departments has never been in question. This is clearly demonstrated by 
the broad bipartisan support for this bill and the strong endorsements 
from the International Association of Firefighters and the National 
Volunteer Fire Council.
  I look forward to the passage of this important legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Haven for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my Rules Committee colleague has pointed at the fact 
that this is a bipartisan measure. Dealing with issues of firefighting 
obviously transcend partisanship in every way. And this is a very, very 
important measure that will, in fact, have, I suspect, unanimous 
support here on the House floor. She has outlined appropriately the two 
grant programs, the Assistance to Firefighters program which will 
provide $12.2 billion, and the SAFER program which will provide $1 
billion in assistance. And I believe that this is a measure which is 
critically important as we look at the challenges of the Federal 
Government's role in dealing with firefighting.
  Mr. Speaker, this past August 26 was a devastating day in southern 
California history. We saw the largest fire in Los Angeles County 
history burn 160,000 acres. It was a horrible, horrible time, because 
above all of it, we lost two courageous firefighters, Captain Ted Hall 
and Specialist Arnie Quinones. And when one thinks about where it is 
that we are going on this issue, it is critical that we do every single 
thing that we can for the brave men and women who are firefighters.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for us to never forget what 
it is that happened in Los Angeles or in other fires. There was a 
memorial service that was held at Dodgers Stadium several weeks ago. 
And I was struck at that service with the fact that firefighters stood 
up and said that the one thing that continues to happen is that while 
the populace at large may have a tendency to forget these things, 
firefighters never, ever forget their own. And that is why there is a 
redoubling of the commitment to the spouses, the children and other 
family members of Captain Ted Hall and Specialist Arnie Quinones.
  This program is important, and it has a Federal component, I believe, 
in large part due to the fact that the area that burned just above La 
Canada, California, is an area that consists of the Angeles National 
Forest, which is Federal land. So I hope very much that we are able to 
proceed in a bipartisan way in dealing with this issue.
  If you think about the sacrifice that is made, on average 75,000 
firefighters

[[Page 27997]]

