[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18530-18532]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 1638) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to extend the retroactive eligibility dates for 
financial assistance for higher education for spouses and dependent 
children of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who are 
killed in the line of duty.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 1638

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RETROACTIVE ELIGIBILITY DATES FOR 
                   FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION FOR 
                   SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 1216(a) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796d-5(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``May 1, 1992'', and inserting ``January 1, 
     1978,''; and
       (2) by striking ``October 1, 1997,'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 1978,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect October 1, 1999.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on S. 1638, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in support of Senate bill 1638, a bill which will 
amend the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Act of 1996. That act 
provides educational assistance to the dependents of Federal law 
enforcement officers and State and local public safety officers killed 
in the line of duty.
  The Senate bill passed the Senate in May by unanimous consent. The 
identical House version of the bill, H.R. 2059, was introduced by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King) on June 8 of 1999, and it was 
reported by voice vote from the Committee on the Judiciary on July 11 
of this year. The bill has wide bipartisan support. And in the interest 
of ensuring that this important legislation is enacted into law at this 
late hour in the legislative session, we have taken up the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill would amend the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents 
Assistance Act to extend the retroactive eligibility dates for 
financial assistance for higher education to the spouses and dependent 
children of Federal law enforcement officers and State and local public 
safety officers that were killed in the line of duty.
  Current law provides that the dependents of Federal law enforcement 
officers killed in the line of duty on or after May 1, 1992, are 
eligible for this assistance. Dependents of State and local public 
safety officers killed in the line of duty on or after October 1, 1997 
are also eligible. Unfortunately, the somewhat arbitrary choice for 
these dates has excluded some deserving dependents from participating 
in the program. This legislation will move the eligibility dates 
farther back in time in order to make them eligible. For Federal law 
enforcement officers and for State and local public safety officers, 
the new date will be January 1, 1978.
  This important legislation is endorsed by the Department of Justice, 
the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association. Considering the sacrifices these brave officers make to 
protect us all, I think that the least we can do is to help their 
families get the kind of education that they might not otherwise be 
able to afford.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this very important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1638. The bill is identical to 
the Judiciary-passed version of H.R. 2059. The bill amends the Federal 
Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996 to extend eligibility 
for financial assistance for higher education to spouses and dependent 
children to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers killed 
in the line of duty.
  Current law provides that the dependents of Federal law enforcement 
officers killed in the line of duty after May 1, 1992, are eligible for 
this assistance. Dependents of State and local police officers killed 
in the line of duty after October 1, 1997, are also eligible.
  This legislation would change the date to January 1, 1978, for 
Federal law enforcement officers and State and local public safety 
officers. This is an appropriate and cost-effective change in the law, 
given the modest cost projections of the program.
  For example, less than $50,000 was spent under the program last year; 
and projections even under the longer eligibility periods remain 
modest, totaling about 24 million over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no opposition to the bill and consider it 
to be a reasonable and worthy way to honor the memory and contributions 
of slain law enforcement officials and other public safety officers and 
to assist their families. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who has been the author of the 
House version of this legislation.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for 
yielding me the time. I certainly thank him for his cooperation and 
support in expediting the passage of this bill.
  I also want to, Mr. Speaker, give a special debt of thanks to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), himself a former police officer, 
for the yeoman's job that he has done in making this a truly bipartisan 
effort and for giving up so much of his time and effort. And also words 
of thanks are due to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who 
actually was very instrumental in the passage of the initial 
legislation 2 years ago which this bill today is amending. She 
certainly deserves credit.
  I also want to thank the Committee on the Judiciary for acting in 
such a bipartisan way. Also, I want to commend Kevin Horan of my staff 
for the great job that he has done in moving this bill along.

[[Page 18531]]

