[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2848-H2850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENDING PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ACT
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2146) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic
controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans
after age 50, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2146
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 ``Defending Public Safety
Employees' Retirement Act''.
SEC. 2. EARLY RETIREMENT DISTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, AND AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS IN GOVERNMENTAL PLANS.
(a) In General.--Section 72(t)(10)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
or'',
(2) by striking ``means any employee'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(i) any employee'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) any Federal law enforcement officer described in
section 8331(20) or 8401(17) of title 5, United States Code,
any Federal customs and border protection officer described
in section 8331(31) or 8401(36) of such title, any Federal
firefighter described in section 8331(21) or 8401(14) of such
title, or any air traffic controller described in 8331(30) or
8401(35) of such title.''.
(b) Application to Defined Contribution Plans.--Section
72(t)(10)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ``which is a
defined benefit plan''.
(c) Distributions Not Treated as Modification of
Substantially Equal Payments.--Section 72(t)(4)(A)(ii) of
such Code is amended by inserting ``or a distribution to
which paragraph (10) applies'' after ``other than by reason
of death or disability''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2014.
SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on
either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Reichert) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2146 currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act,
H.R. 2146, is a straightforward bill that would simply ensure fairness
to public safety officials by extending the same treatment that applies
to State and local public safety officials to Federal public safety
officials as well.
I spent 33 years in law enforcement. I know from my own experience
and from those with whom I worked just how strenuous a job protecting
our fellow Americans can be. You never know when or what kind of
situation you might be called to intervene in. It is taxing both
mentally and physically. I could tell lots of stories here tonight over
my 33-year career to illustrate that point, but I won't put Congress
through that. Sometimes it is so mentally and physically draining that
many law enforcement officials are subject to mandatory retirement at
young ages. Think of someone who has spent an entire lifetime, 30, 35
years, in law enforcement, and the things that they have witnessed and
seen.
I was a homicide detective. I, unfortunately, was in an assignment
where you had to process the scenes of murder victims and collect the
remains of people who had been victims of serious assaults resulting in
death. Those memories never leave you. The stress of responding to a
``person with a gun'' call, a ``man with a knife,'' a domestic violence
call, and never knowing what is going to happen day after day after day
in responding to those calls--it is a stressful job. Through no fault
of their own, they may need to access savings earlier than a standard
retirement age. So we should ensure they are granted access without
penalty.
Under the current law, Mr. Speaker, individuals who attempt to access
their retirement savings before the age of 59\1/2\ are hit with a 10
percent tax. In 2006 Congress removed this penalty for State and local
government public safety officers accessing their retirement accounts
at the age of 50. This legislation would give Federal law enforcement
officers, Federal firefighters, and air traffic controllers, who often
must retire early, the same treatment. They are treated equally as
local officials and officers. We previously recognized the need for
this to happen at the State and local level, and it is just common
sense that Federal public safety officials should receive the same
opportunity.
When it comes down to it, these men and women have spent a majority
of their lives protecting us, and because of that, we should be able to
protect them from the IRS.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank Mr. Reichert for all the work he has done on this
legislation to bring it to the floor this evening. We are talking about
H.R. 2146.
Law enforcement officers face physically demanding work day in and
day out. Current law recognizes this by making Federal law enforcement
officers and firefighters eligible to retire after 20 years and at age
50.
By the way, if I may say something on this, Mr. Speaker, I don't
particularly like this idea because it is a way to get rid of
experienced police officers throughout the United States of America. If
you dump on them the fact that
[[Page H2849]]
what we are going to do is we are going to play games with their
pension funds, you force even more out. We are not saving any money,
and we are not saving any time when we push the most experienced
officers off the payroll.
A flaw in the system makes it impossible for many of these retirees
to access their earned benefits in their fifties. Most Federal
employees--we are talking about Federal here--receive retirement
benefits through the Federal Employees Retirement System. This three-
part system is made up of a defined pension plan, a defined TSP
contribution plan, and Social Security.
However, although Federal law enforcement officers can retire at 50
and access two-thirds of their retirement benefits, they face a 10
percent tax penalty if they withdraw from the defined contribution
plans like TSP before the age of 59\1/2\. State and local law
enforcement officers do not face the same penalty because Congress
rightly recognized they should not be penalized after a physically
taxing career protecting our communities.
Federal law enforcement officers do not enjoy these same protections.
This bill would bring equity to the men and women carrying out their
sworn duty to protect and serve. It would address a fundamental
unfairness in the U.S. Tax Code by removing Federal law enforcement
from the 10 percent penalty provisions that currently apply to early
withdrawals from government plans.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the bill would ensure that the penalty-
free withdrawals apply to both governmental defined benefit and defined
contribution plans like the Federal Thrift Savings Plan.
There is no justifiable reason that Federal law enforcement officers
and firefighters from a diverse array of agencies and missions must
wait up to 9\1/2\ years longer than their State and local counterparts
before they can fully access their savings without incurring a penalty.