are injured every single year, and on average 100 firefighters are 
killed every single year as they are proceeding with their very, very 
important work. That is why this program will, I believe, go a long way 
towards diminishing the loss of life and the threat to those people and 
at the same time diminish the threat of fire overall.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as important as this issue is, and my friend from 
North Haven has pointed to the fact that it is bipartisan, I believe 
this measure should be considered under either suspension of the rules, 
because while the five amendments that were offered were made in order, 
I'm convinced that under the able leadership of the committee of 
jurisdiction, there could have been an agreement that would have 
allowed this to come up with 20 minutes of debate. Just as the last 
measures that we have considered were considered under suspension of 
the rules, this very easily could have. But since it's not, it 
obviously should be considered under an open amendment process.
  Now it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress, 
this entire Congress without a single open rule. And that is, I think, 
a very, very unfortunate thing. It is a step forward that every 
amendment submitted upstairs to the Rules Committee was made in order. 
But why not consider it under an open amendment process which would 
allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to 
this legislation?
  So I also have to say that the amount of time that we are expending 
on this is, I believe, not necessary in light of the fact that as 
important as it is, it enjoys strong bipartisan support, as both of us 
have said.
  I believe what the American people want us to be doing here, Mr. 
Speaker, is focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. We all know that when the 
stimulus package, the $787 billion stimulus package passed, President 
Obama said that its passage would ensure that we would not see an 
unemployment rate that would exceed 8 percent.
  We all know that today, tragically, the unemployment rate is at 10.2 
percent. In my State of California, it's 12.2 percent. In some of the 
areas that I represent around Los Angeles, it's up over 14 percent. And 
that's why what we should be doing is focusing on issues that will 
create jobs so that those individuals who are losing their homes and 
losing their small businesses are not going to continue to suffer.
  Now what should we be doing? At this moment, President Obama is in 
Seoul, South Korea. And we know that denuclearizing the Korean 
peninsula is obviously a high priority. But just as was discussed when 
President Obama was in Beijing, similarly in Seoul, the priority issue 
being discussed is the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.
  Now there are a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, who say, why, when you're 
dealing with economic difficulties would you possibly consider 
embarking on a free-trade agreement? Well, guess what? There are very 
important reasons. The main reason is that it's one of the most 
important ways that we can create jobs right here in the United States 
of America.
  Let's take just a moment, and I wish we were debating this agreement 
which has been completed, similarly the Colombia and the Panama 
agreements have been completed which would be job creators right here 
in the United States. Automobiles, the automobile industry is hurting 
in the United States, and we know that there is this massive disparity 
between the number of automobiles going from the United States of 
America being sold in Korea, that number is actually just under 10,000, 
and the number of Korean automobiles that are sold in the United 
States; 700,000 Korean automobiles are purchased by Americans.
  Now I think everyone should have a right to buy the best quality 
product at the lowest possible price, but I believe we should do 
everything that we can to have an opportunity to create more jobs here 
in the United States of America in the automobile industry and every 
other industry that is tied to that, by creating a market opening, a 
market-opening vehicle for us in South Korea.
  Now, people ask, well, why would you want to do an agreement that 
would make that happen? The reason is very simple. The tariff is higher 
on U.S. automobiles going into South Korea than it is on Korean 
vehicles coming into the United States by and large. And even more 
important than that, Mr. Speaker, there is a tax and regulatory 
structure that exists in South Korea that prevents us from being able 
to sell those cars. So, again, fewer than 10,000 American-made 
automobiles are sold in South Korea today; and we purchase 700,000 cars 
and trucks from there.
  So what should we do? We should pass this free-trade agreement, pass 
this free-trade agreement which will create jobs right here in the 
United States of America and, I believe, go a long way towards dealing 
with the devastating 10.2 percent unemployment rate that we have. We 
can, we can implement job-creating economic growth policies. 
Unfortunately, based on the track record that we've seen over this past 
year, we haven't. So people are hurting. It's very important for us to 
pass this legislation which could be considered either under suspension 
of the rules or under an open amendment process, which unfortunately it 
isn't; and we could spend our time passing policies that will help the 
American worker.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for 
all of the many topics he brought up this morning. I'm sure he and I 
will have another time when we get to discuss the trade issues in this 
country. And I also appreciate that there will be time in our committee 
to talk about the issues around amendments and open rules.
  I will say that there are job components, particularly in this bill 
when I brought up the firefighters in Portland, Maine, who had recently 
lost their jobs and are now helping some of their brethren with their 
own paychecks. I know that funding through this helps many of our 
firefighters to maintain their service. I do want to also say, I know 
we all extended our sympathy at the time, but I appreciated that you 
spoke to us about the extreme fire issues in your district. And I also 
want to send my sympathies to those firefighters who are lost and their 
families. And I know that was a perilous time.
  I appreciate the fact that while I represent a very rural district, 
even in your urban district, we have very many similarities of issues 
that we have to deal with.
  I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I thank her for 
her leadership on behalf of our firefighters and on behalf of all those 
out there who are fighting for jobs and for her leadership in taking us 
to a place today to bring this bill to the floor.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization 
Act. Our communities desperately need this bill. We need to be able to 
keep our firefighters on the job and keep our constituents and 
communities safe. So this is all about jobs and the safety and well-
being of those whom we are so honored to represent.
  I'm pleased, too, with many of the changes that have been made to the 
Firefighters Grant programs, that H.R. 3791 sets aside specific 
percentages of the assistance to firefighter grants for career fire 
departments, combination departments and volunteer fire departments.
  Currently, there is no statutory language guaranteeing professional 
fire departments a minimum percentage of funding. So I'm also pleased 
that we are including economic hardship waiver language in this bill. 
This language will, for the first time, work to address some of the 
devastating effects we have seen in this recession. It will allow that 
the local matching fund requirements be waived also. It allows the 
requirement that departments use the SAFER grants to supplement, rather 
than replace, local funds to be waived. It allows the requirement that 
departments use the funds to hire additional firefighters rather than 
retain existing personnel to be waived.

[[Page 27998]]

  That's what we're passing today, and that is what we passed earlier 
in the year. However, I'm deeply concerned that the SAFER grant 
guidance recently released by the Department of Homeland Security does 
not reflect congressional intent or the sacrifices made by local fire 
departments in some significant ways.
  This bill makes it clear that our intent is to allow SAFER grants to 
be used to retain firefighters, as well, during the worst recession 
since the Great Depression. Many firefighters in my congressional 
district and across the country have made very difficult decisions to 
take pay cuts and make other sacrifices to avoid layoffs--for now. But 
their shared sacrifice may work against them when applying for these 
grants under the current guidelines. And it's my opinion and it is our 
intent, congressional intent, that they should not be penalized from 
accessing these grants that can keep them working.

