BY BILL MANNING
At a leadership panel at FDIC WEST, the subject of the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act arose. As moderator, I paused the discussion momentarily to ask the several hundred firefighters in the audience if they were aware of the FIRE Act. Less than five percent of the audience had heard of it, whether under the name FIRE Act, Pascrell Bill, or H.R. 1168.
Clearly, that exemplifies a global fire service marketing/communications problem, one that fire service groups at every level must address if we are to realize the potential of our grassroots power. If you are not familiar with the FIRE Act, I exhort you to get educated.
Notwithstanding, recent days have seen numerous events and interesting twists regarding federal legislation for local fire department support.
Representative Curt Weldon, the passionate godfather of fire service issues on Capitol Hill, believes it’s “our time.” In late March, Weldon pushed for an amendment onto the House Supplemental Appropriations Bill that would provide $100 million in grants for local fire services for the year 2000. “That’s real dollars, available right now,” says Weldon.
Weldon originally called for the fire department grants to be distributed as part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, an existing $4.8 billion federal cache through which funds are distributed through local municipalities for specific community services that directly and indirectly impact poor and lower-middle class neighborhoods. The CDBG proposal met resistance in the House of Representatives.
“CDBG is largely a ‘brick and mortar’ program used for cutting curbs for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance and for restoring historical buildings,” Weldon says, and would not be, as some have suggested, “taking money away from the poor.” And, he adds, “Is there anything more important than saving people from burning buildings?”
Even so, Weldon removed the CDBG language from his proposal, while keeping his $100 million request intact. “I want to put the dollars into the hands of local fire departments for equipment and critical programs. I want to keep the momentum going. This is the drumbeat Congress needs to hear.”
And the House of Representatives heard. Overwhelmingly. It voted 386-28 in favor of the Weldon amendment. The vote is a great, if only partial, victory. Many in Congress are ready to stand behind bold fire service initiatives. Political pros in Washington call it “getting legs.”
As of this writing, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has refused to bring a $13 billion Supplemental Appropriations Bill (to which the Weldon amendment is attached) to the Senate floor. Senator William Roth, however, is working on moving a similar fire amendment to a different Senate Appropriations Bill. Weldon is optimistic.
Meanwhile, on April 12, Congressman Bill Pascrell, author of the FIRE Act, held a press conference at the Capitol Building, with firefighters in attendance, to gather momentum for the bill. A hearing before the House Transportation Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Emergency Management followed. Before a packed house, representatives of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council, as well as several others, including several members of Congress, testified strongly in support of the FIRE Act. Reactions from members of the Subcommittee were very positive.
This gives greater legitimacy to the FIRE Act in Congress. It has been elevated in the congressional consciousness through the hearing as well as through the lobbying efforts of the fire service groups. The Anointed Seven are united and working together toward a common goal. There now are 270 cosponsors of the bill-more than 60 percent of the House-including some traditionally conservative members. The bill is “getting legs.”
Unfortunately, the Transportation Subcommittee does not have primary authority over the FIRE Act and therefore cannot push it to the House floor. But its support puts pressure on House Committee on Science Chairman James Sensenbrenner and Science Subcommittee Chairman Nick Smith, in whose respective bailiwicks the FIRE Act resides. They must be persuaded to move the FIRE Act for a House vote and get it authorized.
Passage in the House in turn will put pressure on a slow-moving Senate to move on its version of the bill, S. 1941, sponsored by Senators Dodd and Dewine, which has 20 cosponsors out of 100 senators (about 30 of the S. 1941 holdouts are Democrats). If it makes it to and through the Senate, the bill would move to President Clinton for signature. High-ranking Administration officials have indicated that the President would sign the FIRE Act.
But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. There are many angles to this issue, among them:
- For some Republicans elected on a platform of less government and the preservation of “traditional” state and local responsibilities, issues such as federal support of local fire departments are philosophical quicksand. As those who testified at the hearing realized, we will not succeed unless we can convince key individuals that improving local fire departments is in the interest of national security.
- Weldon’s $100 million amendment was carefully positioned as a “down payment” or “first installment” on the $5 billion FIRE Act. As a first installment, it makes strategic sense, functioning as leverage for a subsequent vote on the FIRE Act. For those in Congress less inclined toward a $1 billion-a-year authorization, a one-time $100 million could be an easy out, and we must guard against it.
- Some in the fire service refer to the Weldon amendment’s 50-50 grant structure (the government matches 50 percent to the fire department’s 50 percent of the cost of the service or equipment) as too prohibitive, exclusionary for strapped fire departments who can’t afford the 50 percent for high-ticket items in the first place. That’s a legitimate point. In contrast, the FIRE Act requires that a fire department put up only 10 percent.
But again, the Weldon amendment brandishes appropriations money-NOW money-and to pick it apart would be nothing short of idiotic.
- In the face of the FIRE Act’s accelerating momentum, two of its opponents, Representative Smith and Senator Roth, have proposed diluted variations. These bills would cap yearly federal grant spending for local fire departments at $100 million and do not permit the funds to be used for hiring personnel. These are transparent attempts to straddle the fence between less government and what’s right for the fire service and this nation. Given the tragic state of affairs in many, if not most, of our fire departments, these bills are an unpalatable compromise.
- Given the legislative dynamics of this issue, we may find out very shortly that our inability to collect and use nationwide data will bite us where it hurts. Some are calling for a congressional study into the matter. Now is not the time; our current situation demands immediate attention. “Congressional study” is code for “out of sight, out of mind.” Who knows if we could ever regain our momentum?
- The Dodd-Dewine Bill in the Senate contains a 10 percent set-aside for an advocacy organization called National SafeKids, a not-for-profit group promoting general child safety. If the bill were to be passed with such language, National SafeKids would, over the next five years, siphon off $500 million in fire department monies.
- Many come sniffing to the smell of money. Senator Robert Byrd has been making noise about building fire stations in West Virginia. While there’s nothing wrong with building fire stations, fire stations are not what the FIRE Act is about.
- As might be expected, law enforcement has come sniffing. The FIRE Act includes arson investigation among its grant criteria, and “cops do arson, too.” Stay off our money, Officer Joe!
|
But we’re moving. We may not be the fastest runners in the race, but we’re “getting legs.”
