[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 18, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H13086-H13090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3791, FIRE GRANTS REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2009
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 909 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
[[Page H13087]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 909
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3791) to amend sections 33 and 34 of the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Science and Technology now printed in the bill modified by
the amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under
clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule
XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question. All points of order against such amendments are
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Science and Technology or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Resolution 909.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maine?
There was no objection.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 909 provides a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants
Reauthorization Act of 2009. The rules waive all points of order
against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9
or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology. The
rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Science and Technology Committee modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report shall be
considered as adopted and shall be considered as read. The rule waives
all points of order against the substitute amendment, except those
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the
amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report and waives
all points of order against such amendments except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all five of the
amendments submitted for consideration. The Chair may not entertain a
motion to rise unless offered by the Chair of the Committee on Science
and Technology or his designee, and may not entertain a motion to
strike the enacting clause.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3791 reauthorizes funding for two vital programs
that support our local firefighters and our communities: the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire
and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program. These two programs go
hand in hand by providing assistance that keeps local fire departments
prepared and able to respond, while assuring that each department is
adequately staffed to meet the needs of the community. The AFG program
provides funding for local fire departments to purchase equipment,
vehicles and training, and the SAFER grants program helps local
departments maintain and hire firefighters.
The success of both programs has been indisputable and their impacts
have been felt in each of our districts. Since 2001, the AFG program
has provided over $4.8 billion in funding to local fire departments to
purchase emergency response training and equipment. Since 2004, the
SAFER program has competitively awarded $700 million to local
departments for hiring, recruitment and retention of fire fighters. The
effect of both programs can be simply stated. Each dollar saves lives
and jobs.
While this funding has been essential, the unmet needs of our local
departments remain staggering. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency received over 20,000 applications from fire
departments requesting over $3 billion. In the same fiscal year, FEMA
also received over 1,000 applications for SAFER grants, requesting over
$500 million. The National Fire Protection Association estimates that
65 percent of fire departments in the United States do not have enough
portable radios to equip all firefighters, and that 36 percent of all
fire departments involved in emergency medical responses do not have
enough adequately trained personnel to respond to these emergencies.
The numbers speak for themselves. During these tough economic times,
the needs of our local fire departments have been exacerbated and local
resources have been stretched to the breaking point. Communities in
rural areas, which have always been strapped for resources and
struggled to compete for Federal funds, have been hit exceptionally
hard by this economic downturn.
{time} 1145
In Portland, Maine, one of the more urban areas that I represent,
nine firefighters in the Portland region were recently laid off due to
significant budget cuts. But the local unions stepped up and
unanimously stood up to support their laid-off colleagues out of their
own pay checks.
While this is a great example of people pulling together during tough
times, and it may exemplify part of what we admire about first
responders, this is simply an unacceptable solution. The Federal
Government has no higher charge than to provide for the common
protection and the common good of its citizens and to support this work
at the local level. It is time to reinvest in our emergency responders
and renew our commitment to these critical programs.
This funding is also critical in rural towns across the country.
Raymond, Maine, in my district, for example, is a town of less than
5,000 residents and a fire department that is mostly made up of
volunteers. In 2008 when they realized that their SCBAs, self-contained
breathing apparatus, on all of their trucks were outdated and didn't
meet the current requirements, they turned to this program. And thanks
to a $150,000 grant, Raymond, Maine, was able to purchase the equipment
they so desperately needed. Stories like this are now more common
because of the SAFER program.
The safety of our homes and our neighborhoods has never been a
partisan issue, and the bravery and service of our local fire
departments has never been in question. This is clearly demonstrated by
the broad bipartisan support for this bill and the strong endorsements
from the International Association of Firefighters and the National
Volunteer Fire Council.
I look forward to the passage of this important legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Haven for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H13088]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my Rules Committee colleague has pointed at
the fact that this is a bipartisan measure. Dealing with issues of
firefighting obviously transcend partisanship in every way. And this is
a very, very important measure that will, in fact, have, I suspect,
unanimous support here on the House floor. She has outlined
appropriately the two grant programs, the Assistance to Firefighters
program which will provide $12.2 billion, and the SAFER program which
will provide $1 billion in assistance. And I believe that this is a
measure which is critically important as we look at the challenges of
the Federal Government's role in dealing with firefighting.
Mr. Speaker, this past August 26 was a devastating day in southern
California history. We saw the largest fire in Los Angeles County
history burn 160,000 acres. It was a horrible, horrible time, because
above all of it, we lost two courageous firefighters, Captain Ted Hall
and Specialist Arnie Quinones. And when one thinks about where it is
that we are going on this issue, it is critical that we do every single
thing that we can for the brave men and women who are firefighters.
And, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for us to never forget what
it is that happened in Los Angeles or in other fires. There was a
memorial service that was held at Dodgers Stadium several weeks ago.
And I was struck at that service with the fact that firefighters stood
up and said that the one thing that continues to happen is that while
the populace at large may have a tendency to forget these things,
firefighters never, ever forget their own. And that is why there is a
redoubling of the commitment to the spouses, the children and other
family members of Captain Ted Hall and Specialist Arnie Quinones.
This program is important, and it has a Federal component, I believe,
in large part due to the fact that the area that burned just above La
Canada, California, is an area that consists of the Angeles National
Forest, which is Federal land. So I hope very much that we are able to
proceed in a bipartisan way in dealing with this issue.
If you think about the sacrifice that is made, on average 75,000
firefighters are injured every single year, and on average 100
firefighters are killed every single year as they are proceeding with
their very, very important work. That is why this program will, I
believe, go a long way towards diminishing the loss of life and the
threat to those people and at the same time diminish the threat of fire
overall.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as important as this issue is, and my friend from
North Haven has pointed to the fact that it is bipartisan, I believe
this measure should be considered under either suspension of the rules,
because while the five amendments that were offered were made in order,
I'm convinced that under the able leadership of the committee of
jurisdiction, there could have been an agreement that would have
allowed this to come up with 20 minutes of debate. Just as the last
measures that we have considered were considered under suspension of
the rules, this very easily could have. But since it's not, it
obviously should be considered under an open amendment process.
Now it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress,
this entire Congress without a single open rule. And that is, I think,
a very, very unfortunate thing. It is a step forward that every
amendment submitted upstairs to the Rules Committee was made in order.
But why not consider it under an open amendment process which would
allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to
this legislation?
So I also have to say that the amount of time that we are expending
on this is, I believe, not necessary in light of the fact that as
important as it is, it enjoys strong bipartisan support, as both of us
have said.
I believe what the American people want us to be doing here, Mr.
Speaker, is focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. We all know that when the
stimulus package, the $787 billion stimulus package passed, President
Obama said that its passage would ensure that we would not see an
unemployment rate that would exceed 8 percent.
We all know that today, tragically, the unemployment rate is at 10.2
percent. In my State of California, it's 12.2 percent. In some of the
areas that I represent around Los Angeles, it's up over 14 percent. And
that's why what we should be doing is focusing on issues that will
create jobs so that those individuals who are losing their homes and
losing their small businesses are not going to continue to suffer.
Now what should we be doing? At this moment, President Obama is in
Seoul, South Korea. And we know that denuclearizing the Korean
peninsula is obviously a high priority. But just as was discussed when
President Obama was in Beijing, similarly in Seoul, the priority issue
being discussed is the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.
Now there are a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, who say, why, when you're
dealing with economic difficulties would you possibly consider
embarking on a free-trade agreement? Well, guess what? There are very
important reasons. The main reason is that it's one of the most
important ways that we can create jobs right here in the United States
of America.
Let's take just a moment, and I wish we were debating this agreement
which has been completed, similarly the Colombia and the Panama
agreements have been completed which would be job creators right here
in the United States. Automobiles, the automobile industry is hurting
in the United States, and we know that there is this massive disparity
between the number of automobiles going from the United States of
America being sold in Korea, that number is actually just under 10,000,
and the number of Korean automobiles that are sold in the United
States; 700,000 Korean automobiles are purchased by Americans.
Now I think everyone should have a right to buy the best quality
product at the lowest possible price, but I believe we should do
everything that we can to have an opportunity to create more jobs here
in the United States of America in the automobile industry and every
other industry that is tied to that, by creating a market opening, a
market-opening vehicle for us in South Korea.
Now, people ask, well, why would you want to do an agreement that
would make that happen? The reason is very simple. The tariff is higher
on U.S. automobiles going into South Korea than it is on Korean
vehicles coming into the United States by and large. And even more
important than that, Mr. Speaker, there is a tax and regulatory
structure that exists in South Korea that prevents us from being able
to sell those cars. So, again, fewer than 10,000 American-made
automobiles are sold in South Korea today; and we purchase 700,000 cars
and trucks from there.
So what should we do? We should pass this free-trade agreement, pass
this free-trade agreement which will create jobs right here in the
United States of America and, I believe, go a long way towards dealing
with the devastating 10.2 percent unemployment rate that we have. We
can, we can implement job-creating economic growth policies.