                              {time}  1200

  Our firefighters sacrifice so much for our safety and should not be 
punished for sacrificing during the recession to stay on the job to 
protect our communities and one another.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
was sorry my friend from North Haven didn't want to yield to me. I was 
simply going to tell her that I completely concurred with her argument 
that the job creation that will focus on firefighters is a very, very 
important thing, and I support that.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course. I'm always happy to yield to my friend.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I just want to say to my good friend from 
California, I apologize for not yielding earlier, and I appreciate your 
comments.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me say that the notion of discussing a wide range of 
issues as I did, talking about the critical importance of the 
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program of $1.2 billion and the SAFER 
Program of an additional billion dollars, is critical--and we support 
that. We support that very enthusiastically. But President Obama is at 
this point in Korea, and that is what led me to talk about the 
importance of our dealing with job creation.
  As I talk to my constituents, Mr. Speaker--jobs, jobs, jobs--that is 
the message that continues to come through loudly and clearly. And the 
notion of expanding private-sector jobs is something that I believe we 
should be encouraging through improved tax and regulatory policy, 
bringing about marginal rate reduction, decreasing the regulatory 
burden and, Mr. Speaker, opening up new opportunities for U.S. workers 
here in the United States of America, which is exactly what is being 
said to President Obama as he meets in Korea at this moment with their 
leadership, with President Lee and others. And so I think that we need 
to have our attention in this Congress focused on the priority that the 
American people have.
  Firefighting is very, very important. But, again, this measure will 
pass--if not unanimously, nearly unanimously--and it will do so, and I 
hope get the resources to ensure that we never have the loss of life, 
as I said, of Captain Hall and Specialist Quinones, and others. But I 
know from having spoken to their families, Mr. Speaker, that they 
believe that it's absolutely essential for us to encourage private-
sector job creation and economic growth, and that's why I'm talking 
about this priority that needs to be addressed here.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question as we move ahead. Why? Because the issue of reading 
legislation is another very, very important one that is before us. 
There is a bipartisan proposal launched by Messrs. Baird and Culberson, 
supported by Mr. Dent and others, a bipartisan measure which will allow 
us to, if we defeat the previous question and debate that measure, 
which calls for 72 hours for the reading of legislation before we bring 
it to the floor.
  I suspect that my colleague from North Haven has heard, just as I, 
that the American people believe that we should read legislation before 
it comes to the House floor. Right now, we regularly waive the 72-hour, 
3-day layover requirement.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question. It will not in any way impinge on our ability to 
move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with 
firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the 
American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and 
consider legislation in a very deliberative manner, which is exactly 
what the framers of our Constitution wanted us to do.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. At this moment I have no other speakers. I 
would inquire whether the gentleman is ready to yield back his time.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me yield myself such time as I might consume to close 
by simply saying this is very good and important legislation. It needs 
to pass. It's being considered, unbelievably, under a structured 
amendment process. It enjoys strong bipartisan support and should pass 
with that.
  I think we should be focusing our attention, as I said, on job 
creation and economic growth, which is what the American people want us 
to be spending our time doing here rather than taking a long period of 
time to debate an issue on which we all agree.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
that we can consider the bipartisan Baird-Culberson language that would 
allow us to read legislation before it's considered here over the 72-
hour period of time.
  If by chance--if by chance--the previous question is not defeated and 
we don't have an opportunity to debate that very important legislation 
that will allow us to have the 3-day layover, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can come back with an open 
amendment process, which is another very, very important part of the 
transparency message which should be coming through.

             Amendment to H. Res. 909 Offered by Mr. Dreier

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's

[[Page 27999]]

     ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal 
     of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question 
     passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in 
     order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of 
     the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House 
     defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition 
     rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague for co-managing this rule. 
I appreciate his concerns about jobs. I know it's a top priority for 
our caucus and one we will be talking about in the coming weeks and 
days. I want to finish my remarks by focusing on the important 
contribution of firefighters.
  Mr. Speaker, the fire service in this country is being asked to do 
more than ever before--from hazmat response and safety planning for 
schools to EMT duties and homeland security responsibilities. These 
days, fire departments do much more than spray water on burning 
buildings. Or, as one of my firefighter friends says, much more than 
``putting the wet stuff on the red stuff.'' These increased 
responsibilities are why these programs are so vitally important.
  My home State of Maine has used these programs to great success. 
During fiscal year 2008, Maine received almost $5 million in AFG 
funding and close to $1 million in SAFER grants. But these numbers 
alone do not tell the whole story. The real success of these programs 
is told through the stories of those whose lives have been saved and 
those whose jobs have been preserved.
  In 2005, a Maine fire department received an AFG grant to purchase 
smoke alarms and install those in homes that did not meet the level of 
protection recommended by the National Fire Protection Association. 
Just 2 months after the local fire department began installing the 
smoke alarms, firefighters were called to a house where smoke had been 
detected in the basement. The family of six living in the home was 
awakened by a smoke alarm and they were able to escape before any of 
them suffered a serious injury. The smoke alarm had been bought and 
installed with funding from the AFG program.
  The town of Saco, Maine, recently used these programs to install an 
exhaust system for the fire station so the building doesn't fill up 
with diesel exhaust every time the fire trucks start up. And the town 
of Brunswick, a community facing the challenges of a Navy base closure, 
the department was able to hire critically needed firefighters thanks 
to a SAFER grant.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think some of the real success stories lie in our 
rural communities, communities often staffed by volunteer fire 
departments. Just like bigger communities, those small-town fire 
departments are being asked to do more, but acquiring the equipment 
they need is often beyond the scope of small-town municipal budgets. 
Through these programs, small-town volunteer fire departments in my 
State have been able to acquire the turnout coats, the breathing 
apparatus, and the hazmat suits to do the job effectively and safely.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of this bill and I will continue 
to be a strong supporter of the men and women who put their lives on 
the line to keep our businesses, our homes, and our communities safe.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The question is on 
ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________