Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004

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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, on this amendment, I am being joined by Senator Lieberman and Senator Zell Miller.

It is a simple issue. I want to take a few minutes to explain it. I am hopeful we will get strong support in this body as in the House. A similar bill came up earlier in the House and it passed that body 391 to 22. The same issue passed the Commerce Committee in the Senate 14 to 0 on a recorded vote.

It is an issue of fines and decency on over-the-air broadcasts-- whether it be radio or television.

I think it is important to put my comments in context today by explaining the policy history of this issue; that is, decency on over- the-air public airwaves.

At the invention of television, our Nation established a public policy of providing citizens with free over-the-air television. It gave broadcasters wishing to provide that service with the use of valuable spectrum. Not everyone can broadcast over the Nation's public airwaves. These are airwaves owned by the public. That is why the statute requires the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate not just the ability but the character of an entity to operate.

When handing out a broadcast license, in return for a license, each broadcaster agrees not to air indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The broadcaster gets a valuable piece of spectrum, which is public property. The broadcaster gets the right to use that. In exchange, one of the requirements is they not broadcast indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Fines and license revocations have always been the discipline tool available to the FCC to help enforce America's longstanding commitment to broadcast decency.

This is an issue about license. It is an issue about the use of public property, and some modest limitation of that.

We live in a nation where we hold the first amendment in high regard, as well we should. In an effort to maintain the free exchange of information, thoughts, and opinions, we strive to avoid government involvement in communications content.

At the same time, as a nation, we strive to project decency and justice for all. As a nation raising children, we do the same. With the turning of a tuning knob, or the click of a remote, minors all across America are presented with the content of the public airwaves.

Broadcasters have a legal and a moral duty to ensure that American taxpayers--and especially children--are not assaulted by explicit material.

For years, we have been asking and waiting for the broadcasters to police themselves in this effort. Unfortunately, instead of fulfilling the public interest duty, they have allowed the content to grow steadily worse and worse.

Meanwhile, the companies that own the broadcast stations have grown steadily larger--and not surprisingly. Some of these broadcasters' profit margins have made them immune to the FCC's current fine structure. Let me give you an example.

Today's maximum fine for an indecent broadcast is $27,500. That seems like a lot of money--and it is to some. But it isn't to others. Compare that fact to a 30-second commercial during the 2004 Super Bowl which cost advertisers an average of $2.3 million for a 30-second ad.

In the words of the FCC Commissioner, Michael Powell, these fines are peanuts to the big media conglomerates. That is why we are here to increase the fine structure for indecency and obscene broadcasts. The threat of these fines will be taken seriously and force broadcasters to protect their consumers from explicit content.

Nothing in this amendment forges any new ground in broadcast decency law. The intent is simple: To increase the fines for indecent broadcasts to mask the realities of today's media markets. This amendment would increase the maximum fines tenfold, from $27,500 to $270,000, with a maximum $3 million cap per incident per day.

Why do we need to do this? We need this amendment to end the growing volume of graphic content on free over-the-air broadcasts. Remember, broadcasters profit from exclusive and free use of the public airwaves which gives them unique access to all Americans, particularly America's youth. With that access to our country's intellectual, moral, and social development comes a set of moral and social responsibilities and obligations that are agreed to in the licensing process.

I am very disappointed by the apparent confusion the broadcasters are having between the right to do something and the right thing to do when it comes to the public airwaves.

Recently, FOX and VIACOM announced they were going to appeal the FCC Bono ruling so they can use the ``F'' word on broadcast television. This is their response in spite of the fact that the FCC overturned the original rule in response to a fierce public outcry.

This hostile response the public is getting from broadcasters is inexcusable. We see time and again media leaders defending their profit-driven

motives by airing explicit content and then falsely hiding behind their so-called first amendment rights. Broadcasters have joined the shock jocks of the country to shout down those who publicly question harmful content as an anti-first-amendment censor. In abandoning their duty to adhere to decency standards, broadcasters point to the absence of decency regulations on cable television. This is just a red herring. We are talking about public airwaves and a public right to air decent material.

The broadcasters argue they have a right to air indecent, obscene, and profane material. But that is a disgraceful abuse of the first amendment. I support the first amendment and its guarantees of free speech. It is the basis of much of the freedoms we enjoy in our great democracy. But there are limits, and particularly here, where we are dealing with a public license and the use of public property where the licensee has agreed to not broadcast indecent material.

This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the famous Pacifica case where it was upheld that the Government had the right to protect the public airwaves. This case came to the Court in the early 1970s when George Carlin's famous ``filthy words monologue'' was broadcast during the middle of the day on a New York radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation. A father driving with his son heard the broadcast and complained to the FCC. The FCC said that if those kinds of words were used again, the radio station airing them would be fined. Just like today, the broadcasters challenged the ruling and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the FCC action and added that it could continue to fine broadcasters in the future because broadcasters had to take special care not to air material that would offend or shock children.

The majority opinion stressed that of all the forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited first amendment protection because it extends into the privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to children.

The FCC has been too lax for too long enforcing the law on broadcasters. A recent public outcry has been a wake-up call for the FCC. The Commission told us they do not have all the tools they need for effective enforcement. That is why we are here today.

Passing this legislation will tell the broadcasters that we are serious about protecting our airwaves and we will give the FCC updated tools to get the job done. I don't know if I need to remind my colleagues that this came to the forefront at this year's Super Bowl, an event families across the country watch together. At the halftime show, the incident between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson set off a firestorm that had been brewing for a long period of time.

Finally people said: Look, I have had enough; I don't want to see this any more, particularly when I am watching TV with my family. That is what launched this forward.

We have been waiting for years for the broadcasters to voluntarily take care of this growing problem. They have failed. Instead, they are fighting tooth and nail for the availability to air graphic material so they can increase their profit margins.

America deserves better. That is why we need to make the consequences of broadcasting indecency punitive so the standards are no longer ignored.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Increasing the fines will help clean up our Nation's free, over-the-air television and radio by holding accountable broadcasters who use the public airwaves and individuals who use the opportunity of a live performance to gain notoriety through indecent acts.

As I noted previously, this has been considered by the Senate Commerce Committee and it has passed unanimously in that committee. It has been considered previously by the House of Representatives, which has voted 391 in favor with only 22 against increasing these fines. They actually have some teeth in today's marketplace. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays when we vote on this Monday. I further ask unanimous consent that when we go back to this amendment on Monday that I be recognized first to speak if there are any further amendments that are proposed to this that are to be considered on Monday.

Mr. President, I have been informed that we need colleagues on the other side to respond to yeas and nays and I will not ask for that until we do get that agreement from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in speaking to the Burns second-degree amendment, this is an amendment that was considered in the Commerce Committee and added to the base bill at that time. What he is proposing to do makes a lot of sense. I do not see a problem with that at all, so I would be supportive of doing that.

Overall, we want to get this to move it forward. The House has moved on this action. The FCC is seeking this authority. So we really want to try to get this to move on through the process, if at all possible. We are not having further rollcall votes until Monday, so we will proceed at that time, and I will ask for a rollcall vote then.

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 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.