HF 4107 FIRE Act Grant

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
H.R. 4107, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004
Hearing Charter
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
2318 Rayburn House Office Building

Establishing funding for the years 2005 - 2007

H.R. 4107, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004 Hearing Charter
Statement by Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) Opening Statement
Statement by Kevin B. O’Connor of INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
Statement by R. David Paulison Director Preparedness Division And United States Fire Administrator FEMA
Statement by James M. Shannon President and CEO NFPA
Statement by Chief Ernest Mitchell, Ret. before the Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives
Statement by Andrew T. Mitchell Deputy Director Office for Domestic Preparedness
Section by Section Summary of H.R. 4107 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004

Hearing Charter
H.R. 4107, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004

1. Purpose
On Wednesday, May 12 th , 2004, the House Science Committee will hold a hearing to examine the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and to receive testimony on H.R. 4107, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004.

2. Witnesses

Panel I
The Honorable Bill Pascrell is the representative from the 8 th District of New Jersey.

Panel II
Mr. R. David Paulison is Administrator of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Emergency and Preparedness Response directorate. Before being appointed as Administrator in 2001, Mr. Paulison was Chief of the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Department.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell is Deputy Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) within the DHS Border and Transportation Security Directorate. Prior to joining ODP, Mr. Mitchell served as the Chief of the National Initiatives Branch in the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice.

Mr. James M. Shannon is President and CEO of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Mr. Shannon joined NFPA as senior vice president and general counsel in 1991. From 1987-1991, he served as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Prior to that, he served for six years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Chief Philip C. Stittleburg is Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC). He served as the NVFC Foundation President for twelve years and is a current member of the NFPA Board of Directors. Chief Stittleburg has served as Chief of the LaFarge (WI) Fire Department for 26 years. He is also legal counsel to the NVFC, the LaFarge Fire Department, and the Wisconsin State Firefighters Association.

Chief Ernest Mitchell is President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. Chief Mitchell recently retired as Chief of the Pasadena Fire Department. He is also past president of the Foothill Chiefs, Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs, and League of California Cities Fire Chiefs associations.

Mr. Kevin O’Connor is the Assistant to the General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Previously, Mr. O’Connor served concurrently as president of the Maryland State and District of Columbia Professional Fire Fighters and the Baltimore County Fire Fighters Association, Local 1311.

Panel III
The Honorable Steny Hoyer is the House Minority Whip and representative of the 5 th District of Maryland.

3. Overarching Questions

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

1. How do the administration and fire services organizations view H.R. 4107?

2. How effective has the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP, also known as the FIRE Act) been at improving the overall level of readiness of fire departments in the United States? What level of need still exists with regard to the ability of fire departments to respond to day-to-day hazards, and in what areas are the gaps the greatest?

3. How should the federal government balance support for basic first responder needs with support for counterterrorism preparedness?

4. What are the status and outlook for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 grant process? What major changes, if any, have taken place in the program since ODP assumed responsibility for administering it this year? To what extent are ODP and USFA coordinating to ensure continuity in program administration?

4. Brief Overview
• In 2000, Congress established the AFGP to award grants directly to local fire departments to protect “the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards, and to provide assistance for fire prevention programs.” (The current authorization expires at the end of FY 2004.)

Since 2001, the AFGP has distributed $1.1 billion to nearly 17,000 fire departments around the country. Currently, more than 20,000 departments have applied for the $750 million available for the AFGP in FY 2004.

From its inception until FY 2003, the AFGP was administered by USFA. For the first time this year, the program is being administered by ODP as a result of language included in the FY 2004 appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Many in the fire services and Congress have voiced concern that this transfer could shift the focus of the program toward state-administered counter-terrorism assistance and away from providing direct assistance on a competitive basis to fire departments for the purpose of improving basic firefighting capabilities.

On April 1 st 2004, Chairman Boehlert and a bi-partisan group of Congressional Fire Services Caucus leaders introduced H.R. 4107, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004. The bill would authorize $900 million per year for the program in fiscal years 2005-2007. While H.R. 4107 continues the AFGP mostly unchanged, it does make several programmatic modifications, including:

• Program Location. Transfers authority for administering the AFGP from ODP to USFA.

• EMS Eligibility. Allows volunteer non-profit, non-hospital Emergency Medical Service (EMS) squads not affiliated with fire departments to apply for grants. The bill would set a cap on the amount of funds those entities could collectively receive at 4 percent of the total appropriation for the program.

• Non-federal Match. Reduces from 30 percent to 20 percent the non-federal matching requirement to receive a grant for jurisdictions that serve more than 50,000 people.

• Maximum Grant Size. Increases the grant-size cap from $750,000 to $3 million for jurisdictions that serve more than 1 million people, $2 million for jurisdictions that serve between 1 million and 500,000 people, and $1 million for all other departments.

• Volunteer Non-Discrimination. Specifies that departments that receive funding under this Act cannot discriminate against, or prohibit employees from engaging in, volunteer firefighting activities in another jurisdiction during off-duty hours.

• Peer Review. Codifies USFA’s current practices of consulting with fire service organizations in considering criteria changes to the AFGP and appointing fire service personnel to conduct peer review of applications.

• In February, a coalition of fire service groups 1 submitted to Congress a position paper (or White Paper) on the reauthorization of the AFGP. Many of the provisions in H.R. 4107, such as increased maximum grant size and decreased non-federal match for larger departments, are similar to or the same as those in the White Paper. The most notable differences are:

• Program Location. The White Paper requires the Director of DHS to decide which directorate within DHS should be responsible for administering the AFGP.

• EMS Eligibility. The White Paper does not address this issue.

• Volunteer Non-Discrimination. The White Paper does not address this issue.

Volunteer Non-Discrimination
H.R. 4107 includes a provision barring fire departments receiving grants under the act from prohibiting their members from volunteering in other jurisdictions during off-duty hours. These firefighters, known as “two-hatters,” are the center of an ongoing issue of contention between volunteer fire departments and the International Association of Fire Fighters, a career firefighters union. While the prevalence of two-hatters is widespread and has been for decades, pressure from IAFF locals either to (1) enter into collective bargaining agreements with their municipalities prohibiting firefighters from volunteering in their off-duty hours; or (2) take internal union actions against members that also serve as volunteer firefighters, is a more recent and regional practice.

Despite the infrequent occurrence of such activities, increased pressure to do away with two-hatters has potential to substantially reduce the readiness of volunteer departments across the country, where preparedness is often heavily dependent upon more experienced, full-time firefighters. In response to these concerns, H.R. 4107 states that “A fire department receiving funds provided under this section shall not discriminate against, or prohibit its members from engaging in, volunteer activities in another jurisdiction during off-duty hours.” The language would not impact IAFF internal policies 2 or the ability of a union local (as opposed to a fire department) to take internal action against two-hatter members.

The non-discrimination provision is similar to one that passed last year in the SAFER Firefighter Grant Program, which provides funding to municipalities to train and hire new firefighters. That 1 Comprised of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters, International Code Council, International Fire Service Training Association, International Society of Fire Service Instructors, National Fire Protection Association, National Volunteer Fire Council, and North American Fire Training Detectors. 2 Currently, Article 15 of the IAFF Constitution prohibits members from joining “rival organizations…including volunteer fire departments”. bill, which came out of the Science Committee, prohibits a department from barring firefighters hired using SAFER funds from volunteering.

Location of the AFGP Program within DHS
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) designated ODP as the principal Federal agency responsible for the preparedness of the United States for acts of terrorism. Since 2002, ODP has administered a number of grant programs that provide funds to states explicitly for distribution to first responders for terrorism preparedness. These programs include the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, the Citizen Corps Program, and the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program. In an effort to consolidate first responder grant programs, the AFGP was transferred to ODP in FY 2004. However, because ODP’s mission is terrorism preparedness and because the agency does not have experience working with fire departments or local jurisdictions, many in the fire services community and Congress have voiced concern that this shift could be detrimental to the program. H.R. 4107 places authority for administering the AFGP at USFA.

Distribution of Grant Funds
When the fire grant program was created, there was some concern that large career departments would get a majority of the funding at the expense of smaller departments. To address this, the original legislation capped grants to individual departments at $750,000. In addition, a 30 percent cost share for departments serving jurisdictions with a population of greater than 50,000 was implemented. In part because of the lower tax base in rural areas, jurisdictions serving less than 50,000 people were required to provide only a 10 percent cost share. The unintended result of these policies appears to be that career departments, which serve approximately 40 percent of the population, are actually applying for and receiving a disproportionately lower amount of funding than volunteer and combination departments. For example, in FY 2003, only 13 percent of applications submitted, and 17 percent of grants awarded, were from career departments. This issue of equity was raised in an Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of the AFGP in the 2005 budget, which noted that the $750,000 grant cap disadvantages larger departments.

