The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act HR 1168 (106th), now called the FIRE Act, began as a relatively simple piece of legislation submitted by Representative William J. Pascrell (New Jersey Democrat). Rep. Pascrell, a former mayor, had difficulty funding local fire departments and sought to reform how firefighters received additional funding. Originally introduced as HR 4229 (105th): The 21st Century Fire and Public Safety Act, the bill sought to distribute five billion dollars in grants to local fire departments, which would be used for recruiting , equipment, training and everything they needed to be effective. in their municipalities (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. 44). Providing funds in this manner began during the Clinton administration's community policing initiative (the Community Oriented Policing Services program), which had similar funding goals, but for police departments (Conlan, Timothy, Posner, p. However, Clinton carried out the COPS program while Congress was still under his control. While Pascrell wanted to get this legislation out of a Republican-controlled Congress, and even though he had two Republican co-sponsors, it didn't do much for him. The bill was referred to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, where it quickly died without even a hearing (US Gov Publishing Office). Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay In the 105th Congress, where Pascrell's original bill died, Pascrell was a freshman in the party minority and lacked the necessary understanding of the legislative tactics needed to pass his bill. The year after Pascrell's first attempt to reform firefighter funding, a new Congress convened, providing another opportunity for the bill to succeed. Although the 21st Century Fire and Public Safety Act of 1998 didn't get much attention in the 105th Congress, it eventually attracted big players in the fire lobby. Lobbyists directed Pascrell to Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), best known as co-chairman of the Congressional Fire Caucus (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. 44). Together, they reworked the 21st Century Fire and Public Safety Act of 1998 and introduced a new bill, the FIRE Act, on March 17, 1999. Aside from the new name given to the bill, the contents are remained essentially the same. The important change Rep. Weldon added is how this money is transferred to the local level, bringing it to five billion over five years. The new version of the bill also received sixty-eight cosponsors and continued lobbying efforts from the multiple firefighting organizations invested in the bill's success (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. 45). The new version of the FIRE Act was short-lived as it got stuck in the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Basic Research. Conservative Speaker Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) declined to hold a hearing on the bill due to the enormous cost of the program, as well as the precedent the bill would set by expanding the federal government's obligations ( Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. However, Rep. Weldon was not ready to give up. He sought a partnership with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), co-chairDemocrat from the Congressional Fire Caucus, to propose a more modest one-time amendment of a hundred million dollars providing grants to fire departments. Hoyer and Weldon introduced their amendment as part of the nearly thirteen billion dollar Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2000 (HR 3908) (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. 45). With the support of the Congressional Fire Caucus, both parties in the House rallied around the Weldon-Hoyer proposal and passed it easily by a vote of 386 to 28. Unfortunately, the amendment was later removed from the bill in committee of the conference by Republican leaders, despite the support of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p.45). The essence of the FIRE Act survived thanks to an amendment strategy used by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). He did this by adding language similar to that of the FIRE Act in an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S.2549). This amendment would have provided $2.1 billion in grants over six years, down from previous versions of the bill, but significantly larger than the amendment proposed in the House (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. 45) . This addition received strong support from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John Warner (R-VA) as well as Ranking Minority Member Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). The bill, now amended with the support of the committee chairmen, was put to a vote in the Senate which passed by a vote of 97 to 3 (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. 46). However, it wasn't over yet, as the bill once again faced opposition from the Conference Committee. Senator John McCain fought to secure some of the funding rather than allow the entire amendment to be removed again (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p. 46). In the Conference Committee, McCain was able to secure agreement for a two-year provision providing four hundred million dollars in grants to fire departments ($100 million for FY 2001 and three hundred million dollars for the 2002 financial year). Support for the program was strengthened by the addition of a provision requiring that no grant may exceed seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The newly revised bill then moved out of conference committee and was sent to both houses for passage. The final roll call vote in the House was 382 to 31 and the final roll call vote in the Senate was 90 to 3 (Congress.gov). Although full funding of the original versions of the FIRE Act never occurred, it was still the first major federal program providing federal aid to fire departments. After September 11, 2001, public and congressional support rallied for first responders, and the policy change was drastic. In 2003, five years after the first bill was introduced, the Government Accountability Office calculated that there were twenty-one categorical grants assisting first responders, training firefighters, and providing equipment (Conlan, Timothy, Posner p 47). The Century Fire and Public Safety Act was introduced in the 105th Congress. Little was known about the problem she sought to address. Lawmakers avoided the bill because of the large sums of money it required and a lack of public interest in the topic at a time highlighted by the president's impeachment proceedings. However, just five years later, many programs were providing federal funding to improve the ability of first responders to