[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2164-H2166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FALLEN HERO SURVIVOR BENEFIT FAIRNESS ACT OF 2001
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1727) to amend the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide
for consistent treatment of survivor benefits for public safety
officers killed in the line of duty, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. R. 1727
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit
Fairness Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. CONSISTENT TREATMENT OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
Subsection (b) of section 1528 of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) is amended by striking the period
and inserting ``, and to amounts received in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2001, with respect to
individuals dying on or before December 31, 1996.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot be considering this important legislation on a
more appropriate day. Today is Peace Officers Memorial Day. Each year,
on May 15, America honors the men and women in law enforcement who have
given their lives to keep the American people safe in their communities
and on their streets. More than 15,400 brave public safety officers
have made the ultimate sacrifice since our Nation was founded.
We just considered a resolution honoring these fallen heroes. Now it
is time to honor our public safety officers killed in the line of duty
by offering tangible help to their loved ones left behind. This is
exactly what the legislation before us does.
The Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act provides tax-free
benefits to families of all public safety officers killed in the line
of duty regardless of when the officer was killed. This bill, Mr.
Speaker, includes law enforcement officers, firefighters, rescue
squads, ambulance crews and employees working in disaster or emergency
areas.
Under present law, a gross inequity exists because survivor benefits
are treated differently, depending on when the public safety officer
died. Currently, survivor benefits are tax free only if a public safety
officer died in the line of duty after December 31, 1996.
This inequity, Mr. Speaker, arose from the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997
[[Page H2165]]
because of revenue constraints. Pursuant to an amendment to that
legislation offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and
me, families of officers killed in the line of duty became eligible to
receive survivor benefits tax free for the first time.
Unfortunately, however, because of the revenue limitations at the
time, the tax-free benefits were limited to officers killed after
December 31, 1996.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, families of our law enforcement heroes, our
fallen heroes, are being treated differently by the Tax Code depending
on when the officer was killed. I think all of us in this body and all
Americans agree that it is absolutely unconscionable to discriminate
against survivors of fallen officers simply because their husband,
wife, or parent officer died before 1997.
The bill before us today is based on an amendment I offered 2 years
ago in the Committee on Ways and Means, which was unanimously adopted
in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. That provision passed
both the House and Senate, but unfortunately the President at the time
vetoed the larger bill.
I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from California
(Chairman Thomas) for expediting H.R. 1727 in the Committee on Ways and
Means. I want to also thank the 13 bipartisan members of the committee
who joined me in sponsoring this bill and to the other sponsors,
especially the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who have worked on this issue over the years.
I am also grateful to the more than 20 State and national law
enforcement organizations who sent letters in support of this important
legislation. But most of all, Mr. Speaker, I am eternally grateful to
the fallen heroes and their families we honor today.
As cochair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I understand
the risks and sacrifices made by our officers every time they put on
their badge. Over the past 15 years, I have spent over 1,600 hours
riding with Minneapolis and suburban police back home. I have
accompanied high-risk entry teams on 65 search warrants. So I have
seen, firsthand, officers in harm's way simply because they are doing
their job to keep our streets and communities safe.
Each year, an average of 62,000 assaults are committed against peace
officers, resulting in more than 21,000 injured officers. On the
average, it was just said by the previous speakers, an officer is
killed every 57 hours in America. Just last year, 150 peace and police
officers gave their lives, which represents, by the way, a 12 percent
increase in police fatalities over the previous year.
The average age of slain peace officers is only 38 years. Seventy-two
percent of these officers were married, and the largest percentage had
young children.
Of course the financial hardship on these families can be devastating
on top of dealing with an unbearably painful loss.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this legislation, H.R.
1727, is long overdue. Just a few short hours ago, a memorial service
for fallen police officers was held here at the Capitol. Flags on all
Federal buildings are currently flying at half-staff. It is time to
honor our fallen heroes with deeds as well as words.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will ensure that all
families, all families of slain police officers receive survivor
benefits tax free, regardless of when the officers were killed. It is
the very least we can do for families of our fallen heroes who have
made the ultimate sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today H.R. 1727 comes to the House with strong
bipartisan support. This bill was approved by the Committee on Ways and
Means by unanimous vote. I strongly support this legislation.
H.R. 1727 would bring fairness to our Tax Code for a small but very
special group of taxpayers. The bill would extend uniform tax treatment
to certain payments received by the surviving spouse or children of a
public safety officer killed in the line of duty. This legislation
would extend current-law treatment to amounts paid under a survivor
annuity with respect to a public safety officer killed in the line of
duty before December 31, 1996 with respect to payments received after
December 31 in the year 2001.
The Tax Relief Act of 1997 provided that amounts paid pursuant to a
survivor annuity with respect to public safety officers who were killed
in the line of duty are excluded from the income of the officer's
surviving spouse or children if the officer's death occurred on or
after December 31, 1996. The annuity must be provided under a
government plan.
For this purpose, public safety officers include, not only law
enforcement officers, but also firefighters, rescue squad members, or
ambulance crews.
As demonstrated under present law, this tax treatment is provided for
annuity payments received with respect to public safety officers who
lose their lives due to risks inherent in their jobs. These officers
risked their lives on a daily basis to protect our families and our
communities. This sacrifice obviously is shared by their families.
