S-5466-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Angus King (I-ME)
What it does
The bill would require the FEMA Administrator to make competitive, 3-year grants directly to career, combination, and volunteer fire departments for programs that improve home safety and prevent falls among older adults. Grants could pay for items such as lock boxes, smoke detectors, grab bars, minor home modifications, medication risk reviews, and community paramedicine staff. The federal share of program costs could not exceed 75 percent in years one and two and 35 percent in year three, and funds could not replace state or local funds. The bill would authorize $1 million per year in fiscal years 2026-2028, rising to $7 million in 2035, with no more than 5 percent for administration, and the authority would end September 30, 2036. Hardship waivers may be granted by FEMA.
Who benefits
Adults 65 and older living at home, who could receive fall-risk home modifications, smoke detectors, and medication reviews. Career, combination, and volunteer fire departments that win grants and could fund community paramedicine staff and equipment. Family caregivers and Medicare and other payers, who may see fewer fall injuries. Emergency medical services, which may reach homes faster with lock boxes and health information on file.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who would bear the authorized spending of up to $7 million per year. Fire departments that lose out in the competitive process, or that cannot afford the required local match of 25 percent in years one and two and 65 percent in year three. Departments whose budgets fell below 80 percent of their three-year average, who would be ineligible unless FEMA grants a hardship waiver. Departments that may face added application, reporting, and audit burdens. Departments not chosen could see peers get funds for similar work, and FEMA may bear added administrative duties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that falls are a leading cause of injury death among older adults, and that fire crews already respond to many in-home emergencies and are well placed to fix hazards early. They contend the modest authorization, the declining federal share, the required sustainability plans, and the performance reporting limit costs while testing whether prevention lowers emergency calls and medical spending.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that fall prevention and home safety are primarily local and health-care responsibilities, and that adding duties for fire departments may stretch crews already short on staff and funds. They contend the small authorization would reach few communities, the local match could exclude the poorest departments, and the evidence that fire-department programs reduce falls or costs remains unproven.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), which allows conditional grants such as the matching and non-supplanting requirements. Because the grants are voluntary and go directly to local departments, the coercion limit in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) is not meaningfully implicated.
Checks and balances
Congress authorizes the program and sets limits, while FEMA gains discretion over awards, waivers, and guidelines; checks include the appropriations process, GAO audit access, a required report to Congress, and the sunset date.
Historical precedent
Congress has funded fire departments through FEMA's Assistance to Firefighters Grants and the SAFER grants under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, which this bill's definitions draw on.