HR-8364-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Bryan Steil (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would authorize the Capitol Police Board to grant waivers allowing members of the U.S. Capitol Police to continue working up to age 65, rather than the current waiver ceiling of age 60. The mandatory retirement age of 57 would remain unchanged; only the upper limit of the board's waiver authority would increase. The Capitol Police Board would retain discretion over whether to grant any individual waiver.
Who benefits
Current Capitol Police officers between ages 60 and 65 who wish to continue working and could now receive a waiver to do so. The Capitol Police force as a whole, which may benefit from retaining experienced officers. The Capitol Police Board, which gains expanded discretionary authority. Taxpayers and Congress, if retaining experienced officers reduces training and recruitment costs. Indirectly, members of Congress and Capitol staff who rely on Capitol Police for security.
Who is hurt
Younger officers or applicants who may face reduced promotion opportunities or hiring slots if senior officers remain in their positions longer. Officers in the 60–65 age range who are denied a waiver may feel the discretionary system is applied inconsistently. Pension and benefits systems could face modestly higher long-term costs if officers delay retirement and accumulate additional benefits. Officers who retire at or near 57 under the current system receive no new benefit from this change.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Capitol Police faces ongoing staffing shortages and that forcing out experienced, physically capable officers at age 60 wastes institutional knowledge and increases recruitment burdens. They contend that raising the waiver ceiling to 65 — consistent with the general federal civilian retirement age — gives the Capitol Police Board the flexibility to retain proven officers during periods of heightened security demand, without mandating that anyone work longer than they choose.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that law enforcement is physically demanding and that extending the waiver ceiling to 65 could result in officers remaining on duty past their peak physical fitness, potentially creating safety risks for themselves, colleagues, and the people they protect. They contend that the existing waiver system up to age 60 already provides meaningful flexibility, and that staffing shortfalls are better addressed through improved recruitment and compensation rather than extending the tenure of aging officers.