respond effectively to disasters as well as everyday emergencies. Even if this sudden influxmoney was the result of the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, obtaining funding before then for these programs proved much more difficult. My analysis will focus primarily on how the issue progressed in Congress before this major event. First, why the 21st Century Fire and Public Safety Act has evolved into improving firefighter investment and response. When Rep. Pascrell envisioned the 21st century FPSA (Fire and Public Safety Act), he did so before he even entered Congress, when his local fire department was suffering from a lack of funding significant. This effort is an example of a policy strategy known as the garbage can model, in which policymakers use pre-drafted solutions in order to achieve their goals. However, Rep. Pascrell lacked the necessary policy tools – support from interest groups, significant bipartisan support, or backing from the Congressional Fire Caucus – that he needed to advance his legislation. Acting as a political entrepreneur and attempting to force significant policy change in an area where Congress lacked precedent demonstrated Pascrell's relative innocence in the legislative arena. Eventually, the political flow would shift to a more favorable environment so that it could achieve its original goal, but now was not the time. Furthermore, the fact that Rep. Pascrell did not have a single hearing on a bill that would ordinarily attract support or at least sympathy from members of Congress is unusual. Especially since the final version of the legislation that passed did so with enormous support. I attribute this to two things: First, Republican members of Congress in 1998 were wary of anything modeled on Clinton's policies. This, of course, was due to the impeachment trial the House was holding at the time, and Republicans knew that anything the Clinton administration could take credit for would not bode well for the proceedings. The second is that Rep. Sensenbrenner, who at the time chaired the House Committee on Science and Technology, felt that intense loyalty to the party at that time would position him to advance within the party. Identifying trends with the Policy Agenda Project shows that Rep. Sensenbrenner's committee did not hold as many hearings in 1998 as one might assume, especially in the run-up to the Y2K bug. Generally, in 1997 and 1998 there were fewer committee hearings in the House than in previous years. However, after Clinton's acquittal, hearings increased significantly, perhaps indicating a delay in legislation that needed to be discussed (see chart on next page). Representative Sensenbrenner was given the chairmanship of the House Committee on Jurisprudence two years later, giving credence to the idea that those who fought with the party during this period received a promotion. The FPSA most likely would have been abandoned after the failure, but interest groups decided to pass the bill and advance it further. Draft Policy Agenda This is where the pluralist policy path helped advance Rep. Pascrell’s goal. The two major fire service interest groups, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) and the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), have pushed the FSPA forward. Recognizing Rep. Pascrell's failed attempt to pass sweeping emergency funding reform, the IAFC and IAFF realized they had a new member of Congress who had an earattentive to their problems. The AIP and IAFC significantly improved the chances of the bill passing by connecting Rep. Weldon with Rep. Pascrell. Interest groups also pushed several representatives to co-sponsor the bill, increasing awareness of the issue through aggressive grassroots lobbying campaigns (Conlan, Timothy, Posner, p. 45). The combination of grassroots lobbying and input to improve the language of the bill demonstrates the degree of influence interest groups can have on the process. In this particular case, interest group participation was integral to the advancement and eventual passage of the law. For example, the first version of Rep. Pascrell's bill had two co-sponsors, but in the final tally, the list of co-sponsors reached 285 representatives made up of members from both parties. This was a direct result of the efforts of interest groups. In doing so, they helped maintain momentum on the issue and also explain why the amendment that ultimately passed received the votes of more than two-thirds of Congress (Congress.gov). However, Rep. Sensenbrenner's fundamental disagreement with policy and use of his oversight power prevented a standalone bill from reaching the House floor. However, one might wonder why Rep. Weldon never attempted to use a release request during his efforts. Instead, after Rep. Sensenbrenner refused to give the bill a hearing, Rep. Weldon sought help from Speaker Gingrich, who helped secure several referrals for the bill. Unfortunately, the additional referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure did not help pass the bill. The committee held only five hearings on referred legislation during the second session of the 106th Congress, in part because of the investigation into Speaker Bud Shuster and his campaign treasurer (Public Policy Project). Lingering in committee for over a year, when the bill was finally heard. Rep. Weldon had previously sought to include language similar to the bill in an amendment. To get around the difficulties in committee, Representative Weldon began seeking members willing to support an amendment to their bill. This gave Rep. Weldon the power to shape how negotiations would follow on the amendment, as well as giving him the opportunity to demonstrate the diversity of support for his legislation. Two separate amendments, one in the House and one in the Senate, attempted to break the bill's deadlock. In the House, the Congressional Fire Caucus, comprised of Senator Weldon and Senator Hoyer, proposed a significantly reduced one hundred million dollar amendment to the HR3908 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. In the Senate, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) proposed a larger, $2.1 billion package of amendments to the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S. 2549). ). As I mentioned earlier, the participation of the AIP and IAFC led to overwhelming support for the amendment in the House. Conversely, the amendment tabled in the Senate did not benefit from the same level of involvement from interest groups. Instead, the bill received approval from the committee chairs and ranking members of the committee responsible for the bill. Gaining support from committee chairs proved more effective than interest group participation in the House, mainly because a less conservative Senate meant more money for the program..