Unfortunately, based on the track record that we've seen over this past
year, we haven't. So people are hurting. It's very important for us to
pass this legislation which could be considered either under suspension
of the rules or under an open amendment process, which unfortunately it
isn't; and we could spend our time passing policies that will help the
American worker.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for
all of the many topics he brought up this morning. I'm sure he and I
will have another time when we get to discuss the trade issues in this
country. And I also appreciate that there will be time in our committee
to talk about the issues around amendments and open rules.
I will say that there are job components, particularly in this bill
when I brought up the firefighters in Portland, Maine, who had recently
lost their jobs and are now helping some of their brethren with their
own paychecks. I know that funding through this helps many of our
firefighters to maintain their service. I do want to also say, I know
we all extended our sympathy at the time, but I appreciated that you
spoke to us about the extreme fire issues in your district. And I also
want
[[Page H13089]]
to send my sympathies to those firefighters who are lost and their
families. And I know that was a perilous time.
I appreciate the fact that while I represent a very rural district,
even in your urban district, we have very many similarities of issues
that we have to deal with.
I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I thank her for
her leadership on behalf of our firefighters and on behalf of all those
out there who are fighting for jobs and for her leadership in taking us
to a place today to bring this bill to the floor.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization
Act. Our communities desperately need this bill. We need to be able to
keep our firefighters on the job and keep our constituents and
communities safe. So this is all about jobs and the safety and well-
being of those whom we are so honored to represent.
I'm pleased, too, with many of the changes that have been made to the
Firefighters Grant programs, that H.R. 3791 sets aside specific
percentages of the assistance to firefighter grants for career fire
departments, combination departments and volunteer fire departments.
Currently, there is no statutory language guaranteeing professional
fire departments a minimum percentage of funding. So I'm also pleased
that we are including economic hardship waiver language in this bill.
This language will, for the first time, work to address some of the
devastating effects we have seen in this recession. It will allow that
the local matching fund requirements be waived also. It allows the
requirement that departments use the SAFER grants to supplement, rather
than replace, local funds to be waived. It allows the requirement that
departments use the funds to hire additional firefighters rather than
retain existing personnel to be waived.
That's what we're passing today, and that is what we passed earlier
in the year. However, I'm deeply concerned that the SAFER grant
guidance recently released by the Department of Homeland Security does
not reflect congressional intent or the sacrifices made by local fire
departments in some significant ways.
This bill makes it clear that our intent is to allow SAFER grants to
be used to retain firefighters, as well, during the worst recession
since the Great Depression. Many firefighters in my congressional
district and across the country have made very difficult decisions to
take pay cuts and make other sacrifices to avoid layoffs--for now. But
their shared sacrifice may work against them when applying for these
grants under the current guidelines. And it's my opinion and it is our
intent, congressional intent, that they should not be penalized from
accessing these grants that can keep them working.
{time} 1200
Our firefighters sacrifice so much for our safety and should not be
punished for sacrificing during the recession to stay on the job to
protect our communities and one another.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
was sorry my friend from North Haven didn't want to yield to me. I was
simply going to tell her that I completely concurred with her argument
that the job creation that will focus on firefighters is a very, very
important thing, and I support that.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Of course. I'm always happy to yield to my friend.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I just want to say to my good friend from
California, I apologize for not yielding earlier, and I appreciate your
comments.
Mr. DREIER. Let me say that the notion of discussing a wide range of
issues as I did, talking about the critical importance of the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program of $1.2 billion and the SAFER
Program of an additional billion dollars, is critical--and we support
that. We support that very enthusiastically. But President Obama is at
this point in Korea, and that is what led me to talk about the
importance of our dealing with job creation.
As I talk to my constituents, Mr. Speaker--jobs, jobs, jobs--that is
the message that continues to come through loudly and clearly. And the
notion of expanding private-sector jobs is something that I believe we
should be encouraging through improved tax and regulatory policy,
bringing about marginal rate reduction, decreasing the regulatory
burden and, Mr. Speaker, opening up new opportunities for U.S. workers
here in the United States of America, which is exactly what is being
said to President Obama as he meets in Korea at this moment with their
leadership, with President Lee and others. And so I think that we need
to have our attention in this Congress focused on the priority that the
American people have.
