[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 64 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E837-E838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PAY EQUITY AND REFORM ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE ROGERS

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 16, 2002

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, during National 
Law Enforcement Memorial Week, to introduce the Federal Law Enforcement 
Pay Equity and Reform Act of 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, this week in our nation's capital and around America, a 
variety of events are being held to honor law enforcement officers who 
lost their lives in the line of duty and those who continue to serve. 
The very real dangers faced by the dedicated men and women who protect 
us every day was brought home as never before last September 11.
  While we cannot turn back the clock and undo what was done, we can 
and must do everything within our power to ensure that it never happens 
again. And it is our law enforcement officers, and, in particular, our 
federal law enforcement agencies, that are charged with that paramount 
mission. The bill I am introducing today will help accomplish this goal 
by enhancing and modernizing the compensation system for our nation's 
federal law enforcement officers.

[[Page E838]]

  The bill will do three things, each of which is absolutely necessary 
to continue to attract and retain the very best and brightest to our 
federal law enforcement agencies. First, the bill will eliminate 
certain existing limits on the amount of overtime pay federal law 
enforcement agents can receive. Second, the bill will bring up-to-date 
outmoded increases in the pay received by agents who work in certain 
high-cost metropolitan areas. Third, the bill directs the Office of 
Personnel Management, which oversees pay and benefit issues for federal 
employees, to study and, if warranted, implement a separate pay 
structure for federal law enforcement officers who are now evaluated, 
promoted, and paid under the same system as all other federal 
employees.
  The first two provisions are essentially technical adjustments aimed 
at fairly compensating federal agents for the overtime they put in (and 
they have put in A LOT of it since 9/11) as well as the higher cost of 
living in the nation's larger metropolitan areas, like New York, San 
Francisco, and here in Washington, D.C. where the price of real estate 
has risen so sharply in recent years that many federal agents cannot 
afford to purchase even a modest home.
  The third provision will address the long-standing need for an 
examination and ultimate implementation of a separate pay and promotion 
system for federal law enforcement. The individuals who devote their 
lives to front-line enforcement of the laws of the United States and 
the protection of our national security should be functioning under a 
personnel system tailored to the demands of their work, which is 
fundamentally different than that done by civil servants in other 
agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the right time for Congress to take action in 
this area. Just last week, OPM Director Kay Coles James outlined the 
Bush Administration's initiatives for improving the antiquated system 
of pay and promotion for all federal employees. OPM reported that the 
antiquated General Schedule (``GS'') that sets forth pay and promotion 
levels does not adequately compete with pay levels in the private 
sector, nor does it encourage individual accomplishment and innovation 
or grant individual agencies with the flexibility they need to address 
their particular human capital needs. I support this effort to reform 
and modernize our federal civil service pay system for all federal 
employees, in whatever agency they serve.
  However, nowhere are these criticisms of the GS system more 
pronounced than among our federal law enforcement agencies. As Congress 
continues to hold hearings and review a wide array of reforms to the GS 
system, I believe we should take the interim steps called for in the 
Federal Law Enforcement Pay Equity and Reform Act to ensure that we do 
not lose an unacceptable number of quality law enforcement officers.
  A law enforcement pay system is not a new idea. The last three 
administrations have supported the concept. In fact, in 1993, the OPM 
released a study and report to Congress which found that the GS system 
created largely for white collar civil servants simply does not fit the 
role, mission, or demands of modem federal law enforcement agencies. It 
found that the GS system does not adequately allow for promotion and 
advancement based on the individual training, scope of work, danger 
level, or personal ambition and innovation of federal agents.
  Nor does it adequately compensate mid-and upper-level management 
within the agencies. The so-called ``pay compression'' at these 
agencies, the report found, sees many agents hit a pay ceiling mid-way 
through their careers. Thus, just at the time when these agents become 
the most experienced, seasoned, and valuable to the U.S., they are left 
with very little financial incentive to continue advancing in their 
careers.
  Mr. Speaker, in no way am I suggesting that these agents do what they 
do solely, or even largely, for the money. If money were all that 
motivated them, they would have chosen a different career from the 
outset. Far from it, most the federal agents I know do what they do and 
put their lives on the line because they have a burning desire to serve 
their country and to protect Americans from crime. But they must also 
make ends meet and provide for their families, and for many agents, 
that is becoming harder and harder to do.
  Mr. Speaker, at no time before have these inadequacies of the GS 
system for law enforcement officers been more pronounced than today. We 
are facing a ``perfect storm'' of personnel demands at these agencies: 
as the demands on these agents skyrockets, the private sector is 
aggressively seeking to recruit those agents.
  Mr. Speaker, since 9/11, agents are working tremendous amounts of 
overtime. I have met and spoken with many federal law enforcement 
agents and agencies, and in particular with the FBI and its members' 
association, the FBI Agents Association. They have told me that it is 
not uncommon for an average FBI agent, for example, to today be working 
60 to 80-hour work weeks, or even more. Now long hours at the FBI is 
nothing new. As a former FBI agent myself, I can tell you that marathon 
sessions of investigation, surveillance, research, and apprehension go 
with the territory. Agents know this, and they accept it. More 
importantly, their spouses and children must accept it as part of the 
job.
  But today, a significant number of the nation's FBI agents have been 
assigned to anti-terrorism-related jobs. Not only are these agents 
working day and night to identify and apprehend terrorists, but the 
other agents at the FBI are pulling double-duty as they maintain crime-
fighting efforts in the many other jurisdictional areas. At the same 
time, private sector companies are aggressively recruiting security 
experts as they, too, seek to address terrorist and other threats. 
Corporations across America are offering big salaries and big signing 
bonuses to anyone who has demonstrable experience in terrorism and 
security. Invariably, they recruit from the ranks of our national law 
enforcement agents to fill that need.
  If America is to win, and I mean WIN the war against terrorism and 
crime, then we simply must be able to recruit and retain intelligent, 
talented, and highly motivated men and women. The FBI or any other 
agency you look at is no better and no worse than the people who work 
there. I believe that we have the very best people and the very best 
national law enforcement agencies to be found anywhere in the world. 
But if we want to maintain that exceptional level of quality in the 
face of new threats and new challenges to our national security, we 
must pay these people what they're worth and we must provide the 
flexibility to promote them on criteria more than simply how long they 
have worked in their particular job. This legislation goes a long way 
toward accomplishing these goals, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.

                          ____________________