Providing 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.

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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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.

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.

Of course. I'm always happy to yield to my friend.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill reauthorizes both the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program, which both provide much-needed assistance to fire departments across the Nation.

As we learned through our committee work on this bill, and as I have heard firsthand in discussions with fire chiefs and firefighters in my district, the AFG program is frequently cited as a ``life safer'' and the only means by which many departments can acquire up-to-date equipment and training--which requires a significant portion of their budget--for their firefighters.

This is particularly true in rural areas such as my district in rural Nebraska, where many communities rely upon all-volunteer departments to respond to fires and other emergencies. The equipment needed to fight fires and save lives and property is costly, and required for departments to meet certain minimum response capabilities regardless of whether they are protecting a community of a few hundred people or a large city of a few hundred thousand people. As such, firefighter grants have proven absolutely vital for rural and volunteer fire departments, which have small tax bases and the least ability to acquire such equipment.

The bill before us today makes several modest changes to the AFG and SAFER programs, reflecting a compromise reached by the leading national fire service organizations who worked closely with the Science and Technology Committee to develop this legislation. I support these changes and the underlying reauthorization effort, and I want to call attention to two in particular which I offered as amendments during committee consideration

of this bill. They are intended to support the ability of smaller combination and volunteer departments to successfully compete for and receive AFG grants and to emphasize the AFG program should be a funding priority generally.

The first amendment added language to the bill clarifying in awarding grants competitively, FEMA must consider a broad range of factors related to a fire department's ability to respond to hazards, not just the size of the population a department protects but also other factors such as its geographic response area, hazard vulnerability, or financial situation. This addition does not make any changes to the underlying AFG program but, rather, explicitly codifies FEMA's existing practice.

Second, I was pleased to incorporate amendment language in committee calling attention to the dramatic decline in funding for the AFG program over the last 5 years and emphasize restoring it should be a priority.

The AFG program is authorized in this legislation at $1 billion a year; however, its actual appropriated funding has never reached that amount and, in fact, has steadily declined in recent years. In fiscal year 2003, $750 million was appropriated for AFG. Since this time, funding has steadily declined. Last year it was $565 million, and this year the Obama administration requested only $390 million. This represents a 48 percent decline since fiscal year 2003. Given the importance of AFG to helping fire departments around the country meet minimum response requirements, especially those in rural areas with limited tax bases, this trend is troubling and should be reversed.

I was pleased our colleagues in the majority accepted these amendments, and I appreciate the chairman's work. I thank them for working closely with me and the leading national fire service organizations to develop an agreeable compromise under which we could move this reauthorization forward.

I urge Members to support passage of this bill, and I hope for and expect a continued smooth process as we do go forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would yield 30 seconds more to the Chairman of the Transportation Committee if he wishes to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I would also add briefly that, for right now, that the demands on volunteer fire departments are far greater than the population might reflect, especially when we talk about public lands and the susceptibility to fire in the midst of drought and other things as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the committee chairman how much time he is looking to need, perhaps.

I would yield 2 minutes to the chairman if he would wish to use that.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. We were expecting some other Members here. But I will say that I appreciate the process that we have gone through this. It involved quite a bit of discussion early on at the subcommittee level and full committee level. I'm grateful that the chairman considered amendments from our side so that we can meet the public safety needs of our country. It's not just about my district, it's not just about certain districts, but the entire country. I'm grateful to be a part of this process, and I will say it does work.

With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

This amendment, as the sponsor indicated, would allow grant funds under the AFG program to require equipment designed to reduce the amount of water used in firefighting or training. This amendment certainly makes sense, particularly in arid regions, which may be prone to fires and where water sources are often scarce.

I support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose it.

I would like to ask the gentleman from Colorado to enter into a colloquy regarding his amendment--a clarification.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment to assess fire department readiness through a survey of compliance with national voluntary consensus standards for staffing, training, equipment, and other factors important to a department's ability to respond to hazards. I do support the amendment but would like to seek clarification for the Record regarding the gentleman's intent on two aspects of this amendment.

First, I recognize the value of improved data regarding fire department compliance with response standards, and I agree that we should aspire to help the fire service achieve higher compliance rates. However, I think it is important to note that a lack of compliance with these standards does not necessarily indicate a problem on the part of the department or local municipality.

There are over 25,000 fire departments in the United States, all working under unique circumstances with respect to local hazards, populations, mutual aid agreements, operating budgets, and so on. In many cases, it simply does not make sense for departments to be in full compliance with what the Federal Government would consider full compliance with these standards based on their individual circumstances, particularly in rural areas where resources are very limited.

For these reasons, I would hope that the task force established by this amendment considers these practical barriers to standards compliance in making recommendations to Congress regarding how best to improve standards compliance. I would just ask the gentleman if he would agree with this interpretation.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado. Second, while the cost of the study called for in the gentleman's amendment is not precisely known at this time, it may be a significant undertaking. Accordingly, I hope that it is the gentleman's intent that the funding for this study, which is authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security, not come out of the core budget for either of these grant programs or the budget of the U.S. Fire Administration.

Does the gentleman agree with this interpretation?

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his graciousness, with I guess just one exception. But I appreciate the confidence he shows in his college football team.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and SAFER grant program have not been subject to earmarking and, instead, have been awarded to the applicants which are determined to have the greatest need. This process of awarding grants based on merit has proven effective for this program. Allowing these funds to be allocated through earmarking would pit those districts in need against those with the most powerful Members of Congress. I believe this would be a disservice to the American taxpayer. Mr. Flake's amendment will ensure that the funding, which we are authorizing here today for the grant programs for firefighters, continues to be allocated through a competitive process based on need.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply clarify that river rescue organizations will be eligible to apply for a grant under the program authorized by the bill. I have no objections to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. Although I am not necessarily opposed to this, I do have some concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would require that local unemployment rates be considered as a factor in awarding grants to fire departments. While I understand the current state of the economy should make this a concern in bills we consider, the Fire grant program has, since its inception 8 years ago, awarded grants competitively based upon the potential of the applicant's proposal to enhance a fire department's ability to respond to fires and related hazards. I am somewhat concerned that this change may result in an upset in the delicate balance of consideration that has been achieved over the years.

The factors used by FEMA in evaluating these proposals have been carefully developed and refined in consultation with national fire service organizations. They include, for example, a department's geographic response area, its population served, unique hazard vulnerabilities, and its budgetary situation. All of these factors directly impact the department's ability to respond to hazards and, thus, are appropriate criteria.

I believe the gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, but I am concerned that the unemployment rate of the locality a department protects is simply not directly related to fire hazards or the department's ability to respond to them. While a fire department's operating budget could potentially be indirectly impacted by a poor local economy that impacts tax revenues, this factor is already explicitly noted in the legislation based on need.

Further, I would caution generally against the practice of Congress dictating the specific criteria to be used by FEMA in making awards. This bill codifies consideration of high-level factors that were developed by the fire service and are currently used by FEMA, but it does not attempt to incorporate new ones based on particular interests. If we begin to open up this program to congressional direction of this sort, we risk adding a level of prescription that could transform the current highly competitive process to one driven by interests unrelated to the needs of the fire service.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to be sensitive to the economic conditions that hit some parts of the country harder than others, and I want to be mindful of the wise use of resources at the Federal level. I don't want to get into other policies that might impact our economy in any a very negative way. I don't have enough time to do that right now. But I certainly hope that we can arrive at good policy decisions today and down the road so that we don't stand in the way of the wise use of government and taxpayer resources.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 909 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

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.

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.

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. 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).

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to say to my good friend from California, I apologize for not yielding earlier, and I appreciate your comments.

At this moment I have no other speakers. I would inquire whether the gentleman is ready to yield back his time.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill reauthorizes the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program. Over the past 9 years, these programs have provided over $5 billion to purchase firefighting equipment and training, and for communities to hire additional firefighters. This Federal support for public safety is even more important in this tough economy as local officials struggle to provide services in the face of decreasing budgets.