Firefighting is very, very important. But, again, this measure will
pass--if not unanimously, nearly unanimously--and it will do so, and I
hope get the resources to ensure that we never have the loss of life,
as I said, of Captain Hall and Specialist Quinones, and others. But I
know from having spoken to their families, Mr. Speaker, that they
believe that it's absolutely essential for us to encourage private-
sector job creation and economic growth, and that's why I'm talking
about this priority that needs to be addressed here.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question as we move ahead. Why? Because the issue of reading
legislation is another very, very important one that is before us.
There is a bipartisan proposal launched by Messrs. Baird and Culberson,
supported by Mr. Dent and others, a bipartisan measure which will allow
us to, if we defeat the previous question and debate that measure,
which calls for 72 hours for the reading of legislation before we bring
it to the floor.
I suspect that my colleague from North Haven has heard, just as I,
that the American people believe that we should read legislation before
it comes to the House floor. Right now, we regularly waive the 72-hour,
3-day layover requirement.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question. It will not in any way impinge on our ability to
move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with
firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the
American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and
consider legislation in a very deliberative manner, which is exactly
what the framers of our Constitution wanted us to do.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. At this moment I have no other speakers. I
would inquire whether the gentleman is ready to yield back his time.
Mr. DREIER. Let me yield myself such time as I might consume to close
by simply saying this is very good and important legislation. It needs
to pass. It's being considered, unbelievably, under a structured
amendment process. It enjoys strong bipartisan support and should pass
with that.
I think we should be focusing our attention, as I said, on job
creation and economic growth, which is what the American people want us
to be spending our time doing here rather than taking a long period of
time to debate an issue on which we all agree.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
that we can consider the bipartisan Baird-Culberson language that would
allow us to read legislation before it's considered here over the 72-
hour period of time.
If by chance--if by chance--the previous question is not defeated and
we don't have an opportunity to debate that very important legislation
that will allow us to have the 3-day layover, I will urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can come back with an open
amendment process, which is another very, very important part of the
transparency message which should be coming through.
Amendment to H. Res. 909 Offered by Mr. Dreier
At the end of the resolution, insert the following new
section:
Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of
this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention
of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the
Rules of the
[[Page H13090]]
House of Representatives to require that legislation and
conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours
before consideration by the House, and for other purposes.
The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and
any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) an
amendment, if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee
and if printed in that portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at
least one legislative day prior to its consideration, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
or demand for division of the question, shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit which shall not
contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply
to the consideration of House Resolution 554.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague for co-managing this rule.
I appreciate his concerns about jobs. I know it's a top priority for
our caucus and one we will be talking about in the coming weeks and
days. I want to finish my remarks by focusing on the important
contribution of firefighters.
Mr. Speaker, the fire service in this country is being asked to do
more than ever before--from hazmat response and safety planning for
schools to EMT duties and homeland security responsibilities. These
days, fire departments do much more than spray water on burning
buildings. Or, as one of my firefighter friends says, much more than
``putting the wet stuff on the red stuff.'' These increased
responsibilities are why these programs are so vitally important.
My home State of Maine has used these programs to great success.
During fiscal year 2008, Maine received almost $5 million in AFG
funding and close to $1 million in SAFER grants. But these numbers
alone do not tell the whole story. The real success of these programs
is told through the stories of those whose lives have been saved and
those whose jobs have been preserved.
In 2005, a Maine fire department received an AFG grant to purchase
smoke alarms and install those in homes that did not meet the level of
protection recommended by the National Fire Protection Association.
Just 2 months after the local fire department began installing the
smoke alarms, firefighters were called to a house where smoke had been
detected in the basement. The family of six living in the home was
awakened by a smoke alarm and they were able to escape before any of
them suffered a serious injury. The smoke alarm had been bought and
installed with funding from the AFG program.
The town of Saco, Maine, recently used these programs to install an
exhaust system for the fire station so the building doesn't fill up
with diesel exhaust every time the fire trucks start up. And the town
of Brunswick, a community facing the challenges of a Navy base closure,
the department was able to hire critically needed firefighters thanks
to a SAFER grant.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think some of the real success stories lie in our
rural communities, communities often staffed by volunteer fire
departments. Just like bigger communities, those small-town fire
departments are being asked to do more, but acquiring the equipment
they need is often beyond the scope of small-town municipal budgets.
Through these programs, small-town volunteer fire departments in my
State have been able to acquire the turnout coats, the breathing
apparatus, and the hazmat suits to do the job effectively and safely.
Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of this bill and I will continue
to be a strong supporter of the men and women who put their lives on
the line to keep our businesses, our homes, and our communities safe.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The question is on
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________