[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 2067-2068]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         IN SUPPORT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' HEALTH ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BART STUPAK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 14, 2001

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Law Enforcement 
Officers' Health

[[Page 2068]]

Act to encourage all states to adopt a practice that has served 
Michigan's citizens and law enforcement officers well.
  If a law enforcement officer in Michigan develops heart disease or a 
lung disorder, he or she is entitled to the presumption for the 
purposes of the workers' compensation system that the illness is an 
occupational disease. This recognition of the stressful nature of law 
enforcement work is also reflected in the workers' compensation systems 
of thirteen other states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio and 
Virginia).
  There are several reasons for states to grant this presumption to law 
enforcement officers who suffer from heart or lung problems.
  With such a policy, states and municipalities are spared the 
administrative burden and cost of extended hearings and proceedings to 
determine whether or not such illnesses and disabilities are work 
related.
  In addition to the expense, these proceedings frequently become 
adversarial, unnecessarily creating tension between the employer and 
employee and ultimately affecting the delivery of public safety 
services.
  Finally--and perhaps most importantly to the law enforcement officer 
involved--the administrative process delays the treatments for which he 
or she will eventually be qualified.
  Since heart diseases and lung disorders are almost always deemed to 
be occupational diseases as a result of the administrative process, the 
proceedings simply waste time and money.
  The Law Enforcement Officers' Health Act does not impose a new 
federal mandate on states or otherwise interfere with states' rights. 
Instead, it would require states to adopt this policy in order to 
receive the full amount for which it is eligible under the Justice 
Department's Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. The award will 
be reduced by 10 percent if the state fails to adopt this presumption. 
A similar reduction with regard to a state's policy on health benefits 
for officers injured on the job has been in the law for several years.
  The provisions of this legislation will not become effective until 
eighteen months after enactment so that an affected state will have 
adequate time to amend its laws or modify its regulations.
  I have recently had the pleasure of working with the leadership of 
the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, in developing 
this legislation to ensure that all law enforcement officers receive 
the same health protections that their fellow officers in my state of 
Michigan enjoy. I particularly want to recognize Sam Cabral, 
International President, and Dennis Slocumb, Executive Vice President, 
for their dedication to this cause.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this 
legislation.

                          ____________________