In response to this disparity, H.R. 4107 includes changes to make it easier for larger departments to apply for more AFGP funding. The non-federal matching requirement for jurisdictions that serve more than 50,000 people is reduced from 30 percent to 20 percent. Also, the bill increases the grant-size cap from $750,000 to $3 million for jurisdictions that serve more than 1 million people, $2 million for jurisdictions that serve between 1 million and 500,000 people, and $1 million for all other departments.

Program Effectiveness
While the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program has received nearly universal acclaim from fire departments and fire services organizations, reviews from various federal entities have been more mixed. A 2003 DHS Inspector General (IG) report stated that “program goals, priorities, and grant criteria (had been) prudently developed.” The report also found that the “application solicitation is adequate, grant process is competitive, and application review is equitable.” The report concluded that the “AFGP appears to be addressing the basic needs and capabilities of the fire service as a whole.” The report did make the following recommendations for ways that the AFGP could be strengthened:

1) require greater detail to determine a fire department’s financial need;
2) require applicants to declare other federal funding sources to avoid potential duplication of assistance;
3) promote mutual aid and regional approaches to enhance interoperability;
4) improve monitoring of grant recipients to ensure expectations and responsibilities are met;
5) developing performance measures to assess the program’s long-term effect;
6) Use needs assessment findings as an additional tool to define program priorities and eligibility criteria; and
7) Clarify the distinction between the Fire Prevention and Safety program and the Fire Prevention program category of the AFGP.

The overall conclusion of the OMB PART review of the AFGP in the FY 2005 budget request was more critical. One of the primary criticisms raised in the PART assessment was that there were no data to indicate that the AFGP had been effective at reducing losses of life and property from fires. Another is that there have not been enough independent evaluations of the program to evaluate program effectiveness and guide improvements.

7. Questions for Witnesses

Questions for Mr. Paulison:

• How effective has the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program been at improving the overall level of readiness of emergency responders in the United States? What needs still exist with regard to the ability of fire departments to respond to day-to-day hazards, and in what areas are the gaps the greatest? How should the federal government balance support for basic first responder needs with support for counterterrorism preparedness?

• Please describe the role that non-government participation has played in administering of the program. Should the role of outside groups and individual firefighters be modified and if so how?

• Please describe the results of the September 2003 USFA Inspector General’s report on the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. What is your reaction to the recommendations of the report and what actions has USFA taken to respond to those recommendations?

Questions for Mr. Mitchell:

• What is the status and outlook for the FY 2004 grant process? What major changes, if any, have taken place in the program since ODP assumed responsibility for administering it this year? To what extent has ODP coordinated with USFA to ensure continuity in program administration?

• What needs still exist with regard to the ability of fire departments to respond to day-to-day hazards, and in what areas are the gaps the greatest? How should the federal government balance support for basic first responder needs with support for counterterrorism preparedness programs?

Questions for Mr. Shannon

• How effective has the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program been at improving the overall level of readiness of emergency responders in the United States? What did the NFPA study, A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service, reveal about the ability of fire departments to respond to day-to-day hazards? How should the federal government balance support for basic first responder needs with support for counterterrorism preparedness?

• According to a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluation by the Office of Management and Budget, the fire grant program does not address a specific and existing problem, interest or need. What is your response to this conclusion? What measurable evidence is there that the program has improved public safety, and - to the extent more evidence is needed - what metrics should be used to evaluate the success of the program?

• Please provide comments and recommendations on H.R. 4107 and how it might be improved, including specific comments on the following important provisions that the Committee and Congress will be discussing.

Questions for Chief Mitchell, Mr. Schaitberger, and Mr. Stittleburg

• How effective has the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program been at improving the overall level of readiness of emergency responders in the United States? What needs still exist with regard to the ability of fire departments to respond to day-to-day hazards, and in what areas are the gaps the greatest? How should the federal government balance support for basic first responder needs with support for counterterrorism preparedness?

• According to a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluation by the Office of Management and Budget, the fire grant program does not address a specific and existing problem, interest or need. What is your response to this conclusion? What measurable evidence is there that the program has improved public safety, and - to the extent more evidence is needed - what metrics should be used to evaluate the success of the program? Please provide comments and recommendations on H.R. 4107 and how it might be improved, including specific comments on the following important provisions that the Committee and Congress will be discussing.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/may13/charter.pdf

OPENING STATEMENT FOR FIRE ACT HEARING, H.R. 4107
CONGRESSMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY)
May 12, 2004

Let me start by apologizing for having had to miss the beginning of this hearing. The Intelligence Committee at the last-minute scheduled a hearing on the Iraqi prisoner issue, and I needed to be there.

There are few matters that would have kept me away from this hearing because, as I think the witnesses before us today know well, I think helping our nation's first responders do their jobs is a high priority issue. That's why I was one of the founding leaders of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, which Curt Weldon so ably assembled. It's why I sponsored the SAFER Act, which is now law, and why I sponsored the bill before us today. It's why I've met so much time meeting with the groups represented here today.

I've put in all this time because I don't want to make the mistake that so many Americans make, which is taking our first responders for granted. Firefighters, whether paid or volunteer, guard our lives with their lives. They devote themselves to their communities day after day after day - usually outside the limelight. They deserve our help, but when we help firefighters, we're not being altruistic or magnanimous. After all, we're the real beneficiaries. Grants to fire departments make all of us more safe.

The FIRE Act grants have done just that. Firefighters around the country and their service areas have benefited greatly from the program over the past three years. But many needs are still unmet. The program needs to be continued.

The bill I've introduced, along with Bill Pascrell, Curt Weldon, Steny Hoyer, Nick Smith, Rob Andrews and Nita Lowey, allows the program to continue and improves it. For example it reforms the program to make it easier for urban fire departments to benefit from it.

It also prohibits fire departments from discriminating against paid firefighters who volunteer in their spare time. I know the firefighters union opposes this provision, and I do not take this step lightly. But fire departments' ability to do their jobs will be impeded if volunteer fire departments do not have access to the dedicated men and women who are career firefighters.

Despite this controversy, H.R. 4107 has broad support in the Congress. I look forward to marking up the bill and moving it forward later this year.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/may12/boehlert.htm

Statements

STATEMENT OF KEVIN B. O’CONNOR
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL PRESIDENT ON
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE F.I.R.E. ACT
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
MAY 12, 2004

Mr. Chairman. My name is Kevin O’Connor, and I serve as Assistant to the General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Before joining the IAFF staff, I spent over 15 years working as a fire fighter in Baltimore County, Maryland, both as a volunteer and paid professional. I had the opportunity to the serve as President of the Baltimore County Professional Fire Fighters Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Maryland.

I appear before you today on behalf of General President Harold A. Schaitberger, and the 263,000 men and women of the IAFF. The IAFF is by far the largest fire service organization in the nation, and our members protect over 80% of the United States population.

I appreciate this opportunity to share our views on reauthorizing the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, more commonly known as the FIRE Act. The FIRE Act was a true landmark in the history of the fire service. Prior to its passage, the federal government had never fully acknowledged a responsibility to help protect the health and safety of its citizens from fires and other emergencies. With this initiative, the federal government for the first time became a partner with localities and with America’s fire service.

The program has been a model of efficiency. By sending funding directly to local fire departments using a peer review process, the FIRE Act has distributed over $1 billion in just three years. There have been more than 15,000 grants awarded to fire departments across the nation. These grants have purchased equipment, provided desperately needed training, enhanced fire fighter wellness, and educated children and others about fire safety. Americans are safer today as a result of this program. But improvements are clearly needed. When the program was first developed, there was a fear that smaller communities and volunteer fire departments would not be able to compete with large municipalities for grants. As a result, several provisions were added to the legislation to ensure that small jurisdictions received a fair share of the funding.

The IAFF fully endorsed these provisions, and worked with the National Volunteer Fire Counsel to address issues of fairness. Based on the experience of the last four years, we now know that those initial fears were unwarranted, and the protections added to the legislation have had a detrimental impact on larger municipalities. Fire departments that are composed entirely of professional fire fighters protect roughly half of the US population, yet last year they received only 17% of the funding. Together with the other national fire service organizations, we have put together a proposal to begin to address some of these inequities. We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for including some of the recommendations in your legislation reauthorizing the FIRE Act.

With the improvements to the program contained in HR 4107, we had hoped to be able to come here today to endorse the legislation. Sadly, we cannot. The inclusion of an ill-conceived anti-labor provision in the legislation has forced us to oppose the bill as currently written. We hope that this language will be removed in due course or an amendment added which provides similar restrictions on jurisdictions that do not provide bargaining rights for fire fighters and EMS workers. Resolving this one issue will enable us to fully embrace your legislation reauthorizing the FIRE Act. Before addressing the provision that is the source of our objections, allow me to offer some comments about several other provisions in the legislation. Size of GrantsOne of the most important provisions designed to protect smaller jurisdictions in the original law was a cap placed on the size of grants. By limiting the size of any single grant to $750,000, the authors hoped to increase the number of grants that would be awarded. Many smaller grants were viewed as better than a few larger ones.

