PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Nov 29, 2016
Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to revise requirements for the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program. (The PSOB program provides death, disability, and education benefits to public safety officers and survivors of public safety officers who are killed or injured in the line of duty.)
It authorizes the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to establish PSOB program rules, regulations, and procedures based on standards developed by another federal agency.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In determining a claimant's eligibility for death or disability benefits, the BJA must give substantial weight to evidence and facts presented by a state, local, or federal agency.
The BJA must also publish and update information on pending claims and report to Congress on submitted claims for death, disability, and educational benefits.
(Sec. 3) This section extends the age limitation for a PSOB claim for death, disability, or education benefits that is approved more than one year after the date on which it was filed.
(Sec. 4) The BJA must attempt to obtain necessary documentation to determine a claimant's eligibility for death, disability, or education benefits. If it cannot determine eligibility due to a lack of documentation from a third party (e.g., a public agency), then the BJA may abandon the claim only after it utilizes investigative tools, including subpoenas, to obtain the information.
(Sec. 5) The bill establishes a rebuttable presumption that a public safety officer acted properly at the time of injury or death and that no specified limitation (e.g., voluntary intoxication at the time of injury or death) bars the payment of death or disability benefits. The BJA may rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(Sec. 6) This bill's provisions apply to a claim that is pending on or submitted on or after enactment.
People & committees
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.
The committee amendments withdrawn by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6573)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S6571-6573; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S6571-6572)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 513.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with amendments. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with amendments. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2976-2977)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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 S.2944 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 S.2944 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 S.2944 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 S.2944 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.