Adrian Smith

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I would yield 2 minutes to the chairman if he would wish to use that.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I would reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment to assess fire department readiness through a survey of compliance with national voluntary consensus standards for staffing, training, equipment, and other factors important to a department's ability to respond to hazards. I do support the amendment but would like to seek clarification for the Record regarding the gentleman's intent on two aspects of this amendment. First, I recognize the value of improved data regarding fire department compliance with response standards, and I agree that we should aspire to help the fire service achieve higher compliance rates. However, I think it is important to note that a lack of compliance with these standards does not necessarily indicate a problem on the part of the department or local municipality. There are over 25,000 fire departments in the United States, all working under unique circumstances with respect to local hazards, populations, mutual aid agreements, operating budgets, and so on. In many cases, it simply does not make sense for departments to be in full compliance with what the Federal Government would consider full compliance with these standards based on their individual circumstances, particularly in rural areas where resources are very limited. For these reasons, I would hope that the task force established by this amendment considers these practical barriers to standards compliance in making recommendations to Congress regarding how best to improve standards compliance. I would just ask the gentleman if he would agree with this interpretation.

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his graciousness, with I guess just one exception. But I appreciate the confidence he shows in his college football team. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would require that local unemployment rates be considered as a factor in awarding grants to fire departments. While I understand the current state of the economy should make this a concern in bills we consider, the Fire grant program has, since its inception 8 years ago, awarded grants competitively based upon the potential of the applicant's proposal to enhance a fire department's ability to respond to fires and related hazards. I am somewhat concerned that this change may result in an upset in the delicate balance of consideration that has been achieved over the years. The factors used by FEMA in evaluating these proposals have been carefully developed and refined in consultation with national fire service organizations. They include, for example, a department's geographic response area, its population served, unique hazard vulnerabilities, and its budgetary situation. All of these factors directly impact the department's ability to respond to hazards and, thus, are appropriate criteria. I believe the gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, but I am concerned that the unemployment rate of the locality a department protects is simply not directly related to fire hazards or the department's ability to respond to them. While a fire department's operating budget could potentially be indirectly impacted by a poor local economy that impacts tax revenues, this factor is already explicitly noted in the legislation based on need. Further, I would caution generally against the practice of Congress dictating the specific criteria to be used by FEMA in making awards. This bill codifies consideration of high-level factors that were developed by the fire service and are currently used by FEMA, but it does not attempt to incorporate new ones based on particular interests. If we begin to open up this program to congressional direction of this sort, we risk adding a level of prescription that could transform the current highly competitive process to one driven by interests unrelated to the needs of the fire service. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply clarify that river rescue organizations will be eligible to apply for a grant under the program authorized by the bill. I have no objections to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Republican health care bill. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the Republican alternative will decrease health insurance premiums up to 10 percent. Compare that to Speaker Pelosi's government-controlled health insurance plan, which CBO estimates will have higher premiums than those currently available in the private health insurance market. Higher premiums than currently available. The medical liability reform Republicans are offering will reduce health care costs for Americans by $54 billion over 10 years by reducing junk lawsuits. This, again, according to the CBO. What's more, the Republican alternative will reduce the deficit by $68 billion without increasing taxes by one red cent. We have a clear choice--$700 billion in new taxes, 118 new bureaucracies and higher health care costs or the Republican bill which will take meaningful steps toward the true health care reform that we know we need.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are concerned with spending; and the spending contained in this bill and the more than 3,000 references to the word ``shall'' concerns Americans, especially as it relates to their tax dollars. This tax on medical devices, in my reading of the bill, looks like the sicker you are, the greater the tax you will pay. That is a huge concern to me. When I look at the challenges that we face with needing to streamline government, with needing to first streamline Medicare and Medicaid and find this fraud that's out there first before we go about depending on the money that we find, we can make a lot of progress, rather than implementing 111 new agencies, commissions and bureaucracies in general. Mr. Speaker, we owe Americans better than this; and we can do better.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, as we consider health care reform, we have a responsibility to protect the best interests of our nation's seniors and ensure we do not harm the health care they already receive. Included in the current government takeover of health care are massive cuts to Medicare Advantage which will result in a loss of health care for millions of seniors. For seniors living on fixed incomes, the prospect of being forced to pay more for health care is truly frightening. But the Congressional Budget Office has reported the Democrat plan will increase seniors' Medicare prescription drug premiums by 20 percent over the next decade. Medicare finances are rapidly deteriorating and we should be working on real solutions which ensure the long-term financial stability of Medicare. Madam Speaker, a government-run health care system is not the answer to our health care problems, and it certainly is not the answer when it is paid for on the backs of our nation's seniors.