[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5676-S5678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, 
        Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Warner, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Carper, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. 
        Jeffords):
  S. 985. A bill to amend the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 
1990 to adjust the percentage differentials payable to Federal law 
enforcement officers in certain high-cost areas, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
is important to America's Federal law enforcement officers and the 
people they protect across the country. I am joined today by Senator 
Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Cantwell, Senator 
Durbin, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, 
Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer,

[[Page S5677]]

Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, 
Senator Carper, Senator Kerry, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, Senator 
Sarbanes, and Senator Jeffords.
  The legislation that we are offering will amend the Federal Law 
Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to ensure that the government treats 
Federal law enforcement officers fairly. This bill will partially 
increase the locality pay adjustments paid to Federal agents in certain 
high cost areas. These areas have pay disparities so high they are 
negatively affecting our Federal law enforcement officers, since 
locality pay adjustments have either not been increased since 1990, or 
have been increased negligibly.
  All over America, Federal law enforcement personnel are enduring 
tremendous stress associated with our Nation's effort to protect 
citizens from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, that stress has 
been compounded by ongoing pressing concerns among many such personnel 
about their pay. I have heard from officers who have described long 
commutes, high personal debts, and in some cases, almost all-consuming 
concerns about financial insecurity. Many of these problems occur when 
agents or officers are transferred from low-cost parts of the country 
to high-cost areas. I have been told that some Federal officers are 
forced to separate from their families and rent rooms in the cities to 
which they have been transferred because they cannot afford to rent or 
buy homes large enough for a family.
  Unfortunately, the raise in the cost of living in many cities across 
America has outstripped our Federal pay system. I recognize that this 
is a problem for other Federal employees and I am prepared to work with 
my colleagues to address this larger issue. The cost of living has also 
had a very negative impact on non-federal employees as well and I have 
consistently worked to ensure that all working Americans enjoy a truly 
livable wage. The legislation that we are introducing today in no way 
suggests that the needs of other workers should be ignored, but it 
acknowledges that as we continue to ask Federal law enforcement 
personnel to put in long hours and remain on heightened alert, we must 
provide them with a salary sufficient to allow them to focus on their 
vital work without nagging worries about how to provide their families 
with the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter.
  The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more 
than 19,000 Federal agents, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, 
National Association of Police Organizations, National Troopers 
Coalition, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, 
International Brotherhood of Police, and the Police Executive Research 
Forum have endorsed this legislative proposal.
  In these difficult times, we must remain committed to recruiting, 
hiring, and retaining law enforcement officers of the highest caliber. 
However, we must also recognize that the Federal government is in 
competition with State and Local police departments that often pay more 
and provide better standards of living.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I hope that we 
can quickly pass this important legislation because it will improve the 
lives of the men and women who are dedicated to protecting us. In so 
doing, it will improve the Nation's domestic security.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 985

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTED DIFFERENTIALS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 404(b) of the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 5305 
     note) is amended by striking the matter after ``follows:'' 
     and inserting the following:

    ``Area                                                 Differential
  Atlanta Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area............16.82% 
  Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT-RI Consolidated 
    Metropolitan Statistical Area...............................24.42% 
  Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI Consolidated Metropolitan 
    Statistical Area............................................25.68% 
  Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Consolidated Metropolitan 
    Statistical Area............................................21.47% 
  Cleveland Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area..........17.83% 
  Columbus Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area...........16.90% 
  Dallas Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.............18.51% 
  Dayton Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.............15.97% 
  Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 
    Area........................................................22.78% 
  Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 
    Area........................................................25.61% 
  Hartford, CT Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.......24.47% 
  Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Consolidated Metropolitan 
    Statistical Area............................................30.39% 
  Huntsville Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.........13.29% 
  Indianapolis Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.......13.38% 
  Kansas City Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area........14.11% 
  Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA Consolidated Metropolitan 
    Statistical Area............................................27.25% 
  Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 
    Area........................................................21.75% 
  Milwaukee Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area..........17.45% 
  Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 
    Area........................................................20.27% 
  New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA Consolidated 
    Metropolitan Statistical Area...............................27.11% 
  Orlando, FL Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area........14.22% 
  Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD Consolidated 
    Metropolitan Statistical Area...............................21.03% 
  Pittsburgh Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.........14.89% 
  Portland-Salem, OR-WA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Ar20.96% 
  Richmond Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area...........16.46% 
  Sacramento-Yolo, CA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area20.77% 
  San Diego, CA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area......22.13% 
  San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Consolidated Metropolitan 
    Statistical Area............................................32.98% 
  Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 
    Area........................................................21.18% 
  St. Louis Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area..........14.69% 
  Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV Consolidated Metropolitan 
    Statistical Area............................................19.48% 
  Rest of United States Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 14.19%''.

       (b) Special Rules.--For purposes of the provision of law 
     amended by subsection (a)--
       (1) the counties of Providence, Kent, Washington, Bristol, 
     and Newport, RI, the counties of York and Cumberland, ME, and 
     the city of Concord, NH, shall be treated as if located in 
     the Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT-RI Consolidated 
     Metropolitan Statistical Area; and
       (2) members of the Capitol Police shall be considered to be 
     law enforcement officers within the meaning of section 402 of 
     the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)--
       (1) shall take effect as if included in the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 on the date of the 
     enactment of such Act; and
       (2) shall be effective only with respect to pay for service 
     performed in pay periods beginning on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
     Subsection (b) shall be applied in a manner consistent with 
     the preceding sentence.

     SEC. 2. SEPARATE PAY, EVALUATION, AND PROMOTION SYSTEM FOR 
                   FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall study and submit to Congress a report which shall 
     contain its findings and recommendations regarding the need 
     for, and the potential benefits to be derived from, the 
     establishment of a separate pay, evaluation, and promotion 
     system for Federal law enforcement officers. In carrying out 
     this subsection, the Office of Personnel Management shall 
     take into account the findings and recommendations contained 
     in the September 1993 report of the Office entitled ``A Plan 
     to Establish a New Pay and Job Evaluation System for Federal 
     Law Enforcement Officers''.
       (b) Demonstration Project.--
       (1) In general.--If, after completing its report under 
     subsection (a), the Office of Personnel Management considers 
     it to be appropriate, the Office shall implement, within 12 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, a 
     demonstration project to determine whether a separate system 
     for Federal law enforcement officers (as described in 
     subsection (a)) would result in improved Federal personnel 
     management.

[[Page S5678]]

       (2) Applicable provisions.--Any demonstration project under 
     this subsection shall be conducted in accordance with the 
     provisions of chapter 47 of title 5, United States Code, 
     except that a project under this subsection shall not be 
     taken into account for purposes of the numerical limitation 
     under section 4703(d)(2) of such title.
       (3) Permanent changes.--Not later than 6 months before the 
     demonstration project's scheduled termination date, the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall submit to Congress--
       (A) its evaluation of the system tested under the 
     demonstration project; and
       (B) recommendations as to whether or not that system (or 
     any aspects of that system) should be continued or extended 
     to other Federal law enforcement officers.
       (c) Federal Law Enforcement Officer Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' means a 
     law enforcement officer as defined under section 8331(20) or 
     8401(17) of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON PREMIUM PAY.

       (a) In General.--Section 5547 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``5545a,'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``or 5545a''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``or a criminal investigator who is paid availability pay 
     under section 5545a.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     1114 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1239).

                          ____________________