The provisions in this bill make several changes to the program to enable more fire departments to apply for grants, and to ensure that the programs can benefit all types of communities, from small towns to our largest cities.

As part of this, the bill apportions the AFG funding between the career, volunteer, and combination fire departments according to a formula that authorizes a minimum of 25 percent of each year's total AFG dollars for each type of department.

The bill also authorizes the director to waive matching funds, budget maintenance requirements and other requirements for fire departments facing exceptional economic hardships. It further lowers the matching requirement for AFG and modifies the matching structure of SAFER to make it easier for communities to plan for the commitment of a SAFER grant.

The Science Committee heard testimony from fire service experts in July that, particularly in this economy, the current matching requirements dissuaded some departments from applying. These provisions enable those fire departments with the most need to apply.

Finally, H.R. 3791 also increases the amount of money larger jurisdictions may apply for under the AFG program. These amounts better reflect the needs of larger metropolitan areas as well as fire departments that have been consolidated to provide unified coverage to a large area.

H.R. 3791 is the product of much hard work by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Congressional Fire Services Institute. It has been endorsed by all of these groups. This bill has bipartisan support and passed out of the Science and Technology Committee by voice vote.

I would like to once again thank Mr. Mitchell for sponsoring this important legislation. I would also like to recognize the efforts of our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Wu, in getting the policy right in this bill and working to get a consensus piece of legislation. I also want to thank Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey for being the father of the origination of these bills, as well as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer for bringing all of the parties together and working together to get a good bill out.

Finally, I would like to recognize the staff who have been integral in crafting this legislation: Meghan Housewright and Mike Quear on the majority staff, and Dan Byers on the minority staff.

We have some amendments today. I look forward to working with my colleagues today to make a good bill better.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, as I said earlier, the person who really was the sheriff in bringing everybody together for this bill, and we thank him for it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas, a former member of the Science and Technology Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

My friend from Texas raises a valid point and an excellent point. You can be well assured that we will continue to work with you through this, through the conference process to bring your legitimate points to light.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Thompson and Chairman Oberstar for working with me to get this important bill to the floor.

I would like to insert an exchange of committee correspondence in the Record at this time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, November 7, 2009.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you regarding H.R. 3791,

the ``Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009,'' introduced

on October 13, 2009. This legislation was initially referred

to the Committee on Science and Technology and sequentially

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security on November 6,

2009.

In the interest of permitting this important legislation to

proceed expeditiously to floor consideration, I am willing to

waive further consideration of H.R. 3791. I do so with the

understanding that waiving further consideration of the bill

should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security

waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction

over subject matters contained in the bill which fall within

its Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

Homeland Security conferees during any House-Senate

conference convened on this or similar legislation. I also

ask that a copy of this letter and your response be placed in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of this

bill.

I look forward to working with you on this legislation and

other matters of great importance to this nation.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the Chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota, Chairman Oberstar, and I want to once again thank him for helping bring this bill to the floor.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I thank my friend from Nebraska for his courtesy to Mr. Oberstar. I would request of the Chairman, what time is left for each side?

Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out earlier, I'm not sure whether it's the godfather or the grandfather of the FIRE Grants program, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey. He is here, and he is recognized for 3 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I would like to thank the gentlewoman for her efforts with the SAFER program and her support for the bill.

You raise a very good point that fire departments in many communities are struggling with shrinking budgets. Some of these struggling communities do have SAFER grants. I would be happy to work with you on this issue as we work to enact this legislation into law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

You are courteous to ask. I think we have marshaled it just right. We have 2 more minutes and one speaker.

Again, I thank you for the courtesy. I believe we are going to be able to do it, but thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from St. Louis, Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

I will use the remainder of my time to close, so if the gentleman would like to close.

Mr. Chairman, in quick closing, I want to concur with Mr. Smith's remarks, thanking him for his cooperation. This has been a good subcommittee, committee process. It has been bipartisan. And because of that, we have a good bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to thank the gentlelady for this amendment. I think it demonstrates why having greater consultation makes a better bill. You bring unique expertise. We've got a lot more water in Tennessee than you have in Nevada. So thank you for this good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have no objections to this amendment. I want to point out that the underlying programs or competitive grant programs are peer reviewed by members of the fire service.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk that was made in order under the rule.

