TO:  Mr. Frank Livingston, EFO, Chair, NFAAA
        224 Pinedo Drive
        Titusville, FL 32780

ATTN:  Mr. Phil Powell, Managing Editor
             National Fire & Rescue

ATTN:  The Honorable Curt Weldon, R-PA
             U.S. House of Representatives

RE: The Fire Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act
(H.R. 1168, S-1941 and S-1899)

Reference: http://www.nfrmag.com/S1899.htm

Sir:

We just had the opportunity to review the bills and programs mentioned above. While we find ourselves in general support of almost all of your goals and objectives concerning further funding for the fire service, we also find ourselves troubled by a seeming lack of support in this legislation for EMS priorities and EMS personnel and their rightful place in the fire service.

Particularly of concern is in regard to the use of these potential funds is:

(3)(A)(i) to train firefighting personnel in firefighting, emergency response, arson prevention and detection, or the handling of hazardous materials, which shall include, at a minimum, the removal of any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant associated with the illegal manufacture of amphetamine or methamphetamine....(ii) to train firefighter personnel to provide any of the training described in clause (i);

* One could easily surmise that this section provides no funding for EMS training, even though in most dual-role departments (those that provide Fire and EMS services), about 70% all department responses are for EMS/Rescue activities. Secondarily, one of the primary dangers of  a response to "meth labs" is the possibility of injury and the need for treatment of both emergency personnel and the public...thus necessitating a better trained EMS service to respond to this kind of incident.

* We don't find any mention of EMS until we get to:

(F) to fund emergency medical services provided by fire departments;

* We find no further mention of EMS personnel or activities, except in the definition of `firefighting personnel'

* Of secondary concern is:

(G) to acquire additional firefighting vehicles, including fire trucks;

We see no mention of additional EMS assets (i.e. ambulances), which probably don't fit the definition of "fire trucks" and therefore would not be funded under the intent of this legislation.

In your letter, you ask for our support in Congress and in the press in regard to this initiative. Please be advised that we would be happy to do so if some measures will be taken to ensure that the concept of integrated Fire Service/EMS were given a more prominent position in the advancement of this bill. Secondarily, we would like to see the language changed to reflect the concerns we have listed above.

In closing, I should mention that there is little or no federal funding for EMS (paramedic/EMT) programs in this country at the present time. It is also a fact that a disproportionately large percentage of fire service responses these days are for EMS work. Therefore, it would behoove the sponsors of this bill to be more inclusive of their brothers and sisters in EMS in order to maximize support for this initiative.

Please let me know if I may be of any additional assistance, or further explain our position concerning this legislation.

Most Respectfully,

C. L. Staten, CEO

Emergency Response & Research Institute
EmergencyNet News Service
6348 N. Milwaukee Ave. #312
Chicago, IL 60646, USA
(773) 631-3774 - Voice/Messages
(773) 631-4703 - Fax
sysop@emergency.com - E-Mail

Asst. Chief Paramedic (Ret.)
Chicago Fire Department

CC: Files

Return to the EMS Operations Archive Page

Return to the Fire Operations Archive Page