PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 5, 2003
Firefighting Research and Coordination Act - Amends the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to direct the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration (Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)) to: (1) develop new, and utilize existing, measurement techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating new firefighting technologies; (2) evaluate the compatibility of new equipment and technology with existing technology; and (3) support the development of new standards through national voluntary consensus standards organizations for new firefighting technologies based on specified techniques and methodologies.Directs the Administrator to: (1) provide technical assistance and training to State and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and State mutual aid systems for dealing with national emergencies; and (2) develop and make model mutual aid plans for both intrastate and interstate assistance available to State and local fire service officials.Requires the Director of FEMA to revise FEMA's Federal Response Plan to incorporate plans for responding to terrorist attacks, particularly in urban areas.Authorizes the Superintendent of the National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control to train fire service personnel in: (1) strategies for building collapse rescue; (2) the use of technology in response to fires; (3) response, tactics, and strategies for dealing with terrorist-caused national catastrophes; (4) use of and familiarity with the national plan; (5) leadership and strategic skills, including integrated management systems operations and integrated response; (6) strategies and tactics for fighting forest fires; (7) integration of terrorism response agencies into the national terrorism incident response system; and (8) response tactics and strategies for fighting fires at U.S. ports, including fires on the water and aboard vessels.
People & committees
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2008-2009)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2007-2008)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.321 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.321 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.321 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.321 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.