THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Congressional Fire Services Institute, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Association
[Page: S7931] GPO's PDF
--
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER FIRE COUNCIL,
WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 29, 2002.
Hon. JOHN MCCAIN,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR MCCAIN: The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) is a non-profit membership association representing the more than 800,000 members of America's volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. Organized in 1976, the NVFC serves as the voice of America's volunteer fire personnel in over 28,000 departments across the country. On behalf of our membership, I would like to express our full support for the Firefighting Research and Coordination Act.
This legislation would allow the U.S. Fire Administrator to develop measurement techniques and testing methodologies to evaluate the compatibility of new firefighting technology. In addition, it would require new equipment purchased under the FIRE Grant program to meet or exceed these standards.
The bill would also direct the U.S. Fire Administrator to establish a national plan for training and responding to national emergencies and it would designate the Administrator as the contact point for State and local firefighting units in the event of a national emergency. It would also direct the Administrator to work with state and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and state mutual aid systems for dealing with national emergencies that include threat assessment, and means of collecting asset and resource information for deployment.
Finally, the bill authorizes the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy to train fire personnel in building collapse rescue, the use of new technology, tactics and strategies for dealing with terrorist incidents, the use of the national plan for training and responding to emergencies, leadership skills, and new technology tactics for fighting forest fires.
Once again, the NVFC commends your efforts to train and equip America's volunteer firefighters and we thank you for the leadership role you have taken on this issue. We look forward to working with you in the 107th Congress to pass this important piece of legislation. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact Craig Sharman, NVFC Government Affairs Representative at (202) 887-5700.
Sincerely,
PHILIP C. SITTLEBURG,
Chairman.
--
S. 2862
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Firefighting Research and Coordination Act''.
SEC. 2. NEW FIREFIGHTING TECHNOLOGY.
Section 8 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2207) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--In addition to, or as part of, the program conducted under subsection (a), the Administrator, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations, and other interested parties, shall--
``(A) develop new, and utilize existing, measurement techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating new firefighting technologies, including--
``(i) thermal imaging equipment;
``(ii) early warning fire detection devices;
``(iii) personal protection equipment for firefighting;
``(iv) victim detection equipment; and
``(v) devices to locate firefighters and other rescue personnel in buildings;
``(B) evaluate the compatibility of new equipment and technology with existing firefighting technology; and
``(C) support the development of new voluntary consensus standards through national voluntary consensus standards organizations for new firefighting technologies based on techniques and methodologies described in subparagraph (A).
``(2) NEW EQUIPMENT MUST MEET STANDARDS.--The Administrator shall, by regulation, require that equipment purchased through the assistance program established by section 33 meet or exceed applicable voluntary consensus standards.''.
SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF RESPONSE TO NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Section 10 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2209) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) COORDINATION OF RESPONSE FOR NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Administrator shall establish a national plan for training and responding to national emergencies under which the Administrator shall be the primary contact point for State and local firefighting units in the event of a national emergency. The Administrator shall ensure that the national plan is consistent with the master plans developed by the several States and political subdivisions thereof.
``(2) MUTUAL AID SYSTEMS.--The Administrator shall work with State and local fire service officials to establish, as part of the national plan, nationwide and State mutual aid systems for dealing with national emergencies that--
``(A) include threat assessment and equipment deployment strategies;
``(B) include means of collecting asset and resource information to provide accurate and timely data for regional deployment; and
``(C) are consistent with the national plan established under paragraph (1) for Federal response to national emergencies.''.
(b) REPORT ON STRATEGIC NEEDS.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science on the need for a strategy concerning deployment of volunteers and emergency response personnel (as defined in section 6 of the Firefighters' Safety Study Act (15 U.S.C. 2223e), including a national credentialing system, in the event of a national emergency.