There were two flaws in this reasoning. The first is simply the notion that the same cap should apply to all jurisdictions regardless of size. Larger fire departments require more funds, and the cap proved to be a disincentive for major cities to participate in the program.

The second flaw is that the cap fails to consider the different organizational structures of volunteer fire departments and professional fire departments. Volunteer departments are often comprised of a single fire station, while professional departments are more likely to have multiple stations. As a result of these different systems, the FIRE Act has a built-in bias favoring volunteer fire companies. Consider, for example, my jurisdiction of Baltimore County. The county operates a combination fire service. There are 33 volunteer fire companies. While independent, they still fall under the command of the Baltimore County Fire Chief. The career service consists of 25 stations. In terms of response, the career service provides the bulk the service. Last year, the 33 volunteer companies responded to 48,159 fire and EMS calls, while the 25 career stations responded to 128,610 fire and EMS calls. Yet, under current law, the career side of the Baltimore County Fire Department is eligible to receive a single grant of $750,000, while the volunteer sector in Baltimore is eligible to receive grants totaling more than $24 million.

Clearly, the cap on the size of grants must be raised and linked to population served. We are appreciative of the language in HR 4107, which addresses this need by creating three levels of grants linked to population, with the largest cities eligible for up to $3 million. Although we believe this is a step in the right direction, we feel obliged to note that it is just a step. The fire departments in America’s largest cities protect millions of people, while some smaller fire departments number their constituencies in the hundreds. Allowing the largest areas to apply for only 3 times more funding in the face of such vast disparities in need is a problem we believe will need further attention in the years ahead.

Local Match
Another provision of the law intended to protect smaller jurisdictions is a lower local match for communities of less than 50,000 people. Currently, larger jurisdictions must match 30% of the federal funds, while smaller communities need only a 10% match. The 30% match has proven to be problematic for many communities. For example: In Austin, Texas, the City Manager told the local fire fighters union that he will never apply for a FIRE grant because he views the 30% match as excessive. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the city was forced to decline a FIRE grant it had already been awarded because it could not come up with the matching requirement. In Cincinnati, Ohio, the city was only able to afford the 30% match for a flashover simulator it had requested by reducing funding for other fire service needs. As a result, the city has been unable to afford to use the simulator in training exercises. Tragically, a Cincinnati fire fighter lost his life in flashover while this technology sat idle in a nearby warehouse.

In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, the City Council was poised to vote unanimously to decline a FIRE grant it had been awarded because it could not afford the 30% match. At the urging of the local fire fighter union, the Council agreed to postpone the vote to give the fire fighters a chance to find an alternative. Ultimately, the fire fighters were able to convince City Council to float a bond to pay the matching requirement. It was the second consecutive year a special bond was necessary to receive FIRE Act funding. HR 4107 begins to address this problem by reducing the local match for larger areas from 30% to 20%. While we thank you and applaud this step, we encourage a further reduction to create parity and place all fire departments on a level playing field. The rationale given for the lower match for smaller communities is that smaller communities have fewer resources. While that may be generally true, smaller communities also have fewer emergency response needs, and therefore apply for smaller grants. We are aware of no evidence that shows that smaller communities have fewer resources on a percentage basis when compared to larger areas. Moreover, the notion that smaller means poorer is simply not true in many cases. There are affluent rural areas and very poor urban ones. We are even aware of some volunteer fire departments that have more financial resources than urban professional fire departments. While they are likely the exception, some volunteer fire companies have proven extraordinarily adept at fundraising. Conversely, elected officials in some larger municipalities are either unable or unwilling to provide additional resources to fire departments due to severe budget shortages and demands for increased spending on a variety of other public needs. Significantly, we have been unable to identify any other federal grant program that has different matches based on population. Such a rigid formula has been deemed inapt for federal assistance in other areas, and we urge that the FIRE Act similarly adopt the generally used practice of a single rate. If different matches are warranted, we urge that the distinction be based on more relevant criteria than population. Coordination of Grants in Combination Departments One of the challenges facing combination fire departments that incorporate independent volunteer fire companies is assuring that the different components coordinate their efforts and resources. While these issues ultimately need to be resolved at the local level, the lack of coordination has implications for FIRE grants.

In many communities with combination departments, the overarching career department and the independent volunteer departments fail to share information about their FIRE grant applications. As a result, neighboring communities find themselves competing rather than cooperating for equipment and training to meet local needs. To help remedy this situation, we believe that grant requests that emanate from any department that is part of a broader fire department command structure should be required to coordinate their grant request through the broader authority. This would enable the Chief of a department like Baltimore County to ensure that volunteer companies within the county are not requesting funds for something the county can better provide.

Expansion of the FIRE Act to EMS Providers
Like the other fire service groups, we have reservations about the provision of HR 4107 that expands the FIRE Act to agencies other than fire departments. While we understand and appreciate the argument to include EMS providers in jurisdictions where fire departments do not provide EMS, we are concerned that expanding the program to non-fire departments will open the door for other public safety agencies, such as police departments and private sector response organizations. And while we agree that EMS should be a major focus of the FIRE Act, we wish to note that the majority of emergency medical services in our nation are provided by fire departments. The FIRE Act already funds and enhances pre-hospital patient care. If you choose to retain this language in the bill, the one amendment we urge you to consider is to remove the limitation that only volunteer EMS providers are eligible. While not many in number, there are public, professional, single role EMS agencies, and there simply is no reason to deny them access to this funding solely because they choose to hire and pay professional paramedics rather than ask people to work for free.

Administering Agency
One area where we have a slight difference of opinion from some of our allies in the fire service is the issue of which agency should administer the program. But let me be clear: we agree that the U.S. Fire Administration has done an extraordinary job of running this program, and we have no objections to returning the program to USFA. The only area of disagreement is whether USFA is the only agency that can effectively and efficiently administer the program. We believe the model and procedures developed by USFA can be replicated, and we have received repeated assurances from Secretary Tom Ridge, ODP Director Suzanne Mencer and others that whatever agency runs the FIRE Act will do so in the same manner as USFA. We have no reason to doubt their word.

The criticisms of ODP are that they lack experience with providing funding directly to fire departments and that their emphasis on terrorism preparedness is ill-suited to the FIRE Act. These beliefs stem from ODP’s traditional role, but we believe the agency is capable of broadening its mandate.

In many ways, we find this debate somewhat ironic because when we first began lobbying in support of creating the FIRE Act one of the objections leveled at the legislation was the USFA had no experience in providing grants, and that the agency’s history suggested it was ill-prepared to take on a program of this magnitude. Like the concerns expressed about ODP, these criticisms of USFA were legitimate. But we responded that we had faith that USFA would rise to the challenge, and we are pleased to report that it has done so spectacularly. We similarly have faith in ODP’s commitment and abilities.

From the IAFF’s perspective, how well the program is run and what the funding is used for are more important than which agency administers it.

Non-Discrimination Against Volunteer Fire Fighters
The reservations we have regarding the foregoing issues, however, would not prevent us from endorsing an otherwise positive piece of legislation. Our reluctant opposition to HR 4107 is based entirely on the inclusion of an ill-conceived extraneous provision referred to as “Protection of Volunteers from Discrimination.”

This provision would bar a fire department from receiving FIRE Act funding if it contains in its collective bargaining agreement a clause prohibiting its fire fighters from serving as volunteer fire fighters in another jurisdiction. While a perhaps well-intentioned effort to increase the number of volunteer fire fighters, the actual impact of this proposal would be detrimental and far-reaching. As currently crafted, it is nothing less than an assault on the rights of the nation’s professional fire fighters, and the process by which bargaining rights have been won for thousands of fire fighters. I would like to begin my discussion of this issue by offering some background. First, it is important to note that very few fire departments in the nation, perhaps less than 10, have such clauses in their contracts. Most of them have been in place for several years, and have never been a source of any controversy.

Why would a fire department have such a clause in their bargaining agreements? While the issues may vary from place to place, I believe the most typical answer can be found in the agreement between the City of West Allis, Wisconsin and the fire fighters union in the city. The West Allis example is especially helpful to understand this issue because the contract language includes a clear explanation of the provision’s intent. Allow me to quote from it: “For the reasons stated below the Chief of the West Allis Fire Department shall prohibit employees of the West Allis Fire Department from performing fire fighting duties for municipalities operating a paid or volunteer fire department other than the City of West Allis.

1. The provision of fire protection services to the public is a dangerous occupation requiring highly trained, capable personnel using appropriate methods and equipment under the direction of experienced supervisors. As such, the performance of fire protection duties without the requisite training, methods, equipment or supervision may threaten the health and well being of employees and the public.

