CONGRESSIONAL CLIPBOARD
Aid to Rural Departments
In March the Agriculture Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms and Energy held hearings on the National Fire Forces Mobilization Act (H. R. 3955). This bill, introduced by Congressman Claude Harris (DAL), would authorize $100 million to help rural volunteer fire departments and state forestry agencies mobilize in response to forest fire emergencies. In Congressman Harris’s own state, 94 percent of the fire departments are volunteer organizations with few resources available—in terms of manpower or materials—to combat blazes stretching over hundreds of acres. Controlling these fires depends directly on their ability to enlist swift and well-targeted support from neighboring departments.
Our rural fire departments must be well-prepared to meet these challenges if we are not to consign our homes and our forests quite literally to ashes. Nevertheless, the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service testified before the committee against the bill, saying, “While we agree that the fire protection problems in the urbanrural interface are very significant, we believe the costs of protection should generally be borne by state and local governments.”
In recent years fire has claimed an average of 6,000 lives a year, inflicted billions of dollars worth of property damage, and destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of national parks. It is not just a “very significant” problem—it is a national problem.
The fact is that the vast majority of the legislation Congress passes today would be considered by the drafters J of the Constitution to be state and local government issues. Over the years the grasp of federal legislation has grown inexorably larger to include healthcare, childcare, air quality, transportation, and a host of other issues not explicitly the responsibility of the federal government. The reason for this, of course, is that enough people yelled loud and long enough to force Congress and the Administration into action.
It is probable, for example, that by the end of this year we will see the enactment of some form of federal assistance for childcare. Expectations for such legislation have been raised to the point as to make it politically unwise to dash them. Lawmakers will more easily part with S10 billion for a good program that has reached political maturity than S100 million for one that hasn’t. It would be nice to see an Omnibus Fire Bill shepherded through Congress just as the S96l million Omnibus Drug Bill of 1988 was, but it won’t happen.
Fortunately, H R. 3955 is likely to pass with or without the Administration’s support. An agreement has been reached to reduce the authorized funding for fiscal year 1991 to S50 million, increasing the authorization to S100 million in fiscal year 1992 and succeeding years. This constitutes a significantly increased commitment of resources over current obligations. Of the two existing programs that approximate the functions of H.R. 3955, the Rural Fire Prevention and Control Program, which assists state forestry agencies, is funded at roughly SI4 million annually, and the Rural Community Fire Protection Program, which provides grants through the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), is funded at about S3-1 million annually. The only other major dedication of federal funds to rural fire protection is the Community Facility Loan Program, the operation of which would be altered under the terms of a bill recently passed by the House, H.R. 3581.
CONGRESSIONAL CUPBOARD
AID TO RURAL DEPARTMENTS
Currently $94 million is available for loans through the FmHA to improve healthcare, public safety, and public services in communities of less than 20,000 people. H.R. 3581, however, would overhaul the federal system for delivering economic assistance to rural areas by granting states greater latitude in determining the allocation of available federal resources. All applications for assistance would be routed through the Rural Development Administration, a newly created government agency, after having been ranked in priority order by a Peer Review Commission comprised of state and local representatives. The other major feature of the proposal is that it would no longer require that funds be used exclusively for the purposes stipulated in annual appropriations bills. Thus S94 million appropriated for the Community Facility Loan Program could be directed away from health and public safety projects if that is the recommendation of the Peer Review Commission. Or the Peer Review Commission could choose to devote resources over and above the $94 million to strengthening the fire—EMS infrastructure. The final configuration of this rural development legislation will be determined when the House and Senate go to conference.
While neither piece of legislation is a cure-all for the dearth of fire protection resources in rural areas, both present important new opportunities for small, volunteer departments. As the Administration well knows, simply conceding that rural fire protection is an appropriate arena for federal involvement is a critical step on the road to making the problem an “issue,” regardless of the funding level. If this year’s fire season turns out to be anything like those of recent years, Congress may respond to greater public concern about the destruction of our wildlands from an environmental, if not from a public safety, standpoint. After all, we should be as interested in preserving our own wildlands as we are in preserving the Amazon Rain Forests.