Under H.R. 1727, we are acknowledging that, when a public safety
officer is killed in the line of duty, the officer's family has paid
the ultimate sacrifice. The sacrifice is no less great because the
officer was killed before December 31, 1996.
This is why H.R. 1727 extends current law to families of all officers
killed in the line of duty without regard to date of death. All
surviving spouses and all children of public safety officers killed in
the line of duty should receive the same tax treatment.
H.R. 1727 provides that all payments received under a survivor
annuity as prescribed above after December 31, 2001 would be excluded
from income.
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1727 in the name of all
of those who put their lives on the line for us 365 days a year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), an important cosponsor of
this legislation, a strong advocate to law enforcement, and a fellow
member of the Law Enforcement Caucus.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in support
of the Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act. I want to begin by
thanking the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), who is chairman of
the Law Enforcement Caucus and who has worked hard and successfully to
bring this important bill through the Committee on Ways and Means and
to the floor.
As he and previous speakers have indicated, this legislation extends
the tax-free treatment to the survivors of those law enforcement
officers and public safety officers lost in the line of duty, not just
for those lost after 1996. It makes good sense. It is fair. It is just.
Especially during a week when we honor law enforcement officers and
those who have fallen in the line of duty, it is an important gesture,
a step forward that gives them the financial security and the piece of
mind they so justly deserve.
I introduced similar legislation 2 years ago with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) after sharing the stories with several families
in New Hampshire that faced the consequences of having lost a loved one
serving in the line of duty prior to 1996.
It is my pleasure to support the legislation, and it is a pleasure to
step forward on a piece of legislation that has such a bipartisan
commitment behind it. I thank my colleagues for their support.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a
friend, a colleague, and a former police officer who himself put his
life on the line for the folks in his community.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramstad), my colleague and cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, for
his hard work on this resolution and the gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Sununu) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) and all the
members of the Committee on Ways and
[[Page H2166]]
Means for bringing this legislation to the point where we are today.
Public safety officers put their lives on the line every day to
protect and serve the people of this country. Yet, unbelievably enough,
until 1997, survivor benefits for public safety officers who died in
the line of duty were subject to Federal income taxes. The families,
loved ones had done so much for this country, and their spouses and
children sacrifice as well, yet the Federal Government would tax the
benefits they so need.
{time} 1530
In 1997, as I attended the Police Officers Memorial, I was made aware
of this injustice of taxing survivor benefits. Because of the quirk in
the law, those law enforcement officers who were disabled, their
benefits were not taxed; yet those who died, their benefits were taxed
by the Federal Government. So I spoke then with the co-chair of the
Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ramstad). We spoke with the President, got the support of the
administration; we worked with members of the Committee on Ways and
Means, especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman); and we
moved legislation to try to correct this injustice. The Congressional
Law Enforcement Caucus wholeheartedly supported it.
In 1997, Congress started to fix this serious problem. The Taxpayers
Relief Act of 1997 provided that the survivor benefits of officers
killed on or after December 31, 1996, would not be subject to taxation.
However, we had budget constraints back then; and we could not extend
this legislation to everyone. But we did not give up. These were not
minor omissions. The bill left numerous deserving families without
assistance.
I am pleased to report that through this legislation today, authored
by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and my
cochairman of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, who has worked
so hard on this issue, we now have this bill for passage before the
House of Representatives. Today, we close this unfair loophole by
ensuring that the survivor benefits of all officers, regardless of the
date they perished, will be exempt from taxes.
We must provide for those families that have suffered the devastating
loss of losing their loved ones to the call of duty. These families
deserve our support when the unthinkable happens and their loved one is
struck down. We have to look out for them, just as their husbands,
their wives, their mothers, and fathers look out for us every day,
risking their commitments to their families for the greater commitment
they have made to this country.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to simply say that in the name of basic tax fairness and on behalf of
all of the survivors of the heroes who put their lives on the line and
gave their lives for our communities, I urge all of my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to again thank my co-chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McNulty), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), and
the 13 other Ways and Means colleagues who cosponsored this important
legislation. I also want to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Sununu) again for his hard work on this issue and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, for expediting this legislation at my request.
This is the least we can do, Mr. Speaker, for our fallen law
enforcement heroes and other public safety officers killed in the line
of duty, to give all of the survivors of public safety officers who
give their lives for our public safety the tax-free benefits regardless
of when their officer relative was killed. So I urge Members to support
this important legislation.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, current law unfairly divides our fallen
heroes into two camps. Officers who sacrificed their lives after 1997
are granted the fair and reasonable recognition of allowing their
families to draw survivor benefits without paying taxes on the
benefits.
Society recognizes that officers who make the supreme sacrifice
deserve to be treated in a special way through this provision, which is
designed to express our gratitude to the surviving family members.
Unfortunately, this distinction does not currently apply to the
surviving families of officers who fell before January 1987. The law
discriminates against these law enforcement officers because it denies
their families the right to draw their survivor's benefits without
taxes.
We need to treat all of our fallen officers equally. We should single
out those brave officers who give their lives protecting society. We
should demonstrate a special reverence for their demanding and
dangerous work as law enforcement officers. Easing the burden on
surviving family members is a fair and appropriate gesture to convey
our thanks and respect. Members should show our appreciation by
supporting this legislation.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1727, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________