2. Employees who perform fire protection duties on a voluntary basis or as the result of outside employment are subject to increased exposure to hazardous conditions that may result in a greater incidence of illness or injury. Consequently, the performance of such duties for other municipalities may have a direct bearing on employee’s ability to perform fire protection duties for the City of West Allis.

3. State statute has established a presumptive relationship between an employee’s fire suppression duties and heart and lung disability the employee may develop. The City of West Allis and its taxpayers are financially liable for the employee’s duty disability benefits, and must be confident that such disabilities are the result of the employee’s work for the City of West Allis and not for other municipalities.” In short, the City of West Allis has chosen to bar its fire fighters from serving as fire fighters in other jurisdictions—either on a paid or volunteer basis—to protect the health and safety of the fire fighters and protect the city’s taxpayers against unnecessary financial liabilities. For similar reasons, the City of West Allis also prohibits fire fighters from smoking off duty.

While I am not entirely clear why the city’s desire to protect its fire fighters and taxpayers is so objectionable, from our perspective whether such a prohibition is good public policy or not is beside the point. There are much broader issues at stake, and we ask that you carefully evaluate the serious implications of the language contained in HR 4107 before moving forward on this issue.

First and foremost, placing a restriction on issues contained in collective bargaining agreements must be viewed as part of the larger issue of collective bargaining rights. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the federal government does not grant fire fighters in our nation the right to bargain collectively. Where bargaining does occur, it exists because fire fighters have won the right at the state or local level. For nearly ten years, legislation has been pending before Congress to rectify this inequity and grant every fire fighter in the nation the right to discuss workplace issues with their employer. We are grateful, Mr. Chairman, for your strong support of this legislation. Unfortunately, despite support from clear majorities in both the House and Senate, congressional leaders have blocked action on the legislation.

So the provision in HR 4107 contains something of a cruel paradox. On the one hand, the current position of the federal government is that it is outside the reach of federal authority to grant fire fighters bargaining rights; while on the other hand, this legislation would have the federal government restrict what we can bargain over in those places where we have won the right.

We have to ask: is fire fighter bargaining a federal issue or not? The double standard inherent in restricting bargaining issues without also granting bargaining rights is egregious and unsupportable.

But this is not the sole reason why the provision of HR 4107 needs to be removed before the legislation can go forward. The language also sets two very dangerous precedents. First, the language would mark the first time Congress has attempted to impose a restriction on fire department policies in order to be eligible for a FIRE grant. Currently, the only requirement is that a department has a legitimate need. Once we begin the process of placing restrictions on how fire departments choose to manage themselves, we are leading down a very thorny path.

I do not mean to imply that the federal government has no legitimate interest in fire department policies. Indeed, there are many, many fire department policies that we believe may warrant federal intervention. Our question, however, is whether the FIRE Act is the appropriate venue to address these issues.

For example, many fire departments fail to comply with OSHA standards for safe fireground operation. This failure clearly jeopardizes the lives of fire fighters, and we believe every department should come into compliance with these basic safety standards. Many fire stations have bars that serve alcohol to fire fighters and others. We believe alcohol should never be present in a working fire station. And, as noted above, hundreds of fire departments in this nation refused to grant rank and file fire fighters the opportunity to discuss with management their concerns about their own health and safety. We believe all of these issues are as important, if not more so, than whether a small handful of fire departments have clauses barring people from volunteering in other jurisdictions. We have not, however, previously advocated using the FIRE Act to address these important matters because the program was never intended to compel changes in local Fire Department policies.

Singling out this one restriction for inclusion in the FIRE Act breaches a wall of separation, and invites federal micromanaging of fire departments. Does this extraneous issue truly warrant a radical redefinition of the FIRE Act’s purpose? The final area of concern is that the language establishes yet another precedent with implications far beyond the reach of the FIRE Act or, in our view, even this committee’s jurisdiction. Since this issue arose, we have been researching other federal grant programs, and we have yet to find a single instance in which a limitation was imposed on a federal grant based on language contained in collective bargaining agreements. While there are numerous limitations placed on federal grants, we are not aware of any other attempts to redefine the scope of bargaining.

The potential implications for this precedent are staggering. Shall Congress address the complex issue of health insurance coverage by denying federal funds to employers whose health benefits are deemed inadequate? Shall we compel more teacher involvement in student activities by cutting off education funding because a teacher contract limits the number of evening events teachers can be required to attend without additional compensation?

The issue of how to define the scope of permissible bargaining is extraordinarily controversial, and the debate has raged for decades. The notion of removing that debate from the context of labor law and addressing it through grant limitations is a breathtaking reach. I can only conclude that the sponsors of the provision failed to fully comprehend the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the language.

I hope you agree, Mr. Chairman, that this issue is far more complex than merely protecting the rights of people to volunteer. It is for these reasons, that when the national fire service organizations met to discuss a draft version of your proposal, we unanimously agreed to request that the provision be stricken. Even the National Volunteer Fire Council joined in expressing opposition to the proposal.

We are, of course, aware that NVFC has changed its position and now supports maintaining the language. Let me stress that I do not raise this point to criticize NVFC for changing their position. The internal dynamics of organizations are often such that we can oppose something in draft form, but once a bill is introduced we are compelled to take a different stand. I would have done the same if the language were something benefiting my members. But that does not detract from the fact that NVFC, along with the rest of the fire service, opposed inclusion of the language. Allow me to make one final point on this issue before concluding my remarks. There apparently has been some confusion regarding the similarity between the language in HR 4107 and the language contained in the SAFER Act authored by you, Mr. Chairman, and passed by Congress last year. It has been incorrectly claimed that the language contained in HR 4107 is virtually identical to language we agreed to in SAFER.

In fact, the language in HR 4107 is much broader than the language in SAFER. The SAFER provision protecting volunteer fire fighters against discrimination does not affect collective bargaining agreements or fire department policies. The restriction is attached solely to the individual fire fighter hired with federal funds.

The language in SAFER is a restriction on the use of federal funds. The language in HR 4107 is a restriction on the recipient of federal funds. These two concepts are so divergent as to preclude legitimate comparisons. It is fallacious for anyone to suggest the language of HR 4107 is the same language contained in SAFER.

Mr. Chairman, for all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the so-called non-discrimination provision of HR 4107 be removed before moving forward with this legislation. The FIRE Act has had a history of support that has united not only the fire service, but Members of Congress of both parties. We are optimistic that with the removal of this provision, we can return to this spirit of harmony and unity, which has been a hallmark of this important program. I thank you for your consideration, and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Biographical Information
Kevin B. O’Connor
Kevin O’Connor currently serves as Assistant to the General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, a labor union representing over 260,000 members across the United States and Canada.

In his capacity, Mr. O’Connor supervises the IAFF’s Governmental Affairs and Public Policy Division, which consists of three constituent departments: Legislative Affairs, Public Relations and Political Affairs. The Legislative Affairs Department develops policy objectives for the International and engages in lobbying efforts before Congress and various regulatory agencies. Political Affairs constructs an overall strategy to evaluate, endorse and assist candidates favorable to the IAFF in federal, state and local elections. The Department also oversees FIREPAC, a federally registered Political Action Committee, which contributed over seven million dollars through a combination of hard and soft money in the last election cycle. The Public Relations Department serves a dual role. The primary responsibility of the department is publishing the International Fire Fighter, a bi-monthly magazine with a distribution of 270,000 copies, and the IAFF Leader, an issues oriented newsletter for the affiliate leadership of the association.

Previously, Mr. O’Connor served concurrently as president of the Maryland State and District of Columbia Professional Fire Fighters and the Baltimore County Fire Fighters Association, Local 1311, with a collective membership of 7,500. Before ascending to president, Kevin served as trustee, legislative agent, vice president and secretary-treasurer.

He held the position of vice president and chairman of the Legislative and Economic Development Committees of the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO as well as serving as a Director of the Baltimore Port Council. For twelve years, Kevin was a trustee and chair of the two billion dollar Baltimore County Employees Retirement System. He served as chair of the Baltimore County Health Care Review Committee, which determined and negotiated all health and insurance benefits for that jurisdiction’s 12,000 employees. Mr. O’Connor was a gubernatorial appointee and commissioner on both the Maryland Economic Development Commission and the Maryland Fire Rescue Education and Training Commission. He also served as a Director of the Baltimore based First Mariner Bank Corporation. Kevin proudly served for fifteen years as a fire fighter/EMT in the Baltimore County Fire Department, where he saw duty both as a line fire fighter and as aide to the Chief of the Department. He received a commendation for bravery for a rescue during a multiple alarm apartment fire. Mr. O’Connor majored in Political Economy at Washington and Lee University and graduated from the Harvard Trade Union Program. He was honored by the State of Israel Bonds as Outstanding Labor Leader of 1999. Upon assuming his role at the IAFF, Mr. O’Connor was awarded life membership and the title of president emeritus of the Baltimore County Fire Fighters Association, Local 1311 and the Maryland State and District of Columbia Professional Fire Fighters.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/may12/oconnor.pdf

R. DAVID PAULISON
Director
Preparedness Division
And United States Fire Administrator
Federal Emergency Management Agency

Department of Homeland Security

TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE

House Science Committee

May 12, 2004

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is R. David Paulison. I am the Director of the Preparedness Division and the United States Fire Administrator in the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of Secretary Ridge.

