United States Fire Administration: An Overview

Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The United States Fire Administration (USFA)—which includes the National Fire Academy (NFA)—is currently housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The objective of the USFA is to significantly reduce the nation’s loss of life from fire, while also achieving a reduction in property loss and non-fatal injury due to fire.

P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2012, provided $44.038 million for USFA in FY2012. The FY2013 budget proposal requested $42.52 million for USFA, a 3.4% reduction from the FY2012 level. Of the requested total appropriation, $13.327 million would be allocated to the National Fire Academy.

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) funded USFA at $43.942 million. Additionally, the United States Fire Administration and Training budget account is subject to a 5.0% sequestration cut, putting the FY2013 level for USFA at $41.726 million.

The FY2014 budget proposal requests $41.306 million for USFA. Of the requested total appropriation, $12.267 million would be allocated to the National Fire Academy, $11.205 million to National Fire Programs, and $17.834 million to National Emergency Training Center (NETC) Management, Operations and Support. H.R. 2217, as passed by the House on June 6, 2013, would provide $44 million to USFA.

On January 2, 2013, the President signed P.L. 112-239, the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Title XVIII, Subtitle B is the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2012, which authorizes USFA at an annual level of $76,490,890 for FY2013 through FY2017.

Concerns in the 113th Congress over the federal budget deficit could impact future funding levels for the USFA. Debate over the USFA budget has focused on whether the USFA is receiving an appropriate level of funding to accomplish its mission, given that appropriations for USFA have consistently been well below the agency’s authorized level. An ongoing issue is the viability and status of the USFA and National Fire Academy within the Department of Homeland Security.


Date of Report: June 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: RS20071
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS20071.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response: The SAFER Grant Program

Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

In response to concerns over the adequacy of firefighter staffing, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act, known as the SAFER Act, was enacted by the 108th Congress as Section 1057 of the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136). The SAFER Act authorizes grants to career, volunteer, and combination local fire departments for the purpose of increasing the number of firefighters to help communities meet industry-minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. Also authorized are grants to volunteer fire departments for recruitment and retention of volunteers. SAFER is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

With the economic turndown adversely affecting budgets of local governments, concerns arose that modifications to the SAFER statute may be necessary to enable fire departments to more effectively and affordably participate in the program. Since FY2009, annual appropriations bills have contained provisions that waive certain provisions of the SAFER statute. These provisions included the length of the grant, maintenance of expenditure requirements, local matching requirements, and grant caps. The waivers served to reduce the financial obligation on SAFER grant recipients, and allowed SAFER grants to be used to rehire laid-off firefighters and to fill positions lost through attrition.

The 112th Congress enacted the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-239), which reauthorized SAFER through FY2017; altered the grant distribution formula among career, volunteer, combination, and paid-on-call fire departments; raised available funding for higher population areas; and addressed waiver issues previously addressed in annual appropriations legislation.

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) funds SAFER and AFG at $337 million each. Additionally, SAFER and AFG are subject to sequestration. Both programs are part of FEMA’s State and Local Programs budget account, which is subject to a 5.0% cut. According to DHS, the post-sequester FY2013 budget level for SAFER and AFG is $320.92 million for AFG and $320.92 million for SAFER. However, the amount of grant money available for SAFER and AFG is expected to be virtually unchanged from FY2012, because appropriations language provides that administrative costs are to be derived from the FEMA Salaries and Expense account.

The Administration’s FY2014 budget proposed $670 million for firefighter assistance, including $335 million for SAFER and $335 million for AFG. The FY2014 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2217) as passed by the House on June 6, 2013, provides $680 million for firefighter assistance, including $340 million for SAFER and $340 million for AFG.

The 113th Congress will likely consider FY2014 and FY2015 budget appropriations for SAFER. As is the case with many federal programs, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact budget levels. At the same time, firefighter assistance budgets will likely receive heightened scrutiny from the fire community, given the local budgetary cutbacks that many fire departments are now facing. The 113th Congress will also likely examine the impact of new SAFER hiring grant guidelines mandated by P.L. 112-239, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012. The continuing issue is how effectively grants are being distributed and used to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards.


Date of Report: June 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RL33375
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33375.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Assistance to Firefighters Program: Distribution of Fire Grant Funding

Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program, also known as fire grants or the FIRE Act grant program, was established by Title XVII of the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398). Currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the program provides federal grants directly to local fire departments and unaffiliated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) organizations to help address a variety of equipment, training, and other firefighter-related and EMS needs. A related program is the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters (SAFER) program, which provides grants for hiring, recruiting, and retaining firefighters.

The fire grant program is now in its 13th year. The Fire Act statute was reauthorized in 2012 (Title XVIII of P.L. 112-239) and provides new guidelines on how fire grant money should be distributed. There is no set geographical formula for the distribution of fire grants—fire departments throughout the nation apply, and award decisions are made by a peer panel based on the merits of the application and the needs of the community. However, the law does require that fire grants be distributed to a diverse mix of fire departments, with respect to type of department (paid, volunteer, or combination), geographic location, and type of community served (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural).

