What People Think
 |
 |
52% For, 48% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2726, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
(Latest | Earliest)
To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_2726.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
George Weissinger
It appears that the House version is not reducing the term of eligibility from 15 years to 10 years as the Senate version does. Also, the wording of the text needs to conform to H.R. 218 that specifies 15 years "aggregate service" since some retirees have service with more than one agency.
I am not sure if the House version addresses the original impasse in H.R. 218 regarding qualification standards. New York has nothing in place for retirees at this time. The amenendment was supposed to address this problem and make it possbible for retirees to meet the eligibility requirements of HR 218. If anyone can clarify this I would appreciate it.
All in all, HR 218 passed into law and this amendment will hopefully make the whole law work much better.
Hector D. Reyes, ICE
I already have 18 years of Federal Law Enforcement Services, I like to has when my retirement arrival the full benefit and privilege, I have at he present time, we as Law Enforcement Officers, made arrests and never know when any those former arrests criminals, became on contact with the retirees officer that could be in any part of the U.S. and the same time retirees officer authorized to carry firearms, could assist any Law Enforcement Agencies around of the country on case of a Emergencies are present.
Gene
Many department refuse to issue a retiree an Identification card. The first step of HR218 was the issuance of an ID card. So any department who does not want there retirees qualify under HR218, they simply do not issue an ID card which invalidates HR218. No one will address a department who refuses to issue the Photo Id to begin with.
George Burns
Another issue for retirees is, those of us who have retired and are drawing retirement; that were in military law enforcement. I retired with seventeen plus years, am drawing my retirement pay; worked urban (garrison) and tactical (in the bush) law enforcement, the entire time. I had state certifications in DUI/FST, Speed Detection, FTO, SWAT, plus DoD certifications in Patrol/Narcotic & Explosive Detection/K-9 Supervisor, US Customs Inspection and all the constituional law classes accompanied with decades of change; not to mention ALL the weapons qualifications each discipline requires.
While I know that military law enforcement service will take time to be accepted; it is a piece of legislation that Senator Obama has supported. The role of military cops has DRASTICALLY changed over the decades. And that service and training is no less of a qualifier, than that of their civilian counterpart. Which is where many of you began your career in law enforcement.
ROBERTO OBONG
It is imperative that any individual who served in some form of law enforcement capacity and honorably should be given an opportunity to receive his retirement credential.