WASHINGTON-The House Homeland-Security Committee Thursday passed its version of a bill designed to change the way grants are awarded to first responders.
“The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005 is a good piece of public policy. At its most fundamental level, it is designed to expedite the delivery of federal assistance to first responders where it is needed most and, at the same time, to end undisciplined spending on homeland security,” said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Homeland-Security Committee. “Thanks to all of you-especially our nation’s law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services-for assisting us in developing this legislation over the past 18 months. This legislation is for you-for the people who rush into burning buildings when everyone else rushes out; for the people who willingly place themselves in the line of fire to protect the innocent, and for the people who save the sick and wounded under the most trying of circumstances.”
It was not surprising that the first-responders grant-reform bill passed the House Homeland-Security Committee considering every member was a co-sponsor.
The Senate Homeland-Security Committee recently passed its version of a first-responder grant-reform bill, setting up an almost certain clash with the House of Representatives over minimal state funding.
Many senators, including Maine Republican Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Homeland-Security Committee, believe that each state deserves at least some funding-0.55 percent for each state in the Senate bill-because a terrorist attack could hit at any time, anywhere. The House bill currently allocates 0.25 percent to each state with the rest being awarded based on risk.
Both bills must now be debated on the floors of the two chambers before negotiators from each house work out a compromise, because both bodies must pass identical bills before being sent to the president for approval.
Both the House and the Senate last year included first-responder grant-reform language in their versions of the intelligence-reform bill but since the two versions reflected the ideological separation, the issue was put off.
