PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Jul 17, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1236 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1236 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1236 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1236 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-12 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes extending public safety officer benefit eligibility to retired law enforcement officers when an attack targeting them because of their service causes death or permanent and total disability. Officers must have left public-agency service in good standing. The proposal includes retroactive coverage reaching qualifying attacks on or after August 28, 2012.
A retired law enforcement officer shall be eligible for a benefit under this part if the officer died or become permanently and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury resulting from a targeted attack because of the retired law enforcement officer’s service as a law enforcement officer.
the term retired law enforcement officer means an individual who separated from service, in good standing, as a law enforcement officer, in an official capacity at a public agency, with or without compensation.
The amendments made by this section shall apply to any action taken against a retired law enforcement officer described in section 1201(p) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as added by this Act) that occurred on or after August 28, 2012.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act of 2025.
Section 2 would add eligibility to an existing benefits law. It requires a service-motivated targeted attack and an injury that directly causes death or permanent and total disability, with a sufficiently close causal connection—the requirement described as “direct and proximate.”
Section 1201 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10281) is amended by adding at the end the following:
A retired law enforcement officer shall be eligible for a benefit under this part if the officer died or become permanently and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury resulting from a targeted attack because of the retired law enforcement officer’s service as a law enforcement officer.
The proposed definition of a retired law enforcement officer covers someone who separated in good standing after serving in an official law enforcement capacity at a public agency, whether paid or unpaid. The definition specifies no minimum age or length of service.
In this subsection, the term retired law enforcement officer means an individual who separated from service, in good standing, as a law enforcement officer, in an official capacity at a public agency, with or without compensation.
Subject to its retroactive exception, the change would take effect upon enactment. It would apply to matters then pending before the Bureau of Justice Assistance or elsewhere, and to matters filed or arising afterward. Later filings would remain subject to pre-existing effective dates.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall— (A) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and (B) apply to any matter pending, before the Bureau of Justice Assistance or otherwise, on the date of enactment of this Act, or filed (consistent with pre-existing effective dates) or accruing after that date.
The retroactive exception would apply the amendments to actions against officers covered by the new provision that occurred on or after August 28, 2012.
The amendments made by this section shall apply to any action taken against a retired law enforcement officer described in section 1201(p) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as added by this Act) that occurred on or after August 28, 2012.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated July 17, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 12, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-17T23:59:44Z. 2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-12: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-12. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying disclosure and committee materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate narrow preference warranting a finding was identified beyond the program eligibility expansion for its intended beneficiaries in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 17, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI