A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill creates a grant program to help emergency medical services and fire departments improve their staffing, equipment, and training. It directs the Health Resources and Services Administration to give out these competitive grants for a period of three years. The funding can be used for things like hiring personnel, buying gear and vehicles, and providing mental health services. The bill sets aside ten percent of the funds specifically for majority-volunteer or all-volunteer groups. It also requires reports and performance checks to make sure the money is being spent properly.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural residents heavily rely on volunteer emergency services, which receive a dedicated ten percent set-aside of grant funding.
- Scored +6
Does this make mental health care easier to get?
Grant funds can be explicitly used to provide mental health services to emergency medical services personnel.
- Scored +6
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill enhances emergency medical services capacity, staffing, and equipment availability to better respond to community needs.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Better Staffing and Training: Under Section 2 (adding subsection (a)(1) and (a)(3)), departments can use grants to maintain or increase EMS personnel to meet industry standards and cover the costs of required certifications. This is a positive step because it helps ensure our communities have enough trained medics on duty to respond when people need help.
-
Mental Health Support: Under Section 2 (adding subsection (a)(2)), grant funds can be used to provide mental health services to EMS personnel. This is beneficial because our first responders deal with high-stress situations and deserve proper mental health support for the toll their jobs take on them.
-
Essential Gear and Equipment: Under Section 2 (adding subsection (a)(4) and (a)(5)), departments can buy personal protective equipment, medication, uniforms, communications gear, and vehicles. This helps protect our emergency workers and gives them reliable tools to do their jobs safely and effectively.
-
Support for Volunteers: Under Section 2 (adding subsection (j)), ten percent of the funding is set aside specifically for majority-volunteer or all-volunteer organizations. This is good for small towns and rural areas that rely heavily on volunteers who donate their time to keep people safe.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Hiring Spending Caps: Under Section 2 (adding subsection (e)), departments are limited on how much grant money they can use to hire personnel, capping it at not more than 75 percent for the first two years and not more than 35 percent in the third year. This could be a burden for communities that desperately need to pay for more bodies on the clock rather than physical equipment.
-
Budget Cuts Restriction: Under Section 2 (adding subsection (g)(3)), the Administrator cannot give a grant to any municipality that has lowered its annual emergency medical services budget below 80 percent of its average funding level from the previous three years. While meant to prevent local governments from cutting budgets, this rule could unfairly penalize communities facing genuine economic downturns that were forced to make tough budget choices.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents heavily rely on volunteer emergency services, which receive a dedicated ten percent set-aside of grant funding. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from strengthened and better-funded emergency medical response teams in their communities. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors, who frequently utilize emergency medical services, benefit from better-staffed and better-equipped EMS departments. Would children be better off under this? — Improved emergency medical services and response capabilities benefit children in emergency medical situations. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers and agricultural communities benefit through dedicated support for volunteer-based emergency services in rural areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households rely heavily on public emergency services, which receive upgraded equipment and staffing support. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals benefit from enhanced community emergency response and healthcare availability. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from enhanced reliability and capability of local emergency medical services. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans working in or served by emergency medical services benefit from improved staffing, mental health support, and equipment. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from improved emergency medical services and potential job opportunities in EMS.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill enhances emergency medical services capacity, staffing, and equipment availability to better respond to community needs. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Grant funds can be explicitly used to provide mental health services to emergency medical services personnel.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation requires a performance assessment system, auditing access, and a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the grants. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill establishes a new federal grant program administered through the Health Resources and Services Administration with federal oversight and compliance requirements.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill provides grant funding to emergency medical services and fire departments to maintain or increase the number of personnel.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill sets aside a portion of funding for majority-volunteer and all-volunteer organizations, which heavily benefit rural communities.
- 10/29/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House