Imagini ale paginilor

http://homes.loc.gowcgi-bin/query/C?c108: Kempi-c108666dqf.


(a) IN GENERAL- Section 404(b)(1) of the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 5305 note) is amended by striking the matter after the semicolon and inserting the following:



Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area

[ocr errors]


Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area


Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI


Hartford, CT


Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area


New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area


Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton PA-NJ-DE-MD Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area


Portland-Salem, OR-WA


Sacramento-Yolo, CA


San Diego, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

--27.1% Kempi-c108666dq8

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area


Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA


Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area


(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to pay for service performed in pay periods beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.


(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'.


(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.

(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. For purposes of this section, the term 'Federal law enforcement officer' means a law enforcement officer as defined by section Remp-108666098

8331 or 8401 of title 5, United States Code, and, subsection (b)(2) notwithstanding, includes any such officer serving in or under the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And I want to thank you, Representative Filner, for your work on this issue.

We have a series of three votes, so we will recess—we generally don't ask questions of the Members, but if a Member wouldn't mind, the chairman has a question.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Rogers, I wonder if you have additional letters and things that would be helpful for the record. I would appreciate if you could insert them. I think it helps build a case. Also, anything that would relate to instances—I know in your written testimony and you referred in the past to this overtime pay question, anything that might be directly related to that, of what, at the practical level, to an agent. As somebody who has done this yourself you may be less constrained in the ability to say, oh, well, we had to back off of this, or I had turn this case over, or I have heard this. So if we could have that for the record on the overtime pay, because it is very difficult. Nobody wants to acknowledge that this may actually affect cases, but I am interested as to how does it cutoff.

Mr. ROGERS. I'll be happy to do that.

You have to remember the pressure. The agent comes home at the end of the day, and his wife is not all that amused or visa versa and puts a lot of pressure on these folks who we are asking a lot of, and that is just not a fair situation they find themselves in.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the things I would like to know, in your opinion are people actually, if the overtime pay runs out and they are not paid, are they actually working, which they are not supposed to do, but are they doing it because they don't want to lose their cases?

Mr. ROGERS. I can tell you that those agents are working. These are very dedicated individuals. We did it in our office. I see an agent over here I worked with in Chicago. I saw him do it. We did it. Most agents, 99 percent of them will continue working. Again, they are dedicated to their purpose. We just need to step up and give them a little relief, I think.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We actually only have one vote, and we are going to go ahead and continue with the hearing.

Thank you, Representative Rogers.

I now would like to invite the second panel of witnesses to please come forward on this panel.

We have Joanne Simms from the Department of Justice, Norman Rabkin from the General Accounting Office, Donald Winstead from the Office of Personnel Management, and Kay Frances Dolan from the Department of Homeland Security.

I'd also like to ask Chris Mihm, Director of Strategic Issues at the General Accounting Office, if he would stand and also be sworn in, in case there are questions for you.

If the panel would remain standing, I will administer the oath. It is the subcommittee's standard practice to ask witnesses to testify under oath. So if you would please raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative, and you may be seated.

The panel will now be recognized for an opening statement, and we will ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. Any more complete statement you may wish to make will be included in the record.

I would like to welcome Joanne Simms, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Human Resources and Administration at the Department of Justice. Thank you for being with us today, Ms. Simms; and you are recognized first for the first 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF JOANNE SIMMS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTOR


Ms. SIMMS. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Chairman Souder. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before your subcommittee as you examine issues affecting the law enforcement community. We appreciate your interest in these critical issues. I look forward to working with you and our fellow law enforcement agencies as we go forward.

The Department of Justice employs close to 50,000 law enforcement employees, of which the primary occupational groups include criminal investigators and correctional officers. Our core enforcement components include the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons.

The average age of our law enforcement employee is close to 39 years; and, on average, the majority are college educated. Many of our employees have families, and most will generally experience several moves during the course of their careers. Our law enforcement work force is assigned to offices in all 50 States, territories and all over the world. Their working conditions run from the typical white collar office environment to a makeshift desk or laptop in the middle of a jungle in South America, to prisons and correctional facilities, courthouses, airplanes and everything in between.

As a general rule, I think we can all agree that a consistent policy approach should be taken to managing law enforcement pay and benefits, as well as other work-related aspects across the Federal Government. Comparable pay for comparable work should be one of our guiding principles. Cross-cutting missions and activities, particularly in the post-September 11 environment, increase the opportunities for law enforcement agencies and personnel to become aware of disparities in pay and benefits between segments of the law enforcement community. As an example, one need

only look at the well-publicized startup operation at the Transportation Security Administration that we have already talked about this morning which resulted in considerable attrition within several law enforcement agencies. It appears the situation is righting itself, as TSA is now an operating entity and no longer needs to draw its work force from other trained Federal law enforcement organizations.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »