Share:
Public Comments (1,144)
  • Jun 6th, 2011
    Someone from San Francisco, CA signed.
  • Jun 6th, 2011
    Someone from San Francisco, CA signed.
  • Jun 6th, 2011
    Someone from San Francisco, CA signed.
  • Jun 6th, 2011
    Someone from San Francisco, CA signed.
  • Jun 6th, 2011
    Someone from San Francisco, CA signed.
  • Jun 6th, 2011
    Someone from Green Cove Springs, FL signed.
  • Jun 2nd, 2011
    Someone from University Place, WA signed.
  • Jun 1st, 2011
    Someone from Henderson, NV signed.
  • May 30th, 2011
    Someone from Naval Air Station/ Jrb, TX signed.
  • May 21st, 2011
    Someone from Salinas, CA signed.
  • May 8th, 2011
    Someone from Martinsburg, WV signed.
  • May 8th, 2011
    Someone from Martinsburg, WV signed.
  • May 4th, 2011
    Someone from Barstow, CA writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    Let's not discriminate and be fair across the board. If DoD Police Officer come across an armed suspect, does the public expect for us to runaway or risk our lives and return fire. I think we already know the answer, if not, ask the DoD Police Officer from Fort Hood who risked her life to protect the life of others. Keep in mind who responds when you call "9-1-1". All they are we are asking for is to be fair.
    REPORT COMMENTS

    Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.

       
    No, Cancel
  • Apr 28th, 2011
    Someone from Chicago, IL signed.
  • Apr 24th, 2011
    Someone from Macomb, MI writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    Congressman ......, My email is regarding bill H. R. 327, To amend the definition of a law enforcement officer under subchapter III of chapter 83 and chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, respectively, to ensure the inclusion of certain positions. This bill was sponsored by Congressman Bob Filner [D-CA51] and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 01/19/2011. This legislation would expand the definition of "law enforcement officer" for salary and retirement benefits to include all Federal law enforcement officers. It would also save taxpayers' money and enhance public safety and national security. Due to their high level of training and the dangerous nature of the profession, Congress rightfully determined that Federal law enforcement officers should receive enhanced salary and retirement benefits compared to other Federal employees. However, Federal law enforcement officers classified as GS-0083 police officers were not initially covered. Over time, Congress has partially corrected this injustice by granting GS-0083 officers in some agencies, including the U.S. Park Police and the Secret Service Uniformed Division, law enforcement officer (LEO) status for salary and retirement benefits, but today nearly 30,000 of these dedicated Federal law enforcement officers do not receive these benefits. Congress has even granted LEO status to Air Traffic Controllers and many employees of the Bureau of Prisons (such as cooks), whose primary duties are not law enforcement related. These dedicated men and women put their lives on the line as law enforcement officers for different agencies including the Department of Defense and Armed Services, Veterans Affairs, FBI, U.S. Postal Police, Federal Protective Service, National Institute of Health, US Mint, and the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. They serve as our Federal government's first responders, and are asked to face the same hazards as their State and local counterparts and when one of them falls in the line of duty, their names are added to the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial here in Washington, DC. Through regulatory authority the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has promulgated that the definition of a "law enforcement officer" for salary and pay benefits does not include "an employee whose primary duties involve maintaining law and order, protecting life and property, guarding against or inspecting violations of law, or investigating persons who are suspect or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States." These officers may achieve for LEO status by appealing to Merits Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or the OPM, but since 2000, the OPM and the MSPB, with the backing of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have made it extremely difficult for these officers to gain LEO status through judicial review. Since the OPM will not amend its outdated LEO definition and the judicial review process has failed, the best
    REPORT COMMENTS

    Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.

       
    No, Cancel
  • Apr 23rd, 2011
    Someone from Fort Greely, AK signed.
  • Apr 19th, 2011
    Someone from Snellville, GA signed.
  • Apr 10th, 2011
    Someone from Houston, TX signed.
  • Apr 9th, 2011
    Someone from Elmendorf Afb, AK signed.
  • Apr 8th, 2011
    Someone from Killeen, TX signed.
  • Apr 8th, 2011
    Someone from Killeen, TX signed.
  • Apr 8th, 2011
    Someone from Killeen, TX writes:
    Quotation mark icon
    The passing of this bill is a must. For somone to tell me I do not receive the same status as another law enforcement officer is beyond me. I risk my life but get paid the same as a clerk? There is something wrong with the system. Please correct this by passing this bill into law. Specificly the Dept of Army Police (0083). The Army is quick to have me preform the same duty but then tell me I dont have any authority. If there is to be true law enforcement on any army post then take the army authority out, sign the bill and there will be a complete turn around in crime in the army.
    REPORT COMMENTS

    Do you want to report these comments to the moderator for removal? They should be offensive, threatening, a duplicate submission, or spam.

       
    No, Cancel
  • Apr 7th, 2011
    Someone from Lancaster, OH signed.
  • Apr 7th, 2011
    Someone from Fort Greely, AK signed.