PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 441.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 27, 2012
Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 2012 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to revise provisions concerning public safety officer death or disability benefits, including by: (1) modifying the list of recipients of death benefits payable when a public safety officer has died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty to include as an eligible individual, if there is no other individual meeting existing eligibility requirements, the surviving individual (or individuals, in equal shares) who would qualify as an eligible "child" but for age; (2) providing that disability benefits shall be payable when an officer has become permanently and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury (currently, as the direct result of a catastrophic injury) sustained in the line of duty; (3) eliminating the $5,000,000 limit on total annual disability benefits paid; (4) providing that death or disability benefits shall not be in addition to payments under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001; (5) revising the criteria for death resulting from a heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture suffered by a public safety officer while on duty; (6) including within the definitions of "member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew" and "public safety officer" an officially recognized or designated employee or volunteer member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew that is a public agency or a nonprofit entity serving the public that is officially authorized or licensed to engage in rescue activity or to provide emergency medical services and that engages in rescue activities or provides emergency medical services as part of an official emergency response system; and (7) making those who have sustained a catastrophic injury in the line of duty eligible for peer support and counseling programs.
Makes funds available for appeals from final determinations (currently, decisions) of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and for expenses of representation of hearing examiners, with respect to public safety officer's death benefits under specified circumstances. Provides that no appeal shall bring a final determination of the Bureau before any court for review unless notice of appeal is filed within 90 days after the date on which the Bureau serves notice of the final determination. Defines a "hearing examiner" under such Act to include any medical or claims examiner.
Makes this Act applicable to injuries sustained by a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew on or after June 1, 2009. Makes provisions regarding the presumption of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty for public safety officers applicable to heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures sustained on or after December 15, 2003.
People & committees
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [R-PA-8] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 441.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 6/26/2012 H3994-3995)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 6/26/2012 H3994-3995)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4079)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Johnson (GA) objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4018.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3984-3997)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 392.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-548.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-548.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. 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.4018 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.4018 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.4018 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.4018 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.