SEC. 4. TRAINING.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph (E);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (N); and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) strategies for building collapse rescue;
``(G) the use of technology in response to fires, including terrorist incidents and other national emergencies;
``(H) response, tactics, and strategies for dealing with terrorist-caused national catastrophes;
``(I) use of and familiarity with the national plan developed by the Administrator under section 10(b)(1);
``(J) leadership and strategic skills, including integrated management systems operations and integrated response;
``(K) applying new technology and developing strategies and tactics for fighting forest fires;
``(L) integrating terrorism response agencies into the national terrorism incident response system;
``(M) response tactics and strategies for fighting fires at United States ports, including fires on the water and aboard vessels; and''.
(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS TO AVOID DUPLICATION.--The Administrator of the United States Fire Administration shall coordinate training provided under section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1)) with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the heads of other Federal agencies to ensure that there is no duplication of that training with existing courses available to fire service personnel.
By Mr. MCCAIN:
S. 2863. A bill to provide for deregulation of consumer broadband services; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act of 2002. This legislation takes a comprehensive, deregulatory, but measured approach to providing more Americans with more broadband choices. By ensuring that the market, not government, regulates the deployment of broadband services, the legislation will promote investment and innovation in broadband facilities--and consumers will benefit.
The bill would create a new title in the Communications Act of 1934 that would ensure that residential broadband services exist in a minimally regulated environment. The new section of the Act would also make certain that providers of broadband services are treated in a similar fashion without regard to the particular mode of providing service. The bill includes provisions that would take the following actions:
Deregulate the retail provision of residential broadband services; dictate a hands-off approach to the deployment of new facilities by telephone companies while maintaining competitors' access to legacy systems; resist government-mandated open access while providing a safety net to ensure consumers enjoy a competitive broadband services market; ensure that local and state barriers to broadband deployment are removed; facilitate deployment of broadband services to rural and unserved communities by creating an information clearing house in the federal government; maximize wireless technology as a platform for broadband services; ensure access to broadband services by people with disabilities; enhance the enforcement tools
[Page: S7932] GPO's PDF
In 1996, Congress passed the first major overhaul of telecommunications policy in 62 years. Supporters of the Telecommunications Act argued that it would create increased competition, provide consumers with a variety of new and innovative services at lower prices, and reduce the need for regulation. My principal objection to the Act was that it fundamentally regulated, not deregulated, the telecommunications industry and would lead inevitably to prolonged litigation. It has been six years since the passage of the Act, but consumers have yet to benefit. Competition denied by excessive regulation is costly to consumers.
The latest legislative debate in the communications industry has focused on the availability of high-speed Internet access services, often called ``broadband.'' Indeed, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Michael Powell, has called broadband, ``the central communications policy objective in America.''
There is stark disagreement about the state of affairs of broadband services in the United States. Depending on who is speaking, there is a supply problem, a demand problem, a combination of the two, or no problem at all. All parties agree, however, that Americans and our national economy will benefit greatly from the widespread use of broadband services. Accelerated broadband deployment reportedly could benefit our nation's economy by hundreds of billions of dollars.
With such tremendous opportunity comes no shortage of ``solutions.'' Many want a national industrial policy to drive broadband deployment--they suggest multi-billion dollar central planning efforts aimed to deliver services to consumers regardless of whether those consumers want or need such services. Others have focused on narrow issues affecting only a subset of all providers of broadband services.
This legislation takes a different approach. It takes a comprehensive look at the proper role of the government with respect to these new services. It reduces government interference with market forces that lead to consumer welfare, and looks for ways that government can facilitate, not dictate or control, the development of broadband technologies.
Mr. President, I am a firm believe in free market principles. In 1995, I introduced a series of amendments during the floor debate on the Telecommunications Act that would have made the bill truly deregulatory. As I said at the time, I believe that ``[i]n free markets, less government usually means more innovation, more entrepreneurial opportunities, more competition, and more benefits to consumers.'' Likewise, in 1998, I introduced the Telecommunications Competition Act that would have allowed competition to flourish and brought true deregulation to the telecommunications market. In 1999, I introduced the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act that would have eliminated certain regulation of telephone companies' deployment of broadband facilities. And in 1999 and 2000, I was a leading advocate in the Senate for the Internet Tax Freedom Act ensuring a moratorium on taxation of the Internet.
