# Building Department Grant (HR 2246 & SB 970)



## FM William Burns (Apr 28, 2010)

Well I'm here in D.C. lobbying for these bills' support from US Senate and House members.

We have had firm commitment from those we have met with, so far (15 meetings and 12 more to go tomorrow) with those who have not signed on as sponsors.  It appears that there are no building groups here lobbying so our group from MI has chosen to include this issue in our meetings since we value the our partnerships with our building inspection departments. (So no more divisionist's OK   )

Please don't think that I've gone off the reservation.......... since we are discussing other fire service matters too but I was asked to lobby this issue so hopefully I'm making progress to get you guys the ability to gain grants for personnel and certification training etc.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 28, 2010)

Thanks FM

And for those who are not familar with the Grant here is a link

http://www.iccsafe.org/gr/Pages/code-grant.aspx


----------



## Alias (Apr 29, 2010)

Thank FM Burns.  I have written a couple of letters in support of these bills.

Sue, on the frontier


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 29, 2010)

Update

Finished our meetings today and soaking my feet (and throat) from walking the hill for the past three days.  Worked the Senator's aids today with very receptive responses.  I was very suprised that they all said they were not familiar with the proposed legislation and when we related to the Fire Act grants and explained the needs they were confident that they would co-sponsor.  Spoke to the regulatory committee chair also and he is on-board.

My recommendation to all of the BO's out there is to write your congressman/women and senators requesting their support and a brief substantion on how it would help your jurisdiction.  Time to replentish my fluids at the CFSI dinner in a few so be safe and enjoy the weekend since I'll be on a 11 hour drive tomorrow :cry:


----------



## Coug Dad (Apr 29, 2010)

Do those of you on the public side really want the Federal Government to be your "partner."  No federal funding or "Grant" ever comes without a lot of strings attached.  There is a long track record of Federal rules accompanying their largess with the public funds.  Anyone remember the 55 mile per hour speed limit on the freeways.  The Feds did not "mandate" it, but the states would lose a portion of their Federal highway funding if they did not adopt it.  This type of "partnering" with the Federal Government has not worked out so well for the schools, the DOT's, hospitals, 100,000 cops (Feds help subsidize for the first two years but then the funding is cut off), the arts, seat belt laws, 21 drinking age laws, and the list goes on and on.  You can pretty much guarantee that if you receive subsidies from the Feds, you are going to enforce their codes, their way, with staffs and policies that reflect their view of America.  Do you really want to give the Feds that much control for a few dollars?


----------



## texas transplant (Apr 29, 2010)

Right on Coug Dad and the green of the money they send you is going to be the same green of the *GREEN CODES *and other wonderful (trying to stop cussing) ideas like that.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 30, 2010)

Last I read the only "string attached" was the adoption of the 2009 ICC Energy Code which our state has already done with amendments. If I can use it to keep people employed or purchase an online permit program or provide training to the contractors I will. Now if adoption of the GREEN CODES are required in the final bill then it will not be applied for by our jurisdiction.


----------

