Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1544, Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1544, FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - May 12, 2005)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, today we will debate bipartisan legislation from the Select Committee on Homeland Security to improve funding for first responders.

In this new post-9/11 era, ensuring that our country is protecting itself from attack is of prime importance. I am especially proud of the efforts of my hometown of Sacramento. Federal officials have recently highlighted Sacramento as an example to other localities of how to efficiently spend Federal anti-terrorism dollars.

Already, Sacramento's main agencies tasked for homeland security, police, sheriff, health and the city and metro fire departments, are all coordinating their efforts.

The five agencies have already agreed to share all of the homeland security dollars, a unique show of cooperation when limited funding is at stake. Not only have the agencies standardized protective suits and gas masks, but a massive 9,000 emergency personnel training effort is under way. With all of Sacramento's hard work, I am not surprised that Federal officials are singling their efforts out.

What we are doing today will help these first responders in their work. Currently, base funding for homeland security assistance programs is distributed among the States according to a strict formula. This formula has resulted in greater funding going to lower-risk States like Wyoming on a per capita basis rather than more at-risk States like New York and my home State of California.

This bill would alter the funding allocation to States based on threat and risk. However, each State would be guaranteed a minimum if its dollar amount fell below a specified level. Even the 9/11 Commission recommends that Federal dollars supplement State and local efforts that fall in higher-risk areas. This is a commonsense proposal.

I am pleased that this reform will greatly benefit California and my hometown of Sacramento. Further, this bill continues Federal support for the Urban Area Security Initiative, which Sacramento has received funding through, in addition to other Federal grant programs.

H.R. 1544 also recognizes the increased risk to our region posed by our flood control systems by specifically including dams in its list of critical infrastructure. Its inclusion will allow consideration of flood control levees and dams as a factor in determining the risk a community faces.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for highlighting this issue of great concern to both our districts. Our communities are faced with a continuing risk of flooding. Sacramento's flood risk is among the highest of major urban areas in the country. Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers, the Sacramento floodplain is the hub of a 6-county regional economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major flood along the American River would cripple this economy, cause between 7 and $16 billion in direct property damages, and likely result in significant loss of life.

While we typically view the levee system as our first line of defense against Mother Nature's raging storms, we must also face the reality that this critical infrastructure must be protected from terrorist attack. A major levee failure or a terrorist attack at the dam upstream would be absolutely devastating to the region.

The addition of this provision by the Select Committee on Homeland Security shows why amendments and increased discussion of this bill are so important. And I am glad to see that the Committee on Rules did make in order a few of the amendments that were brought before our committee. But I must express my disappointment that this bill will not be debated today under a more open process. I believe that there are a number of other amendments that, while we may disagree on the position, they are worth continued debate on the House floor.

For example, while the Select Committee on Homeland Security explored the issue of whether all first responder grants should be awarded strictly on the basis of risk, doing away altogether with State minimum award requirements, I think there are a number of Members that would like to see this issue debated before the full House.

Even the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) acknowledged that while he personally would like to see all first responder funding allocated by risk, the issue of ensuring each State receives a minimum was an important compromise in his committee. An amendment addressing this exact issue was brought before the Committee on Rules, but it was not made in order.

I strongly support the underlying bill, and I am pleased it was reported out in bipartisan fashion. I commend the Select Committee on Homeland Security for their extensive debates on the best strategies to improve the funding streams for our first responders. I imagine there are many divergent opinions on this matter, and it would be excellent debate for us to have had here today. It is unfortunate the Committee on Rules did not open this rule so we could continue this full dialogue today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

http://thomas.loc.gov