,,iv #aafth ,,congress #ast ,session ,h4 ,,con4 ,,res4 #bg ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of ,,representatives ,march #bg1 #bjai,mr4 ,kind 7for himself1 ,mr4 ,smith of ,missouri1 ,mr4 ,larson of ,connecticut1 ,mr4 ,reed1 ,mr4 ,cleaver1 ,mr4 ,kelly of ,pennsylvania1 ,mr4 ,perlmutter1 ,mr4 ,luetkemeyer1 ,mr4 ,higgins of ,new ,york1 ,mr4 ,holding1 ,ms4 ,sewell of ,alabama1 ,mrs4 ,walorski1 ,ms4 ,del,bene1 ,mr4 ,la,hood1 ,ms4 ,moore1 ,mr4 ,shimkus1 ,mr4 ,kildee1 ,mr4 ,duffy1 ,mrs4 ,beatty1 ,mr4 ,stivers1 ,mr4 ,heck1 ,mr4 ,hudson1 ,mr4 ,pocan1 ,mr4 ,grothman1 ,ms4 ,mc,collum1 ,mr4 ,emmer1 ,mr4 ,gottheimer1 and ,mr4 ,gallagher7 submitted the following concurrent resolution2 which was referred to the ,committee on ,ways and ,means ,,concurrent ,,resolution ,expressing the sense of the ,congress that tax-exempt fraternal benefit societies have historically and continue to provide critical benefits to ,americans and ,united ,states communities4 ,whereas ,america's fraternal benefit societies are long-standing mutual aid organizations created more than a century ago to serve the needs of communities and provide for the payment of life1 health1 accident1 and other benefits to their members2 ,whereas fraternal benefit societies represent a successful1 modern-day model under which individuals come together with a common purpose to collectively provide charitable and other beneficial activities for broader society2 ,whereas fraternal benefit societies operate under a chapter system--creating a nationwide infrastructure1 combined with local energy and knowledge--positioning them to address most efficiently unmet needs in communities1 many of which government cannot address2 ,whereas the fraternal benefit society model represents one of the largest member-volunteer networks in the ,united ,states1 with approximately #h million ,americans belonging to more than #be1jjj local chapters across the country2 ,whereas research has shown that the value of the work of fraternal benefit societies to society is more than #c4h billion per year1 accounting for charitable giving1 educational programs1 and volunteer activities1 as well as important social capital that strengthens the fabric1 safety1 and quality of life in thousands of ,american local communities2 ,whereas in #aiji1 ,congress recognized the value of fraternal benefit societies and exempted such organizations from taxation1 as later codified in section #eja7;c77#h7 of the ,internal ,revenue ,code2 ,whereas fraternals have adapted since #aiji to better serve the evolving needs of their members and the public2 ,whereas the efforts of fraternal benefit societies to help ,americans save and be financially secure relieves pressures on government safety net programs2 and ,whereas ,congress recognizes that fraternal benefit societies have served their original purpose for over a century1 helping countless individuals1 families1 and communities through their fraternal member activities3 ,now1 therefore1 be it ,that it is the sense of ,congress that-- 7#a7 the fraternal benefit society model is a successful private sector economic and social support system that helps meet needs that would otherwise go unmet2 7#b7 the provision for life1 sick1 accident1 or other benefits to the members of these societies1 as required by section #eja7;c77#h7 of the ,internal ,revenue ,code1 is necessary to support the charitable and fraternal activities of the volunteer chapters within their communities2 7#c7 fraternal benefit societies have adapted since #aiji to better serve their members and the public2 and 7#d7 the section #eja7;c77#h7 tax exemption of fraternal benefit societies continues to generate significant1 outsized returns to ,united ,states society and the work of fraternals should continue to be promoted4