  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) have detailed exactly what this 
bill is about. I just think it is absolutely essential that we pass 
this legislation.
  My father was a former New York City police officer for more than 30 
years. I have known many police officers. I also, unfortunately, have 
known police officers and families of police officers who have been 
killed in the line of duty, who have been permanently disabled. And 
while there is nothing we can do to make those families whole, there is 
nothing we can do to take away their grief and suffering, the fact is 
that this is a step in the right direction. It ameliorates some of that 
suffering.
  It also, probably just as importantly, shows that our country as a 
whole wants to acknowledge the debt that we owe to these men and women 
for the sacrifice and suffering that they have gone through. It is a 
way of we, as a Nation, telling what we are really all about and 
acknowledging the men and women who are on the front lines, who are 
protecting us day in and day out, who are putting their lives and limbs 
on the line for us so that we can enjoy a safe and prosperous life in 
this country.
  So this is a bill which is very instrumental in, I believe, 
acknowledging the debt we owe to these people. It is also very 
important in showing where we as a country stand. It also shows that 
we, in a bipartisan fashion, can acknowledge the work that has been 
done by the police officers of this country and also give a little bit 
of respite, a little bit of solace, and a little bit of peace to the 
families of those who have suffered so much.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a former law enforcement 
official, who is a strong supporter of law enforcement.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is great to see legislation come to the floor like 
this in a bipartisan manner. I remember when I came here in 1993, there 
was no law enforcement caucus. We founded a law enforcement caucus. We 
have been able to set up a bipartisan team that is constantly working 
on legislation to improve the lives for law enforcement and their 
families throughout this Nation.
  We began in 1996 by making the bill available so that if Federal law 
enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, the educational 
benefits for their spouses and their children would be taken care of.
  Then again in 1998 we added State and local law enforcement. And now 
here we are in the year 2000 to really correct some inequities that 
have been found in all the laws that we have put together. But none of 
this could happen unless we all work together.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and I introduced this bill 
back in June of 1999. It was H.R. 2059. The Senate has moved quickly, 
so we are glad to substitute our bill for their bill just so we can get 
this passed in the waning days here of the 106th Congress.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), we are all part of the law 
enforcement caucus. There are about 69 or 70 Members who work together 
to try to not only take care of personal needs like this, whether it is 
buying bulletproof vests or trying to make sure that the voices of law 
enforcement are heard here in the United States Congress.
  As it has been said, the necessity for this legislation is because we 
have different eligibility dates for both Federal and State officers. 
And so what we are doing is really making the legislation actually move 
the eligibility dates back further in time to make more dependents 
eligible for this benefit. It will now go to January 1, 1978. And also, 
at the same time, Federal, State, and local public safety officers are 
included in this legislation. And we will take a look at the costs.
  One of the big concerns in 1996 when we started the program was what 
would the cost be to the Federal Treasury. We have seen in 1999 just 
based upon educational benefits to officers' survivors who were killed 
in the line of duty was only around some $44,000. And as the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) says, even in the next 10 years, at most if 
everyone took advantage of it, it would be about $24 million.
  So as a law enforcement officer and as a Member of this body, I thank 
everyone who has helped in this legislation, who has helped us through 
the years to make the law enforcement caucus a success. We have to be 
there for the families that every day they love and support the men and 
women who serve as law enforcement officers of this country. 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, their fathers look out for us 
each and every day, risking their commitments to their family for the 
greater commitment that they have made to this great Nation.
  With that I thank all of my colleagues for moving this legislation 
forward. I thank them for their cooperation that we have enjoyed in the 
last few years and look forward to continuing to work with them on 
measures affecting law enforcement.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who has been an 
extraordinary fighter for this legislation even prior to this Congress.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 105th Congress I proposed legislation which 
sought to provide educational assistance for the families of all fallen 
officers.
  Though we were not able to fully achieve this objective, with the 
help of my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, we took an 
important first step by enacting legislation which provided assistance 
to some of these families who have lost their loved ones in the line of 
duty.
  This bill covers not only our police officers but fire people and 
corrections officers, as well our public safety officers who make our 
Nation safe.
  Today we take action on a proposal to widen the circle of families 
who are eligible for this assistance. Approval of this bill will mark 
another significant step in fully recognizing the debt owed to those 
officers who have given their lives for the sake of all of us.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this measure. 
This is something we simply ought to do and we need to do.
  I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) 
in particular, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr.  Stupak), for their efforts on behalf of this important issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this piece of legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), as well as 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and especially the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. King), for being such a strong advocate of this 
legislation but also for being such a strong advocate for law 
enforcement in general.
  This legislation rights a minor wrong, and that is it acknowledges 
those families that were left out of the original legislation. Despite 
the good intentions, that first draft clearly left some families out 
across the country.
  I am very proud to represent the folks in Staten Island and Brooklyn 
and probably represent the most police officers, active and retired, I 
would bet, in any congressional district in the country. They are my 
friends. They are my neighbors. But more importantly, they protect us 
every single day.

[[Page 18532]]

  It feels like every year I am going to another funeral for a police 
officer who was killed in the line of duty. And, yeah, it affects the 
New York City Police Department. It goes to the heart of society. It 
goes to the heart of these men and women who are willing to risk their 
lives to protect us. But it also destroys, in part, their families.
  I have seen the young boys who lost their fathers to gunshot wounds 
to the head trying to protect a local community. I have seen mothers 
who were pregnant expecting their baby when they are burying their 
father. I have seen families who have four or five or six police 
officers between two families devastated when a young husband, a young 
father is killed from some career criminal.
  So those are all the things that sometimes we forget that police 
officers are willing to do for us.
  But one thing we do not forget today, with the help of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) 
and everyone else here today, is to tell those families that may have 
been left out, the Congress of the United States appreciates what they 
went through; and if they need help to help their child, we are there 
for them.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying that when police 
officers give their lives to protect the rest of us, there is really no 
limit to what we ought to be willing to give back to that family.
  This is a really symbolic gesture. The education of the children 
means that the next generation has a future. We know what education 
will do. And this is just one symbolic gesture of our respect and 
admiration for the courage of police officers and for those that have 
given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the rest of us.
  I certainly know of no opposition to the bill and hope it can be 
passed unanimously.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1638.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________