I stand by the legislation and amendments I previously introduced and believe that they represented the right approach at the right time. In fact, if I had it my way, I would throw out the 1996 Act and start from scratch. I am mindful, however, that broadband has been an issue that has polarized policymakers to the point of legislative paralysis. Now is the time for a measured approach that focuses on achieving what can be done to improve the deployment of services to all consumers. I believe that this legislation is such an approach.
The bill has multiple components designed to address all aspects of broadband deployment and usage, and also provides adequate safety nets in the event that there proves to be a market failure that is harmful to consumers.
Broadband services can be provided over multiple platforms including telephone, cable, wireless, satellite, and perhaps one day soon, power lines, Each of these platforms is regulated differently based on the nature of the service the platform was originally designed to provide. This legislation would move us closer to a harmonization of regulatory ancestry of a particular platform.
First, the bill makes clear that the retail provision of high-speed Internet service remains unregulated. The Internet's tremendous growth is a testament to the exercise of regulatory restraint.
Some have suggested a need for government regulation of consumer broadband service quality. They allege that service deficiencies inhibit the development of these new offerings. But we must remember that these are new services, and new services will have problems. This legislation allows for these services to mature. If upon maturity, the FCC determines that there is a need to protect consumers from service quality shortcomings related to the technical provision of service. Then the states can enforce uniform requirements. This provides a measured approach to service quality--a safety net without a presumption of regulation.
Next, we must clarify that new services offered by varied providers, regardless of mode, will not be subject to the micromanagement of government regulation. Recognizing that upgrading networks requires substantial investment not free of risk, this bill begins this process by relaxing the obligations on telephone companies that invest in facilities that will bring better broadband services to more consumers. Nothing in this legislation, however, will undermine competitors' efforts to provide services using the telephone companies' legacy facilities. This approach strikes a balance between the interests of those who have invested capital on the promise of government-managed competition and those who will invest in the future of broadband facilities on the promise of government restraint and market-driven competition.
The bill also grapples with the government-managed wholesale market for consumer broadband services--the so-called ``open access'' debate. Mr. President, there is perhaps no more difficult issue addressed in this bill.
The Internet has thrived because it is an open platform. The presence of numerous ISPs in the narrowband market certainly contributed to the vitality of this open network, particularly at the inception of the Internet. Those providers
have depended on access to customers guaranteed by FCC rules. As a result, many have suggested the need for government-mandated access to customers served over broadband connections. They raise significant concerns about carriers becoming screeners of content, and anti-competitive threats to web site operators if consumers do not have a choice of ISP or are limited in their ability to access particular web sites.
However tempting it may be to believe that government mandates will produce desired policy outcomes, such intervention too often comes at the price of market inefficiencies, stifled innovation, and increased regulatory costs. Moreover, regulators are often slow to respond to dynamic industry changes.
The bill would rely on market forces to resolve access issues by establishing the general rule that the FCC may not impose open access requirements on any provider--no matter what platform is used to provide the consumer broadband service. Again, the bill takes a measured approach by creating a safety net for consumers. Today a multitude of ISPs rely on access mandated by the FCC to serve their customers. The bill would allow the FCC to continue to enforce these obligations during a transition period, but would mandate the sunset of such requirements unless the FCC determines their continued enforcement is necessary to preserve competition for consumers.
I firmly believe that market forces will guide the development of a wholesale market producing sustainable, not government-managed, competition. The bill is sufficiently flexible to ensure that consumers are protected, whole sending a clear signal to those parties willing to make the significant investment necessary to provide broadband services that the government will not lie in wait only to reward their risk-taking with regulation.
I note again, however, that this issue raises challenging and complex policy questions. We should ensure the continued open nature of the Internet. To
[Page: S7933] GPO's PDF
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display