Each year, fire injures and kills more Americans than the combined losses of all other natural disasters. Death rates by fire in the United States are among the highest in the industrialized world. The U.S. Fire Administration's mission to reduce loss of life and property because of fire and related emergencies is a sobering challenge, but also a hopeful challenge, since most of these deaths are preventable.

As a part of DHS, the staff works diligently to prevent these deaths, injuries, and the damage to property through leadership, advocacy, coordination and support in four basic mission areas: fire service training, public education and awareness, technology and research, and data analysis.

To accomplish this mission, we work with the fire service, other emergency responders and State and local governments to better prepare them to respond to all hazards, including acts of terrorism. We are also listening to State and local governments, and working with private industry, to provide standardized, practical, compatible equipment that works in all possible circumstances. We are assisting first responders and emergency managers practice and refine their response plans with partners at the local, State and Federal level. We will continue to provide training and education programs to prepare for the routine hazards as well as the emergent threats posed by WMD and terrorist incidents.

Today, I will focus my remarks on the U.S. Fire Administration and the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, known as the FIRE Act Grants, that USFA had the privilege of administering from its inception in 2001 through FY2003.

Accomplishments

The U.S. Fire Administration is a national leader in fire safety and prevention and in preparing communities to deal with fires and other hazards. USFA is working to support the efforts of local communities to reduce the number of fires and fire deaths and it champions Federal fire protection issues and coordinates information about fire programs.

In terms of our preparedness programs, we recognize the importance of training as a vital step toward a first responder community that is prepared to respond to any kind of emergency, ranging from a small fire to a terrorist attack involving a large number of victims. We continue to administer training and education programs for community leaders and first responders to help them prepare for and respond to emergencies regardless of cause or magnitude. DHS also provides equipment, vehicles, and training and wellness programs through our Assistance to Firefighter Grant program to help first responders perform their duties.

This year, Congress appropriated $750 million to provide grants directly to fire departments to build their basic response capabilities for all types of emergencies, including suppressing fires. This brings total funding for this grant program to more than one and a half billion dollars since the program began three years ago. This benefits the community as a whole and benefits other first responder entities by building the base capabilities of local fire departments to respond to all types of incidents. In 2004, the Office for Domestic Preparedness is managing, with our assistance, the fire grants program to offer one stop shopping for grants in the new Department. USFA will work closely with ODP to ensure the continued success of this vital program.

FEMA also continues to provide training in emergency management to our firefighters, law enforcement, emergency managers, healthcare workers, public works, and state and local officials, at our Emergency Management Institute. I would like to give you a few more details about these and other USFA activities.

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program

The FY 2001 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program met the goals and requirements delineated by Congress in the FY 2001 Defense Authorization bill [Public Law 106-398] that added Section 33 to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., the Fire Prevention and Control Act). Congress appropriated $100 million in the FY 2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related Agencies Appropriations Act [Public Law 106-554] to fund this program.

Section 33 of the Fire Act Prevention and Control Act outlined a new federal program to provide direct assistance to local fire departments in order to protect "the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards," and to provide assistance for fire prevention programs. The law also gave FEMA the discretion to make grants directly to "organizations that are recognized for their experience and expertise with respect to fire prevention or fire safety programs and activities, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention programs…[giving] priority to organizations that focus on prevention of injuries to children from fire."

FEMA was directed to establish an office to administer the program and criteria for the selection of recipients. The law also outlined 14 possible grant "categories," required a cost share based on the population protected by fire departments, mandated at least 5% of the funds be used for fire prevention, and limited the total amount that could be spent in the vehicles category to a maximum of 25% of appropriated funds. Congress also emphasized the importance of the balanced distribution of the funds to departments staffed by paid firefighters and those staffed by volunteers (or a combination of paid and unpaid firefighters), as well as geographical considerations such as departments located in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program provides competitive grants to address training, safety, prevention, apparatus, personal protective gear and other firefighting equipment needs as well as wellness and fitness issues of local fire departments. We have streamlined the online application process for fire grants and sped up the flow of resources to first responders, while ensuring that the funds are used effectively and appropriately. In 2001, 2002 and 2003, we received over 20,000 applications each year, from fire departments across the country.

As of April 13, 2004, FEMA has processed for the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program from FY01 to FY03, 20,137 grants payments totaling $696,466,838. The total for the Firefighter Assistance for FY 2001 is $91,050,915 for FY2002, 11,023 payments totaling $324,778,012 and for FY2003, 8,986 payments totaling $277,590,113. Fire Prevention grants for FY2002 is 128 payments totaling $3,047,798.

Beginning with the 2001 Grant Program, the Emergency Education NETwork (EENET) broadcast valuable information on the grant programs and process. Prior to the application period in FY2003, EENET broadcasted an actual applicant workshop, which was rebroadcast several times during the application period. We heard from many organizations that this eased the application process. We began announcing the FY 2003 awards to successful applicants in June 2003 and completed them three months ahead of schedule in February of 2004.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation to appear today before the Committee, you asked that I specifically address three questions in regards to the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program.

First, how effective has the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program been and what needs still exist with regard to insuring the ability of our fire departments to respond to day-to-day hazards?

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program in its short three-year existence has provided a tremendous amount of equipment, training and educational programs across the nation. At present there has not been an evaluation of its impact. The reason for this is the nature in which these projects are undertaken, completed and the resulting impact on public safety. In many cases the vehicles purchased are just coming on line, the training provided is just now being internalized and the public education campaigns are underway.

We have recommended to ODP that in this and the next fiscal year that a study be undertaken to attempt to quantify the impact of the program on local fire departments and fire safety. We believe that the GAO and the FEMA IG's office has also recommended such a study and we will be working with ODP on that effort.

Second, describe the role that non-government participation has played in administering the program and should their roles be modified, and if so how?

Lauded by many, the Peer review process for the fire grants process has been a tremendous success. The process allows a diverse sample of the national fire services community to review and rank the applications. It allows over 400 fire services members, both career and volunteer, from large and small communities, from rural and suburban areas to play a significant role in making award recommendations. This allows the fire services, who best know the needs of that community to have a substantive role in the decision making process. The present process of outside groups and individual firefighter involvement significantly enhances the entire grant program and should not be modified.

Third, in regards to the September 2003 Department of Homeland Security Inspectors General's report on the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, what actions has USFA taken to respond to the report's recommendations?

The September 2003 IG report contains several recommendations that are worthy of implementing and a few that have already been implemented. We are working with ODP to continue that effort and would be happy to provide you with the text of our reply to the IG should you desire it.

Challenges

Reducing the loss of life and property caused by fire remains a significant challenge. Each year, fire kills more than 4,000 people and injures more than 22,000. Annual property losses due to fire are estimated at nearly $10 billion. And, firefighters pay a high price. In 2003, 109 firefighters died while on duty. These losses are unacceptable because most can be prevented.

While the numbers are still too high, great progress is being made to reduce the toll from fires. Since 1974, when Congress passed the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act, and established the United States Fire Administration and its National Fire Academy -- USFA has helped to reduce fire deaths significantly. Over the last 10 years, fires have declined by 16 percent. During this same period, a 22 percent decline in civilian deaths and a 31 percent drop in civilian injuries were also reported.

Conclusion

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to appear before you today. Your continued support is greatly appreciated. I will be glad to answer any questions you and other Members of the Committee may have.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/may12/paulison.htm

James M. Shannon
President and CEO
NFPA

Testimony
Before the
Committee on Science
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC
May 12, 2004

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon and members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before this Committee today. My name is James M. Shannon, and I am President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Fire Protection Association. NFPA is a non-profit organization; founded more than 100 years ago, with a mission to save lives through scientifically based consensus codes and standards, fire and life safety education and training, and fire research and analysis. NFPA consensus codes and standards are adopted by state and local jurisdictions throughout the United States and widely used by the federal government. Today NFPA has nearly 300 codes and standards addressing safety, each accredited by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and developed by technical experts, the fire service, and others participating as volunteers in a consensus process. This process ensures that all interested parties have a say in developing standards. Congress affirmed its support for voluntary consensus standards in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L.104-113) and reaffirmed that support in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the law that created the new department. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security adopted five NFPA personal protective equipment standards.

As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, I wish to testify in support of H.R. 4107. This legislation will codify much of the important work the United States Fire Administration (USFA) has done in administering this crucial grant program since 2001. From day one, USFA has worked with the nation’s fire service to ensure that this program is managed in a way that best meets the existing needs.