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) funds AFG and SAFER at $337 million each. Additionally, AFG and SAFER are subject to sequestration. Both programs are part of FEMA’s State and Local Programs budget account, which is subject to a 5.0% cut. According to DHS, the post-sequester FY2013 budget level for AFG and SAFER is $320.92 million for AFG and $320.92 million for SAFER. However, the amount of grant money available for AFG and SAFER is expected to be virtually unchanged from FY2012, because appropriations language provides that administrative costs are to be derived from the FEMA Salaries and Expense account, rather than (as is typically the case) from a 5% carve-out from the firefighter assistance (AFG and SAFER) appropriations account.

The Administration’s FY2014 budget proposed $670 million for firefighter assistance, including $335 million for AFG and $335 million for SAFER. The FY2014 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2217) as passed by the House on June 6, 2013, provides $680 million for firefighter assistance, including $340 million for AFG and $340 million for SAFER.

The 113th Congress will likely consider FY2014 and FY2015 budget appropriations for AFG and SAFER. As is the case with many federal programs, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact budget levels for AFG and SAFER. At the same time, firefighter assistance budgets will likely receive heightened scrutiny from the fire community, given the local budgetary cutbacks that many fire departments are facing. .


Date of Report: June 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: RL32341
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL32341.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service

Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Given the large potential impact broadband access may have on the economic development of rural America, concern has been raised over a “digital divide” between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities with state of the art telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment.

Citing the lagging deployment of broadband in many rural areas, Congress and the Administration acted in 2001 and 2002 to initiate pilot broadband loan and grant programs within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Subsequently, Section 6103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize a loan and loan guarantee program to provide funds for the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural communities. The RUS/USDA houses two assistance programs exclusively dedicated to financing broadband deployment: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grant Program.

For the broadband loan program, the Administration’s FY2013 budget proposal requested $8.915 million to subsidize a loan level of $94.139 million. The Administration requested $13.379 million for broadband grants in FY2013. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) funds the broadband loan program at $4 million (supporting a loan level of approximately $42 million) and the Community Connect grant program is funded at $10.372 million.

The 110th Congress considered reauthorization and modification of the loan and loan guarantee program as part of the 2008 farm bill. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 became law on June 18, 2008 (P.L. 110-246). Title VI (Rural Development) contains authorizing language for the broadband loan program.

The 112th Congress considered reauthorization of the broadband loan program in the 2012 farm bill. While the 2012 farm bill was not enacted by the 112th Congress, Title VII of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended farm bill programs by one year (through September 30, 2013). In the 113th Congress, 2013 farm bill legislation introduced in the House and Senate (H.R. 1947/S. 954) includes the broadband program reauthorization provisions previously contained in the 2012 farm bill.


Date of Report: June 13, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: RL33816
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33816.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy

In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing highperformance computing programs, but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term coordination and planning. To provide such a framework, Congress passed the High-Performance Computing and Communications Program Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194) to enhance the effectiveness of the various programs. In conjunction with the passage of the act, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released Grand Challenges: High- Performance Computing and Communications. That document outlined a research and development (R&D) strategy for high-performance computing and a framework for a multiagency program, the High-Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program. The HPCC Program has evolved over time and is now called the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program, to better reflect its expanded mission.

Current concerns are the role of the federal government in supporting IT R&D and the level of funding to allot to it. Proponents of federal support of information technology (IT) R&D assert that it has produced positive outcomes for the country and played a crucial role in supporting long-term research into fundamental aspects of computing. Such fundamentals provide broad practical benefits, but generally take years to realize. Additionally, the unanticipated results of research are often as important as the anticipated results. Another aspect of government-funded IT research is that it often leads to open standards, something that many perceive as beneficial, encouraging deployment and further investment. Industry, on the other hand, is more inclined to invest in proprietary products and will diverge from a common standard when there is a potential competitive or financial advantage to do so. Proponents of government support believe that the outcomes achieved through the various funding programs create a synergistic environment in which both fundamental and application-driven research are conducted, benefitting government, industry, academia, and the public. Supporters also believe that such outcomes justify government’s role in funding IT R&D, as well as the growing budget for the NITRD Program. Critics assert that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may be picking “winners and losers” in technological development, a role more properly residing with the private sector. For example, the size of the NITRD Program may encourage industry to follow the government’s lead on research directions rather than selecting those directions itself.

The President’s FY2014 budget request for the NITRD Program is $3.968 billion and the FY2012 NITRD actual expenditures totaled $3.810 billion. FY2013 actual expenditures have not yet been calculated. The President’s FY2013 budget request for the NITRD Program was $3.808 billion. FY2013 appropriations bills from the Senate and the House were not passed before the end of the 112th Congress. H.J.Res. 117, passed by the House on September 13, 2012, provides a framework for a six-month Continuing Resolution that began on October 1, 2013. On March 26, 2013, the President signed the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113- 6), which funded the majority of the federal government at close to FY2012 levels for the remainder of FY2013.


Date of Report: June 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: RL33586
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33586.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.