Date: June 26, 2003

Testimony given to: The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

By: Brian L. Willison, Chair Wisconsin Law Enforcement Memorial, Inc.

RE: H.R. 919, the “Hometown Heroes Survivors Act of 2003”

I am a Captain with a Sheriff’s Office, a 27+-year law enforcement veteran and Founding Chair of Wisconsin Law Enforcement Memorial, Inc. As Chair of Wisconsin Law Enforcement Memorial, Inc. (WLEM), I am very familiar with all aspects of law enforcement officers’ deaths. It is from this perspective that I speak, on behalf of the WLEM Board, most of who are also active or retired law enforcement officers. WLEM is a non-profit organization whose goal is to remember and honor all Wisconsin law enforcement officers who die “In the Line of Duty.” Our organization built the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Officers’ Memorial on the State Capitol grounds in Madison, hosts an annual Memorial Ceremony each May, and works closely with surviving family members and agencies that suffer “line of duty” deaths.

I am here to urge you to act against H.R. 919 the “Hometown Heroes Survivors Act of 2003.” This law would extend Public Safety Officer’s Benefit (PSOB) death benefits to law enforcement officers and other public safety personnel who die of natural causes while on duty regardless of whether the death was duty related. It will also extend line of duty death benefits to those who die of heart attack or stroke within 24 hours of certain on duty actions. Again regardless of what brought on the heart attack or stroke or whether there exist any causal relationship between the death and on duty action. Not only is this measure unnecessary, it is harmful to and will diminish the significance of the ultimate sacrifice given by officers killed “in the line of duty” and adversely affect their survivors.

To understand this detrimental impact, one must look past the emotions and understand the significant difference between dying “on-duty” and losing ones life “in the line of duty.” We in law enforcement understand and appreciate these distinct differences. While both tragic, the former is an event, but for the time of day, is no more significant than the passing of any other heart attack or stroke victim, the latter is the ultimate sacrifice by a public servant deserving special recognition, including PSOB benefits.

We in law enforcement honor the death of a brother or sister officer with very special funerals complete with honor guards, squad processions, taps, bagpipes and rifle salutes. These honors are paid regardless of the cause of death and are even extended to retired officers. This is our way of honoring the lives of a fellow officer. Yet we draw a distinction between the loss of a fellow officer and honoring those “killed in the line of duty.” We clearly understand that the men and women who are killed protecting their communities or just because they are officers are truly the ultimate law enforcement heroes who deserve special status and recognition. The honors and benefits given for a “line of duty” death should not be given lightly. The cost to the individuals, their families, their agencies and their communities is too great. Those who happen to die of natural causes while on duty should not be viewed the same as those who are killed as a result of placing their lives on the line for their communities.

Although it is unpopular to stand against apparent support for public safety personnel, I urge you to look beyond the surface, beyond the emotions, and see the full effect this law. Line of duty death benefits, including PSOB, are intended to provide surviving family members with financial assistance and compensate for loss of income due to the line of duty death.

H.R. 919 was designed to fix a non-problem. Under current PSOB guidelines, incidents of officers suffering a heart attack as a “direct result of taking enforcement action” are evaluated and benefits approved on case-by-case bases. The current criteria require proof that the heart attack was caused by an outside force and the direct result of taking strenuous enforcement action. This ensures that the survivors of officers who die as a direct result of taking enforcement action will not be excluded. The burden to show a nexus between law enforcement action and the death is not too great. When there is a doubt, the matter is often decided in favor of granting the benefits. Extending benefits to survivors of those who just happen to die “on-duty” is not only contrary to the purpose of PSOB it diminishes the significance of those who give their lives “in the line of duty” and has a huge detrimental impact on their memory, their survivors and their sacrifices. An honor conferred lightly ceases to be an honor.

We addressed this issue as it relates to the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Memorial. The following is the relevant Wisconsin criteria: (emphasis added)

The officer must have been “Killed In the Line of Duty."

“Killed in the Line of Duty” means the officer died as a direct or proximate result of a personal injury sustained “in the line of duty.” This includes law enforcement officers who, while off duty, act in response to a violation of the law.