First, let me state emphatically that the reauthorization of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, commonly known as the FIRE Grant program, is extremely important to the effectiveness of the fire service throughout the United States. This program addresses every element of the fire service including fire suppression, prevention, code enforcement, and emergency medical response. In May of 1973 the Chairman of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, Richard E. Bland, transmitted to President Nixon its final report "America Burning." In that report the Commission recommended establishment of the United States Fire Administration to:

Evaluate the nation's fire problem through data collection and analysis and research,
Create a National Fire Academy to improve training and education for fire service personnel,
Strengthen public awareness of the fire threat, and
Provide grants to state and local governments.

Before Congress wisely created the FIRE Grant Program, USFA was unable to use that final key function with the scale and breadth needed to help America’s fire service achieve full effectiveness in its role of protecting the public. Now, with the continuing support of Congress, and with diligent administration by USFA, this program is addressing the needs of the fire service and promoting public safety.

The staff at USFA has done a tremendous job in administering the FIRE Grant Program. Since its creation in FY2001, this program has provided more than $1 billion in financial resources directly to fire departments.

Nonetheless, fire departments have applied for more than $7 billion, and the real needs are even greater than this, as I shall discuss. It is crucial that the FIRE Grant Program be maintained as a separate and distinct funding source where fire departments can receive direct funding from the federal government and avoid unnecessary red tape. I would also urge the Congress to fund the program at a level no less than its authorized amount of $900 million dollars.

When I said the needs are much greater than the currently authorized and appropriated amounts for the FIRE Grant program, I was speaking on the basis of the “Needs Assessment Survey” of the fire service, which was specifically commissioned by Congress as part of the FIRE Act and which was completed just over a year ago by NFPA in cooperation with FEMA/USFA. Let me share with you a few of the major findings from that survey.

Only one in every 10 fire departments has the local personnel and equipment required to respond effectively to a building collapse or the release of chemical or biological agents with even minimal to moderate casualties;
50% of our firefighters involved in "technical rescue" lack formal training, but technical rescue involving unique or complex conditions is precisely the skill they would need to respond to a terrorist attack;
There are other huge gaps in training – There has been no formal training for 21% of those involved in structural firefighting; for 27% of those involved in EMS work; and for 40% who are sent in to deal with hazardous materials;
And we don’t protect our firefighters as we should. One third of the protective clothing worn by firefighters sent into a burning building is more than 10 years old, and an estimated 57,000 firefighters lack any protective clothing at all;
On a typical fire department shift, 45% of first responding firefighters lack portable radios; 36% lack self-contained breathing apparatus; and 42% answer an emergency call without a Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) device that is critical in locating an injured or trapped firefighter;
Finally, at least 65% of cities and towns nationwide don’t have enough fire stations to achieve widely recognized response-time guidelines. Those guidelines recommend that firefighters be on the scene of any situation within 4 minutes, 90% of the time.

In the next 2-3 months, NFPA will release a needs assessment on each of the 50 states, based on further analysis of the data collected for the national fire service needs assessment. We fully expect these reports to demonstrate that fire departments in every part of the nation share in the national needs and require the help this grant program has been providing. The Needs Assessment began before the horrific events of September 11, 2001, but because of the foresight of USFA and our fire service advisors, the survey included extensive attention to terrorism preparedness. When the Council on Foreign Relations began an exercise, under former Senator Warren Rudman, to develop cost estimates of terrorism preparedness for the entire first responder community at all levels of government, the Needs

Assessment permitted NFPA to develop and substantiate the fire service portion of these cost estimates with unusual detail. In its report released last year, the Council estimated that it would take $98.4 billion in additional funds above current spending (estimated at $26-76 billion) over the next 5 years, or $19.7 billion per year, to meet the needs of our first responders to handle the additional responsibilities of homeland security. The fire service portion of this, based on the Council’s use of NFPA’s analysis of the Needs Assessment Survey, was $26.5 billion in initial costs and $7.1 billion per year in ongoing costs. Chairman Boehlert, your legislation takes the next, appropriate step, and that is to provide the resources to update the original needs assessment. Now that FIRE Grant Program is in its fourth year, it is important to have empirical data to show how this program is addressing the needs the original study documented. This updated study would measure the impact of the grant program on the shortfalls identified by NFPA’s original assessment.

In addition, HR 4107 protects the fire prevention and education portion of the FIRE Grant program. While it is only five percent of the total funding, fire prevention and education activities conducted by our fire departments, educators, and other community leaders address a pressing need. These programs often reach out to high-risk groups who disproportionably die in fires: children, older adults and the disadvantaged. Some disturbing statistics about these groups:

Children five and younger and adults sixty-five and older have a death rate from fire and burns that is roughly twice the rate of the population as a whole
These two groups account for over 40% of all civilian fatalities
Fire risk is highest in rural areas and large urban areas- the same communities where poverty and other high-risk conditions are most widespread

We cannot continue to ask our firefighters to do more with fewer resources. We would not expect the men and women in our armed services to defend our nation without proper training, equipment and staffing. But as the country braces for the unknown at home, our nation's firefighters, who are nearly always the first responders in any crisis, need more help in order to protect our citizenry or themselves.

Fire departments face many difficult decisions. We can no longer ask our fire departments to survive entirely on local tax revenue supplemented by potluck dinners, auctions and fundraisers. The FIRE Grant program is beginning to address the shortfalls, which we know exist.

The federal government must continue to provide adequate resources through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and to support our firefighters to meet the many challenges they face every day. Your legislation will help to ensure that this program does just that. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I am happy to answer any questions you have.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/may12/shannon.pdf

Chief Ernest Mitchell, Ret.
H.R. 4107, The Assistance to Firefighters
Reauthorization Act of 2004
Statement
before the
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
May 12, 2004
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
4025 FAIR RIDGE DRIVE • FAIRFAX, VA 22033-2868
TEL 703.273.0911 • FAX 703.273.9363

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ernest Mitchell, recently retired chief of the Pasadena (CA) Fire Department. I appear today as president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), which represents the leadership and management of America’s fire and emergency service. America’s fire and emergency service reaches every community across the nation, covering urban, suburban and rural neighborhoods. Nearly 1.1 million men and women serve in 30,000 career, volunteer and combination fire departments across the United States. The fire service is the only entity that is locally situated, staffed, and equipped to respond to all types of emergencies. Members of the fire service respond to natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes and floods as well as to manmade catastrophes, both accidental and deliberate. As such, America’s fire service is an all-risk, all-hazard response entity.

The FIRE Act Grant Program Works
Mr. Chairman, in your invitation you asked witnesses to address H.R. 4107, your bill to reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, better known as the FIRE Act. The FIRE Act is one of the most important relationships between the fire service and the federal government. On behalf of the IAFC, I commend you for taking a leadership role in this reauthorization.

We consistently hear from our members that they have a great number of needs to be met, ranging from pumpers to self-contained breathing apparatus to training. We are pleased to note, Mr. Chairman, that your bill would authorize a new survey to determine the current level of need in America’s fire service.

We are also very pleased that your bill would reauthorize a highly effective federal grant program. Congressional, administration, and fire service officials alike have called the FIRE Act one of the very best federal grant programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a program analysis in 2003, proclaiming that the FIRE Act works. In USDA’s own words, the FIRE Act “has been highly effective in increasing the safety and effectiveness of grant recipients . . . 99% of program participants are satisfied with the program’s ability to meet the needs of their department . . . [and] 97% of program participants reported positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.”1 There are good reasons for the FIRE Act’s success, and they are the five pillars of the program.

First, funds go directly to local fire departments for the purposes intended. There is no opportunity for the money to get bottlenecked at intermediate levels as with so much other first responder funding.

Second, grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and not based on a pre-determined formula. We cannot equip this nation’s fire service with a one-size-fits-all formula. Formulas cannot account for whether a particular community is a city with mostly high-rise buildings, or whether it is an area out west that is more susceptible to wildland fires. Formulas cannot account for local budgets, or the age and level of use of the equipment in each of this nation’s 30,000-plus fire departments. If a fire chief can make a good case for a grant, the competitive process will acknowledge that.

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture Executive Potential Program Team 6, Survey, Assessment, and Recommendations for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Final Report, prepared for the U.S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, January 31, 2003, p. 40 (emphasis removed).

The third pillar of the FIRE Act is that grant applications are peer-reviewed. That means fire service people are looking at fire service grants. Experienced and informed members of the fire service community know what kinds of equipment and training we really need.

The fourth point is that grants are supplemental only; they may not supplant local funds. The point of the FIRE Act is to raise the capability of fire departments across the country, not to replace line items in local budgets. A local community may not reduce the department’s budget to offset a FIRE Act grant.

