2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in ENGROSSED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (Apr 20, 2026)

Cosmetic changes only. The bill text remains identical, with updates reflecting its passage in the House of Representatives and a change from "A BILL" to "AN ACT". No substantive policy changes were made between these versions.

H.R. 8364119th CongressIntroduced Apr 20, 2026

To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize the increase of the retirement age in the United States Capitol Police.

Passed HouseGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
Committees: Committee on House Administration (primary)
Last action: Apr 28, 2026

Bottom line

H.R. 8364 grants the Capitol Police Board discretion to adjust the mandatory retirement age for its officers within a specified range, moving it from a fixed 60 years to between 57 and 65 years.

What it actually does

This bill amends federal law to authorize the United States Capitol Police Board to increase the mandatory retirement age for Capitol Police officers. Currently set at 60 years, the bill allows the Board to set the age anywhere between 57 and 65 years, providing flexibility in workforce management and retention of experienced personnel.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue this bill provides essential flexibility for the Capitol Police to retain experienced officers longer, especially given the unique security demands and the value of institutional knowledge. It allows the Board to adapt to changing workforce needs, officer health, and recruitment challenges, potentially reducing turnover costs and maintaining a more seasoned force.

Opponents contend

Opponents might contend that increasing the retirement age could lead to an older force, potentially impacting the physical readiness required for the demanding duties of Capitol Police officers. They may also argue that it could slow career progression for younger officers or that a fixed, lower retirement age ensures a physically robust and agile force.

The bill is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its core purpose quickly.

Section 1(a) and 1(b)

Authorization to Adjust Capitol Police Retirement Age

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision modifies existing federal law governing the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) as they apply to United States Capitol Police officers. It removes the current mandatory retirement age of 60 and instead authorizes the Capitol Police Board to determine a new mandatory retirement age, which must be between 57 and 65 years old. This grants the Board discretion to manage the force's demographics and experience levels.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupUnited States Capitol Police OfficersImpactPotential extension of career length, delayed retirement, or earlier retirement depending on the Board's decision within the range.MechanismChange in mandatory retirement age.ScaleAffects all current and future Capitol Police officers.

GroupCapitol Police BoardImpactIncreased administrative discretion and responsibility in workforce management.MechanismAuthority to set retirement age within a specified range.ScaleAffects the Board's operational and human resources management.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that allowing the Capitol Police Board to adjust the retirement age provides crucial flexibility to retain highly trained and experienced officers. This helps maintain institutional knowledge, reduces recruitment and training costs, and allows the force to adapt to evolving security needs and workforce demographics. It also acknowledges that many officers may be capable and willing to serve beyond age 60.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that increasing the potential retirement age could lead to an older police force, which might face challenges with the intense physical demands of Capitol Police duties, potentially compromising operational effectiveness. They may also express concerns about potential stagnation in career advancement opportunities for younger officers if older officers remain in service longer.

Tradeoffs

The bill balances the desire to retain experienced personnel and institutional knowledge with potential concerns about the physical demands of policing on older officers and the need for career progression opportunities for younger recruits. It also introduces administrative discretion where a fixed rule previously existed.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.