[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6447-6449]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 6448]]

  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 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.

[[Page 6449]]

  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. 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.

                          ____________________