Week 7 Assignment: Final Project - Policy Issue Social Sciences Paper

Week 7 Assignment: Final Project - Policy Issue
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Cover Letter: Final Project - Policy Issue
To,
Jim Clyburn,
Majority Whip
200 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
October 18, 2020
Subject: BANNING OF SMOKING IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS
With the current state of Democrats occupying the highest number of seats while the Republicans taking the minority, I am writing to sensitize on the ban of smoking in federal buildings. While this policy has already been enacted, it will require efforts from the Majority Whip for implementation. Together with Jim Clyburn, the Majority Whip, other majority leaders that will be crucial for the enactment of this policy will include Steny Hoyer, the Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, and Steve Scalise, the Minority Whip.
Unlike the Senate Majority Leader, the prominence and duties of the House Majority Leaders may vary based on the power and leadership style of the Speaker of the House. Traditionally, the Speaker has little to no participation in debates and would rarely cast a vote on the floor of the house. Therefore, Majority Leaders exercise more power compared to the Speaker. For instance, Tom DeLay demonstrated more prominence compared to Dennis Hastert, the Speaker, and Newt Gingrich, the Speaker was capable of delegating Dick Armey some serious power over the arrangements on the House floor. Kevin McCarthy, the Minority Leader presently in the capacity of the floor leader under the opposition and remains to be the counterpart of the Majority Leader.
Different from Hoyer, Scalise is the top choice for the position of the Speaker for the next Congress and the Minority Whip is in line to be the chief spokesperson for the majority party. McCarthy often meets with the leader of the majority party and Speaker to iron out contentious issues. Therefore, the Speaker, Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Majority and Minority Whips will all have superior office suites in the Capital. For these reasons, I am writing to inform you about smoking bans as a public policy and occupational safety and health and criminal laws prohibit tobacco smoking in such areas (Silke, Michael & Thomas, 2010). Such policies are meant to protect the public from negative health issues associated with passive smoking or exposure to secondary smoking.
In the pamphlet I provide below, I outline reasons why banning smoking in federal buildings should be implemented for the safety of the public. I hereby call upon your authority to facilitate the effective implementation of the policy.
Yours Sincerely,
Lobbyist.
Pamphlet
Problem Definition
In 1997, President Bill Clinton raised a ban on smoking in federal buildings through an executive order, which is a critical presidential tool for formulating healthy policies. Such policies are subject to no public scrutiny compared to regulatory rulemaking and legislation. Earlier, President George H.W. Bush had considered the policy twice but abandoned it due to objections from labor unions and agency heads of which a majority was coordinated by the tobacco industry (Cook & Bero, 2009). During this time, the internal tobacco industry had been involved in extensive executive branch lobbying as well as other political activism on the issue of the smoking ban imposed by Clinton’s administration (McKee, Hogan & Gilmore, 2004). While stakeholder politics were expected, the policy involved jockeying among several agencies and other organized labor participation. In 2011, Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.) presented a bill to ban smoking in and 25 feet around federal facilities. Davis argued that exposure to second-hand smoking would pose a serious health consequence in driving up the cost of health care. She argued that federal workers need to work in a healthy, and clean environment (O’Keefe, 2011). However, the alignment of these forces has changed as the voice of the public has been heard. While there have been myths largely peddled by the tobacco and hospitality industry the public consultations have revealed the nature of the extent of secondary smoking and its negative health consequences. The Bush administration led to the General Service Administration (GSA) publishing a new policy that banned smoking in the courtyards of federal facilities on within a range of 25-feet of doorways and air ducts. The GSA attempted to change the policy by citing the harmful effects of smoking on co-workers or vulnerable exposed individuals as well as laws that banned smoking in federal buildings and private offices.
Problem Analysis
Smoking in Federal Facilities
The “Protecting Federal Employees and the Public from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Federal Workplace” Executive Order 13058 prohibits smoking in every facility of the Executive Branch, all interior spaces owned, leased, or tented spaces by the Executive Branch of the Federal adminstration (Cook & Bero, 2009). The Ban on Smoking in Federal Buildings Act protects the safety and health of all Federal workers and the efforts to implement the policy are in line with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to guarantee that all workers in the United States have healthy and safe working environments (Brownson, Hopkins & Wakefield, 2002). The medical and scientific communities are aware of the potential negative health impacts connected to smoking. In recent years, there have been concerns about the negative consequences of smoking with the medical and scientific research linking the potential negative health effects to second-hand smoking of tobacco (McKee...