{time} 1815
The brave men and women who work in our law enforcement agencies,
fire departments, and others who sacrifice themselves each day deserve
equitable treatment under the Tax Code.
Let's stand up for their fair treatment and well-deserved retirement
benefits for the men and women who work so hard to protect us.
The American Federation of Government Employees writes:
On a daily basis, Federal firefighters, BOP correctional
workers, Customs and Border Protection officers, and Federal
law enforcement officers secure our Federal buildings'
safety, handle the most dangerous offenders behind bars, and
patrol our Nation's borders. When these Federal employees
meet all of the established requirements for Federal
retirement, they deserve full access to their government
retirement plan.
Let's honor the faithful commitment these officers have shown us by
showing our commitment to them here on the floor of Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of this very
commonsense bill, as Mr. Pascrell just laid out, to correct an inequity
that exists within the retirement system for Federal law enforcement
officers.
Public safety employees are often subject to mandatory retirement
upon reaching a certain age. Unfortunately, for many Federal law
enforcement officers, this forced retirement occurs a couple of years
before they are able to legally access their retirement accounts
without a penalty.
It makes no sense to force these officers who protect us and who
serve our communities to then retire without being able to access their
own money that they have earned and diligently saved. The Defending
Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act corrects this inequity and
gives these public safety officers the certainty they deserve after
years of service.
I want to thank Sheriff Reichert for his leadership on this issue and
look forward to its passage.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wanted to just comment on some of the words from my friend, Mr.
Pascrell. Again, I appreciate his partnership in co-chairing the Law
Enforcement Caucus with me and all those who are members of the Law
Enforcement Caucus in recognizing this is a very important week, a sad
week, for a lot of families that are here in Washington, D.C., putting
names of their loved ones on the National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial.
On Thursday night, there will be a candlelight vigil at the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. On Friday afternoon, with the
President, there will be a service on the front lawn of the Capitol
recognizing those who lost their lives in service to their communities
across this country with all of those family members present in the
audience.
There are three bills tonight that we considered that have come
together to really, I think, show bipartisan support from the
administration, to the House of Representatives, to the Senate, both
Democrats and Republicans coming together to show their support for the
men and women who wear the badge and the uniform across this country.
There are still things that we can do, and people wonder what the
Federal Government can do for local law enforcement. Well, we showed
three things tonight that we can do to help local law enforcement and
show our support for them.
Mr. Pascrell pointed out, I think, one other, and that is the
retirement issue. I think that is another thing that we can work on. I
agree with Mr. Pascrell on that issue.
I think that there is another issue that we can work on that some
Members may not be fully aware of, and that is the delayed payment of
death benefits for those killed in the line of duty.
For example, Mr. Speaker, in my community, a police officer died in
the line of duty over 3\1/2\ years ago--3\1/2\ years ago--and, as far
as I know, today, his family has still not received the death benefit
that is due. Three-and-a-half years is too long for a family to wait
when their loved one has lost their life in service to this country.
Mr. Pascrell and I will continue to work together with the law
enforcement organizations across this country looking for ways that we
can support them and show that we care and show the families that we
care.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, as we vote on H.R. 2146 in the House
today, I would like to share with you the dire reality facing our brave
first responders who put their lives on the line for the safety of the
American people.
The health-related risks associated with the work of our first
responders, though rarely considered by the average American, are
largely due to stress and overexertion. The United States Fire
Administration (USFA) tracks the number of first responder fatalities
each year and has provided valuable analysis for nearly four decades.
The data shows that over the course of the past 10 years, 757 first
responders in the United States have suffered from heart-related
fatalities; including heart attacks, due to the extremely stressful
nature of their work.
While firefighting can be an incredibly rewarding profession for a
first responder--make no mistake--it is also one of the deadliest. High
rates of cancer and heart attacks plague our public safety defenders.
Under our current law, first responders can retire at the age of 50, as
long as they have completed 20 years of service. Those 20 years are
consumed by immediate midnight response calls, the physical toll of
carrying heavy equipment, ventilating smoke-filled areas, salvaging
building contents, rescuing victims and administering emergency medical
care.
H.R. 2146 is a bipartisan proposal that would reform federal tax law
by allowing firefighters, federal law enforcement officers and air
traffic controllers, to access funds from their government plans after
age 50 and without facing a 10 percent penalty fee. These first
responders have more than earned their ability to access their
retirement after over 20 years of strenuous service. We should feel
ashamed for penalizing our public safety defenders by levying penalties
and fees on those who are entitled and deserve to retire.
When our lives are on the line and we call 911, we expect help to
come without hesitation and our brave first responders do not fail in
their duty. For this reason we must not fail them after a lifetime of
service.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr.
[[Page H2850]]
Reichert) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R.
2146, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. REICHERT. 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, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________