Advocate Summary

Issue:  Federal Public Safety Officers amendment to the Affordable Housing For Americans Act of 2002
Advocate:  Office of Representative Patrick J. Tiberi (R-OH) - David Frissora
Date of Interview: 7/23/02

Basic Background
We were actually approached by the FOP to get involved along with the committee staff, but essentially that was it, they contacted us. The congressman has had a good relationship with the FOP in the past in the state house so he had no problem doing it.

Sections 222 through 224 of the Act that we passed increased home ownership opportunities. There’s a program through HUD called the Officer Next Door Program it allows law enforcement officers to live in the communities and take root in the communities where they serve and protect and essentially all this would do, under the definition of public safety officer, that definition as it stood excluded federal law enforcement officers, what we wanted to do was to make that inclusive for all federal law enforcement officers. The officers were already qualified for home ownership assistance for property located in high crime areas, they would have been ineligible for reduced down payments in the Community Partners Next Door Program,  which is not an official HUD program it was sort of termed by local offices but that ineligibility is why the FOP worked on it, and frankly that’s the only group we worked with on this. The amendment would change the definition of public safety officer to ensure that nothing would effect the participation of federal law officers. So that would be customs agents, secret service, in Columbus, our district – it’s the capital so we have FBI, secret service, FDA all those officers qualify. And it only applies to “high crime areas and areas where law enforcement officers serve” For instance in Columbus the officers of down town, they may live in the suburbs but they could take advantage of these programs if they lived in the downtown areas, so inner city. The program is to attract more law enforcement officers into that area where they serve, and high crime areas are usually what we’re talking about. So in the downtown area, that’s where a lot of our federal guys are, men and women I should say, rural areas, I don’t think we have many federal law enforcement except maybe some Ag and EPA.

Prior Activity on the Issue 
None mentioned.

Advocacy Activities Undertaken
We didn’t have to do anything, it was a cut deal when we got there. The committee staff, the Republican staff spoke with the Democratic staff about the amendment initially when we were contacted by the FOP I didn’t do a single dear colleague, I didn’t receive a single call against it either. I spoke to FOP’s government relations guys on the phone a couple of times and they sent a thank you letter after. And I think we may have had once conference call with staff. 

Future Advocacy Activities Planned
None mentioned.

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
None mentioned.
Targets of Direct Lobbying
Not necessary.

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
Not applicable.

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
Fraternal Order of Police 

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
None mentioned.

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
Just that it didn’t include them, that was basically it. That was it, that’s the only reason. Yeah, Mr. Frank when we were offering the amendment, he flat out interrupted the congressman and was like we’re ready to accept this is a no-brainer, so the Democrats were all for it. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
None mentioned.

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
None mentioned.

Nature of the Opposition
None, no impediments either. None. It was the easiest thing I’ve ever done, I hate to say that but I guess it’s good because it helped out a lot of people, but no, no impediments at all. 
 
Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
Not applicable.

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
Not applicable.

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
Not applicable.

Described as a Partisan Issue
No.

Venue(s) of Activity
House Education and the Workforce

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
Bill passed with amendment in it.

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
To include federal safety officers along with all other safety officers in housing programs to bring officers into high-crime areas. 

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
I’ve been here since the beginning, over a year and a half now, but I’ve only been on the Hill though since October I was in the district in the beginning and I worked for Congressman 
Kaysic his predecessor for five and a half years, I got that job two months out of college, from Ohio state. 

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous