Bobby Scott: “I oppose this amendment to the legislation. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me…”

“I oppose this amendment to the legislation. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me that we have a very extreme solution to a problem that does not exist. Although the amendment purports to encourage donation of fire fighting equipment by eliminating civil liability barriers, there are no reported cases of businesses refusing to donate their equipment nor cases of volunteer fire fighting companies suing their donors. Whatever the so-called problem is could be solved or addressed without congressional action. For example, in the 108th Congress when the similar legislation was before the Committee on the Judiciary, we heard during our committee deliberations that a volunteer fire department could simply sign a contract waiving liability of the donors from negligence resulting from the donated fire equipment. This tactic would ensure that fire companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the donor. Congress does not have to mandate the immunity. The groups can agree to it if they want or if the donor insists. Mr. Chairman, this is not a Federal issue. It is a matter that can be dealt with by the States. There is nothing Federal about local volunteer fire departments. This liability is a State issue, and many States have already dealt with it. For example, some States provide immunity but only after requiring certification that the equipment is safe. This amendment provides no such immunity.…”