The fifth and final pillar of the FIRE Act’s success is that it requires a co-payment by the community. This is really a requirement of community “buy-in” to the idea of improving the fire service and, therefore, advancing public safety. It is a clear demonstration of a community’s partnership with the federal government to increase the capability of protecting this nation’s critical infrastructure. Local Control Must Be Maintained Perhaps the most prominent theme that unifies the five pillars of the FIRE Act is local control. Local fire chiefs, in consultation with their firefighters and community leaders, decide what is most important to the community. These requests are then competitively reviewed by the people that are most familiar with the needs, local fire service representatives from across the country. Finally, the local community must “buy-in” to the grant by providing matching funds and agreeing that federal dollars will not supplant regular local funding to the fire department. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this consistent level of local involvement and control lies at the very heart of the FIRE Act’s sustained success.

We are concerned that this local control is being eroded. Perhaps the most obvious example is the current emphasis by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) on the fire service’s response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) incidents. As you are aware, formal management of the FIRE Act was transferred this fiscal year from the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) to ODP. While ODP has committed to running the program in substantially the same manner as USFA, we are concerned about the strong emphasis on terrorism response. Acts of terrorism are just some of the many hazards to which America’s fire service responds. Congress has made it clear that the FIRE Act is intended to build the basic tools of firefighting in order to enhance our all-hazards response.

2 We are concerned that ODP’s emphasis on terrorism might undermine this overarching goal and begin the transformation of the FIRE Act into a terrorism-response program. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for including in your bill a provision to move the FIRE Act back within the jurisdiction of the USFA. The IAFC supported placing USFA in charge of the FIRE Act in the initial authorization, and we support it now. The USFA has very successfully managed this program, and we commend Administrator David Paulison for his outstanding leadership.

2 See, for example, appropriations report language for FY2003: “The conferees have agreed to establish this new appropriations account for firefighter assistance grants [the Emergency Management Planning and Assistance account] so that there will be no doubt as to the importance of this program and to protect this program from being lost in the morass of the Department of Homeland Security” (H.R. Rep. No. 108-010, Title III (2003). In report language for FY2004, Congress said: “This Committee . . . recommends the program remain in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate in a separate appropriation so there is no doubt as to its importance, and to protect this program from being lost in the first responders grant programs” (H.R. Rep. No. 108-169, Title III (2004).

Our second concern related to the loss of local control is the proposed earmark of up to four percent of funding to volunteer emergency medical service (EMS) agencies. The FIRE Act has largely avoided earmarks, preferring to let the strength of individual grant applications speak for themselves. While we feel that providing financial assistance to volunteer EMS agencies is a laudable goal, modifying the FIRE Act is not the best way to accomplish it. The FIRE Act is meant to improve the readiness and response of local fire departments. Maintaining this clearly defined purpose is critical to the long-term success of the program. Setting aside earmarks for volunteer EMS agencies would erode this singular focus. Once the door has been opened to expand the list of eligible agencies, Congress would get requests to further expand the program from EMS agencies affiliated with hospitals, third service career agencies, and from private, for-profit corporations. The FIRE Act would then cease to be a core fire service program.

Our final concern is about the so-called “anti-discrimination clause.” The IAFC believes that discrimination has no part in America’s fire service and we have worked hard to eliminate discrimination wherever it appears. Eighteen months ago the IAFC surveyed our members and discovered that a significant number of them had been subjected to some form of inappropriate peer pressure, harassment, or outright intimidation regarding their service as volunteers. We support the right of a citizen to volunteer his or her time and abilities to a fire department. We challenged our members, the leaders of the fire service, to crack down on this inappropriate behavior that undermines, in a profoundly damaging way, individual freedom and the civic ties that pull our local communities together.

However, I would like to be clear, Mr. Chairman, that despite the IAFC’s strong position on this issue and my own personal support of the volunteer fire service, we do not believe that amending the FIRE Act is the best way to resolve this issue. Representatives of 10 key fire service organizations addressed this topic in February, when we got together to discuss this reauthorization. We submitted a white paper to Congress that reflected the consensus we reached on what we think are the most important elements of this program. We discussed the issue of discrimination. The 10 organizations at the table agreed that the FIRE Act was not the place to resolve these sometimes divisive issues. The FIRE Act is meant to equip fire departments with the tools and training they need to do their jobs.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing this bill and for holding this hearing on a most important federal grant program. The FIRE Act is an endeavor for which the taxpayers and the federal government can – and should – be proud. I will be happy to answer any of your questions.

Ernest Mitchell
President
Chief Mitchell has 30 years of fire service experience, 20 as a chief officer and the past 10 as fire chief. An IAFC member since 1987, he has served on both the Diversity and Program Planning Committees and was a member of the Fire Chief Designation Task Force and a participant in the 2000 Strategic Planning Process. A recipient of the 1999 IAFC President's Award for service, Mitchell earned bachelor's and master's degrees in public administration and is past president of the Foothill Chiefs, Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs and League of California Cities Fire Chiefs associations.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/may12/mitchell.pdf

Andrew T. Mitchell
Deputy Director
Office for Domestic Preparedness

Statement
Before

The

Committee on Science

U.S. House of Representatives

May 12, 2004
Washington, D.C.

Chairman Boehlert, Congressman Hall, and Members of the Committee, my name is Andrew Mitchell, and I serve as the Deputy Director of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). On behalf of Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the current status of ODP and other issues of critical importance.

On behalf of all of us at DHS, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman, and all the members of the Committee, for your ongoing support for the Department and for ODP. The Congress has entrusted us with a great responsibility, and we are meeting that responsibility with the utmost diligence.

ODP is responsible for preparing our Nation against terrorism by assisting States, local jurisdictions, regional authorities, and Tribal governments with building their capacity to prepare for, prevent, and respond to acts of terrorism. Through its programs and activities, ODP equips, trains, exercises, and supports State and local homeland security personnel -- our nation's first responders -- who may be called upon to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.

ODP has established an outstanding track record of capacity building at the State, local, territorial, and Tribal levels, by combining subject matter expertise, grant-making know-how, and establishing strong and long-standing ties to the nation's public safety community. Since its creation in 1998, ODP has established strong ties to the emergency response community, including the fire services community.

ODP has provided assistance to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. Through its programs and initiatives ODP has trained 325,000 emergency responders from more than 5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more than 300 exercises. And, by the end of Fiscal Year 2004, ODP will have provided States and localities with more than $8.1 billion in assistance and direct support.

ODP's support comes through a number of different programs, but principal financial assistance is provided through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which in FY 2004 combined three separate programs: the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the Citizen Corps Program. Additionally, in FY 2004, ODP is responsible for the administration of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program, more commonly known as the Fire Act Grants, was transferred to ODP. The funding level for the FY 2004 program is $750 million, which was equal to the previous year's funding level.

As part of this transfer, and to ensure a smooth and seamless transition, ODP worked very closely with DHS' Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate and the United States Fire Administration. ODP conducted regular weekly meetings and had continuous contact with FEMA's and the United States Fire Administration's financial, information technology, regional, program, congressional and legislative affairs staffs.

This year, the Application Kit and Guidance for the Fiscal Year 2004 grant funds opened on March 1st, and closed on April 2nd . To better serve the fire service community, these materials, as well as additional information and resource materials, were posted on the ODP and USFA Websites. The FY 2004 AFG Program will provide funding in three program areas, which were selected based on discussions with the fire services community. These areas are: Firefighting Operations and Safety (which includes Training, Equipment, Personal Protective Equipment, Wellness and Fitness Programs, and Modification of Facilities); Fire Prevention; and Firefighting Vehicles.

One change in the FY 2004 AFG Program was that emergency medical services (EMS) was not a separate category. Instead, the Department merged the EMS program area within the Fire Operations and Safety program. This change was made because, in most fire departments, firefighters have multiple roles, including suppressing fires, performing rescues, and providing EMS services. The Department anticipates that this change should increase the number of requests for EMS equipment and training, since it permits departments to request EMS funding without excluding funding from other support areas.

Additionally, in FY 04, in an effort to provide local fire departments with greater flexibility and discretion to meet their equipment needs, they may also use Fire Act Grant funds to purchase additional equipment related to WMD response similar to what may be purchased under ODP's Homeland Security Grant Program. This type of equipment has always been eligible for funding under the AFG Program, but, given the dual-use nature equipment, the Department believes it important to highlight the acquisition of this type of equipment. In instances where a fire department is requesting equipment or training that is related to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives, (CBRNE), the Department will ask the state's homeland security office to review the application to ensure that it is consistent with the state's homeland security strategy. Each State will be asked to provide the AFG program office with a representative to carry out a technical review of applications from the State that include CBRNE-related requests and that have been rated as fundable by ODP's peer review panelists. During the technical review, the State representative will attest to and certify that any CBRNE-related requests are consistent with the State's homeland security plan, and that the requests do not duplicate assistance already provided or about to be provided.

The Department further believes that the transfer of the AFG Program was highly successful. This year, ODP received 20,348 applications, which is slightly more than the number received last year.

66% of these applications were under the "Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety program;"
33% were for Firefighting Vehicles; and
1% were for under the Fire Prevention category.

As in past years, the Department received applications from different types of fire departments, including:

67 percent of the applications received were from "All Volunteer" fire departments;
19 percent of the applications were from combination fire departments;
9 percent were from "All Paid" or "Career" fire departments; and
5 percent from "Paid on Call/Stipend" departments.

Through these applications, fire departments across the country requested more than $2.3 billion in federal support. The average request for funds varied according to the type of department. For instance, the average request for funds from urban fire departments was $180,991. Suburban fire departments requested on average $155,439, while rural fire departments requested on average $107,445.

ODP is currently in the process of conducting the peer-review panels for AFG Program applications. The panels were convened on April 13 and finished their reviews on April 27, 2004. As in past years, the panel sessions were conduced at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Based on the work of the panelists, and the number of applications that we received, the Department anticipates that the first awards will be announced during the first week of June.

Throughout the FY 2004 application period, ODP was committed to a successful program. In an effort to better prepare the fire service, we provided new resources that were not available in the past. We developed a CD-ROM that contains all pertinent FY '04 program information, including a self-study tutorial on the grant application process.

ODP, along with USFA and FEMA, continued the successful practice of holding local workshops for fire departments across the country in order to provide valuable information and guidance on the application process. These workshops provide invaluable assistance to fire departments as they complete and submit their funding applications. During the FY 2004 application period, ODP, in coordination with USFA and the FEMA Regional Field Offices, conducted 346 workshops, which were attended by more than 4,000 fire department officials.

In addition to our support of the Fire Service through the Fire Act Grants, DHS is also working to better protect fire fighters in their daily work.

As such, the Department recently adopted its first standards regarding personal protective equipment developed to protect first responders against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents.

These standards, which will assist state and local procurement officials and manufacturers, are intended to provide emergency personnel with the best available protective gear.

The Department adopted these standards, which were developed in partnership with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These guidelines, which have also been adopted by the Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability, include NIOSH standards for CBRN three main categories of respiratory protection equipment and five current NFPA standards for protective suits and clothing to be used in responding to chemical, biological and radiological attacks.

These standards reflect the continuing support of a multi-year program in Homeland Security's Science and Technology division, managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to develop chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear and explosive protective equipment standards. This program, which transitioned from the Department's Office of Domestic Preparedness in 2003, continues to facilitate the development of performance standards and test methods for first responder protective and operational equipment.

Let me assure you that we at ODP recognize the importance that continued support for the fire service through the Fire Act Grants represents, particularly to rural and volunteer fire departments, as well as to urban and suburban departments. For many of these departments, these funds are critical to their operations.

We at ODP look forward to continuing to provide the fire service with the valuable resources available through the Fire Act Grant Program. The President's FY 2005 budget request of $500 million is equal to the FY 2004 request. As you know, this is the beginning of a long appropriations process, and we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that you and your colleagues in the fire services receive the support that you need to do your vitally important work.

I am confident that by working with you and your colleagues in the fire service and with the Congress, we will make this an even more successful program in the future. At this point, I would be happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full04/may12/mitchell.htm

Section by Section Summary of H.R. 4107
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004

Mr. BOEHLERT (for himself, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania,
Mr. HOYER, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. COX, Mr.
TURNER of Texas, and Mrs. LOWEY) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Science

A BILL

To reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program
under section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assistance to Firefighters Grant Reauthorization Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that

(1) there are 1,100,000 firefighters serving in over 30,000 fire departments in the United States;
(2) fire departments responded to nearly 1,700,000 fires in 2002;
(3) every 19 seconds a fire department responds to a fire somewhere in the United States;
(4) in 2003, 110 firefighters died in the line of duty;
(5) fires resulted in the deaths of 3,380 civilians in 2002;
(6) nationwide there is a civilian fire death every 156 minutes;
(7) in 2002, 18,425 people sustained injuries from fires;
(8) in 2002 there was an estimated $10,337,000,000 in property damage caused by fires, including $6,055,000,000 worth of property loss to residential properties; (9) for communities with populations between 10,000 and 1,000,000, it is estimated that approximately 1⁄4 of emergency responders on a shift lack radios, and this percentage increases as community size decreases;
(10) an estimated one-third of firefighters per shift are not equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA);
(11) nearly half of all self-contained breathing apparatus units are at least 10 years old;
(12) nearly half of firefighters on a shift lack personal alert system (PASS) devices;
(13) an estimated 57,000 firefighters lack personal protective clothing;
(14) one-third of personal protective clothing is at least 10 years old;
(15) half of all fire engines are at least 15 years old;
(16) only one-fourth of fire departments have the ability to communicate with Federal, State, and local partners;
(17) only one-fourth of fire departments have thermal imaging cameras;
(18) only one fire department in 28 has mobile data terminals;
(19) only one fire department in 50 has advanced personnel location equipment;
(20) only one fire department in 23 has equipment to collect chemical or biological samples;
(21) an estimated 42 percent of the population is protected by fire departments that do not have a program for free distribution of home smoke alarms;
(22) an estimated 48 percent of the population is protected by fire departments that do not have a juvenile firesetter program;
(23) an estimated 27 percent of the population is protected by fire departments that do not have a fire safety education program based on a national curriculum;
(24) only 11 percent of fire departments can respond to a technical rescue involving emergency medical services at a building collapse with local personnel, and nearly half of all departments consider such an incident outside their scope;
(25) only 13 percent of fire departments can respond to a hazmat incident involving emergency medical services with local personnel, and two-fifths of all departments consider such an incident outside their scope;
(26) only 26 percent of fire departments can respond to a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres with local personnel, and one-third of all departments consider such an incident outside their scope; and
(27) only 12 percent of fire departments can handle mitigation of a developing major flood with local personnel, and a majority of fire departments consider such an incident outside their scope.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS.

Section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229) is amended

(1) by striking ‘‘Director’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Administrator’’;
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ‘‘and volunteer emergency medical service squads’’ after ‘‘fire departments’’;
(3) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ‘‘and firefighter safety research and development’’ after ‘‘fire prevention’’;
(4) in subsection (b)(3)(F), by inserting ‘‘and volunteer emergency medical service squads that are not affiliated with a fire department, hospital, or for-profit entity’’ after ‘‘fire departments’’;
(5) in subsection (b)(4)

(A) by inserting ‘‘AND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT’’ after ‘‘PREVENTION’’ in the paragraph heading;
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii)

(i) by inserting ‘‘that are not fire departments and’’ after ‘‘community organizations’’;
(ii) by inserting ‘‘and firefighter research and development programs,’’ after ‘‘fire safety programs and activities,’’; and (iii) by inserting ‘‘and research to improve firefighter health and life safety’’ after ‘‘fire prevention programs’’; and

(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘to children from fire’’ and inserting ‘‘to high risk groups from fire, as well as research programs that demonstrate the potential to improve firefighter safety’’;

(6) in subsection (b)(6)

(A) in subparagraph (A)

(i) by striking ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (B) and (C)’’; and
(ii) by striking ‘‘30 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘20 percent’’; and

(B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:

‘‘(C) FIRE PREVENTION AND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY GRANTS.—There shall be no matching requirement for a grant described in paragraph 1
(4)(A)(ii).’’;

(7) in subsection (b)(10) (A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:

‘‘(A) RECIPIENT LIMITATIONS.—A grant recipient under this section ‘‘(i) that serves a jurisdiction with 500,000 people or less may not receive grants in excess of $1,000,000 for any fiscal year; ‘‘(ii) that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000 but not more than 1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $2,000,000 for any fiscal year; and ‘‘(iii) that serves a jurisdiction with more than 1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $3,000,000 for any fiscal year.

The Administrator may award grants in excess of the limitations provided in clause (i) or (ii) to a recipient that serves a population close to the relevant threshold, upon a showing of sufficient need.’’;

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph: ‘‘(B) DISTRIBUTION.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), no single recipient may receive more than one half of one percent of the funds appropriated under this section for a single fiscal year.’’; and

(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ‘‘(D) VOLUNTEER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE LIMITATION.—Not more than 4 percent of the funds appropriated to provide grants under this section for a fiscal year may be awarded to volunteer emergency medical service squads.’’;

(8) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

(13) ANNUAL MEETING.—The Administrator shall convene an annual meeting of non-Federal fire service experts, including representatives from a wide range of fire service organizations, to recommend criteria for awarding grants under this section for the next fiscal year and recommend any necessary administrative changes to the grant program.

(14) GUIDELINES.—

(A) Each year, prior to making any grants under this section, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register

(i) guidelines that describe the process for applying for grants and the criteria for awarding grants; and
(ii) an explanation of any differences between the guidelines and the recommendations made pursuant to paragraph (1).

‘‘(B) The criteria for award