SELECT A
CATEGORY
NEXT ARTICLE PREVIOUS ARTICLE

News

SUBMIT AN ARTICLE BACK TO OVERVIEW

Proposal To Freeze Step Increases

February 9, 2012

Congresswoman Martha Roby
United States House of Representatives
414 CHOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Roby:

On behalf of the 26,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), the largest nonprofit nonpartisan professional association exclusively representing federal law enforcement, I am writing to oppose your bill that seeks to freeze step increases for federal law enforcement officers.

While FLEOA recognizes the need to cut wasteful government spending, freezing federal law enforcement pay is a misguided attempt to solve a much broader problem. It is often convenient for a member of Congress to jump on the bandwagon of the cutting frenzy without having the knowledge and/or experience dealing with specific issues that they are attempting to address.

Representative Roby, you cannot possibly have a legitimate answer to this simple question: How do you justify freezing the step increases of those who are sworn to risk their lives in protection of our great nation? If you are sincerely committed to taking proactive steps to reduce the deficit, why don't you widen your narrow view and take a closer look at the billions of dollars in disposable foreign aid our country gives away? As a public official elected by Americans, your priority should be to advocate for them first.

It is apparent that you are not aware that most federal law enforcement agencies bring in millions of dollars each year in forfeiture and recovery funds. This includes the larger agencies in the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the criminal investigative components with the Offices of Inspector General. Does this somehow draw you to an informed conclusion that our step increases are a contributing factor to the country's deficit?

When a member of Congress introduces short-sighted legislation like this, you are virtually stabbing both the wallet and heart of every federal law enforcement officer, their family members and the citizens they are sworn to protect. Your proposed legislation will only serve to increase the rate of attrition for federal law enforcement and significantly reduce our ranks.

Without a proper complement of federal law enforcement officers, who is going to protect our citizenry from terrorists, identity thieves, cybercriminals, drug traffickers, securities fraudsters, organized crime, and those who diminish our environment? I doubt congressional sound-bites will deliver these vital protections to the American citizenry.

Before this precarious legislation is marked up, I'd recommend you reassess your position and perhaps recommend freezing the funding for hostile countries instead. Please poll your constituents and ask them if spending their tax dollars on Palestine, Mexico, Iraq,

Egypt and others is more important than paying for the step increases for federal law enforcement officers. If you're going to demonstrate your patriotism by waving the American flag, please show some respect for those who protect the liberties you enjoy.

Respectfully submitted,

J. Adler
National President