PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 1, 2003
Amends the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to revise the special pay adjustments for (percentage differentials payable to) Federal law enforcement officers in specified consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. Includes Capitol Police as law enforcement officers under such Act.Directs the Office of Personnel Management: (1) to study and report to Congress on 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; (2) if it considers it to be appropriate, to implement a demonstration project to determine whether a separate system for such officers would result in improved Federal personnel management; and (3) to submit to Congress its evaluation of the system tested under the demonstration project and recommendations as to whether that system should be continued or extended to other Federal law enforcement officers.Eliminates the limitation on the aggregate of basic pay and premium pay with respect to availability pay for Federal criminal investigators.
People & committees
Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5677-5678)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5676-5677)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.985 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.985 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.985 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.985 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.