I want to start by thanking my friend, Bart Gordon; David Wu; Ranking Member Ralph Hall; Harry Mitchell; and my friend, Adrian Smith, for their leadership on this bill. They have put together a strong bill which every Member should feel proud of supporting when they speak to their local firefighters.

Members should be proud this legislation gives those local firefighters the resources they need to best keep their communities safe and secure. Members should be proud that the training, protective equipment, and personnel this bill provides could potentially save the lives of those very firefighters. My amendment will, I believe, make this bill even better.

Every year, roughly 100 firefighters die in the line duty. This is a tragedy, and each one of those brave men and women is a hero for their sacrifice. But we think some of these deaths were preventable, so we must act. Studies have shown that all too often a contributing factor in their deaths was failure to comply with national voluntary consensus standards. These national voluntary standards are developed over years of collaboration and debate within the National Fire Protection Association, which I will call the NFPA.

As the independent experts on fire policy, the NFPA has developed these standards for over a hundred years to keep communities and the firefighters who protect them safe, yet the Federal Government does not have a thorough understanding of how fire departments follow various NFPA standards. We in the Congress dedicate a great deal of

time and resources to help our fire departments, but we cannot gauge our overall effectiveness without knowing where we are successful and where we fall short.

My amendment authorizes the U.S. Fire Administration to conduct a first-of-its-kind survey of our Nation's fire departments to measure how well they are adhering to these safety standards. Once the study is complete, a task force of industry stakeholders will make recommendations to Congress on the methods to increase compliance. Especially in the post 9/11 world, where firefighters play a vital role in our homeland security, a stronger emergency response capability means a weakened threat of terrorist attack.

I should add that this amendment is nearly identical to my bill, the Firefighter Fatality Reduction Act. That bill has broad, bipartisan support of 31 Members from rural, urban, and suburban districts. It is supported by the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Fire Protection Association.

This amendment is simple. These safety standards can save firefighters' lives. Let us study how well our fire services are using these standards and bring in an industry task force to think creatively about ways to boost compliance. It's good for our firefighters, it's good for our local communities, and it's good for homeland security.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes.

I thank my friend from Nebraska. And yes, I entirely agree with him. According to the most recent U.S. Fire Administration fire department census, my own State of Colorado has 323 fire departments. Of those, 35 are career departments, 165 are volunteer departments, and 123 are combination. Each has it own needs, faces its own threats, and relies on different funding streams.

The recent downturn in the economy has hurt fire departments all across the country. So, of course, the task force established in this amendment should reflect the differences among the three types of departments and the challenges that they face.

As written, my amendment would include on the task force ``representatives of national organizations representing firefighters and fire chiefs.'' It is a reasonable implication that volunteer firefighters are included on the task force, and I will work with the gentleman to ensure that this is the case. Although needs of each fire department are unique, I do feel there are several areas of general agreement among them, which is precisely why I propose to establish this task force. As I said, I agree with the gentleman and his concerns.

Again, I agree with my friend. First, I'd like to note this survey is an undertaking which I intend to do similarly to the U.S. Fire Administration's periodic census, which determines the number of fire departments in the Nation, as well as the number of firefighters. The census is done by mail, and I would expect this survey to be done similarly or even electronically to save on costs.

To the specific point about funding, I believe FIRE and SAFER funds are best used going to fire departments. I also believe the U.S. Fire Administration is cash-strapped. This year's Homeland Security Appropriations Act funded it at $45.6 billion. If I were an appropriator, I would have doubled that figure.

To avoid funding this provision through the grants themselves or the USFA, I have an additional authorization of appropriation from outside those funds. I wish to continue to work with the gentleman to perfect and clarify this intent.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska and give him notice now to be aware of my Colorado Buffaloes next week. We aren't going to a bowl game this year, but our bowl game is against the University of Nebraska--and we will win.

I yield back the balance of my time.