“Line of Duty” means any action that the officer is obligated or authorized to perform as a condition of employment and for which they are compensated by the public agency they serve.

Not included are:

Deaths that are the result of natural causes. (Except when the medical condition arises out of specific response to a law violation or an emergency situation and causes the officer’s death immediately or within 24 hours of the violation or incident.); Deaths attributed to voluntary alcohol or controlled substance abuse; Deaths caused by intentional misconduct;

Suicides; and Deaths attributed to the officer performing his or her duty in a grossly negligent manner.

In Wisconsin for examples, a police officer who suffered a fatal heart attack during a struggle with a suspect and one who died during a foot chase were ruled to have died “in the line of duty.” They are included on the Memorial and I believe their families properly received the PSOB and other benefits. On the other hand, just this past year, a Wisconsin deputy sheriff died of a heart attack while answering a complaint. In investigating this incident, we found the deputy was 53 years old. He had been a deputy for a little over a year having joined the Sheriff’s Office late in life. He had a history of heart problems with a major episode about eight years earlier. There was no confrontation, scuffle or extraordinary exertion involved with the call. His death was ruled to have occurred “on duty” but not “in the line of duty.” Yet under the proposed law, HR 919, his death would be considered “in the line of duty” and PSOB and other benefits paid. While his death was traumatic to his family, friends and co-workers it cannot and should not be treated the same as an officer killed by felonious or accidental actions “in the line of duty.”

Proponents of this measure cite the extraordinary stresses faced by law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians. As a law enforcement veteran with over 27 years of service, I know all to well the toll the job can take on one’s health and family. I also know that risk of heart disease and stroke is often a result of heredity and lifestyle aggravated by the fact that many public safety personnel fail to take proper care of themselves. While many public safety personnel suffer from heart disease and stroke it cannot be properly presumed these medical conditions are always directly related to their chosen occupation.

In its present form, H.R. 919 will require a presumption that any and all on duty deaths caused by heart attack or stoke was cause by the stress of the job regardless of the officer’s employment or medical history. Worse is the provision that would confer the benefits to heart attack and stroke victims who die within 24 hours of training or responding to an emergency situation. This is a blind baseless presumption ignoring other vital facts. Under this proposal, an officer who attends static training or answers a routine emergency call today and suffers a heart attack of stroke while engaged in strenuous off duty activity tomorrow would be presumed to have died in the line of duty and PSOB benefits paid. This presumption is bases on emotion and not fact or logic. It improperly changes a benefit paid to survivors of officers killed in the line of duty to a federal life insurance policy. PSOB benefits should not be an on duty life insurance policy.

If the intent of this legislation is to recognize and compensate for the unusual stresses faced by public safety personnel, change it into a heart and lung bill that pays disability or death benefit, separate from PSOB, for those so stricken. This approach can care for those suffering from the ill effects of the job without improperly and unjustly expanding the definition of a “line of duty death.”

Another concern is that this new provision will improperly and dramatically increase the number of benefits paid out. This has an impact not only on the federal budget but on states as well. In Wisconsin, the children and spouses of public safety employees killed in the line of duty are granted tuition waivers to attend state universities and technical colleges. Fortunately, due to infrequent line of duty deaths, there are a limited number of such benefits paid. If passed, HR 919 will significantly increase the number of people eligible for this type of benefit. In times of tough budgets, as we are currently experiencing, there will be a greater tendency to target this ballooning education benefit for reductions and thereby harming those it was intending to help, the family members of officers killed in the line of duty.

While I have been speaking about law enforcement the principles I discussed can and should also be applied to other public safety personnel covered by PSOB.

In closing I again urge you to defeat HR 919. This attempt to improperly extend line of duty death status and related benefits is unnecessary and will prove to be harmful to the memories and sacrifices of those who are killed in the line of duty.

It is up to those who set the criteria to do the right thing. To properly carry out this responsibility one must put emotion aside and at times say No to the situations that do not rise to the level of a “line of duty death.” I urge you to do so in defeating H.R. 919.