Bryan Steil (R-WI)
To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize the increase of the retirement age in the United States Capitol Police.
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Received in the Senate.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- Awaiting Senate
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill proposes an amendment to title 5 of the United States Code. The purpose is to authorize an increase in the retirement age for United States Capitol Police officers. It modifies the retirement age requirements under both the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System. Instead of a fixed age of 60, the retirement age would be determined by a Board. This determined age must be at least 57 but cannot exceed 65 years of age.
Yes
No question was scored yes.
The opposite· 3 of 7
- Scored -3
Would people in middle age be better off under this?
The bill allows the retirement age to be increased up to 65, potentially forcing older workers to stay employed longer.
- Scored -2
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
The removal of a guaranteed retirement age of 60 creates uncertainty for those planning their retirement.
- Scored -2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The potential for a higher required retirement age may delay access to retirement funds for these workers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Flexibility in retirement timing: By changing the fixed retirement age of 60 to an age determined by a Board, the bill allows for a range of retirement ages between 57 and s65 years of age (Section 1(a) and Section 1(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Uncertainty in retirement age: The bill replaces a specific retirement age of 60 with an age that is determined by a Board, which could result in officers being required to work longer (Section 1(a) and Section 1(b)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in middle age be better off under this? — The bill allows the retirement age to be increased up to 65, potentially forcing older workers to stay employed longer. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The potential for a higher required retirement age may delay access to retirement funds for these workers. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The removal of a guaranteed retirement age of 60 creates uncertainty for those planning their retirement. Would men be better off under this? — The bill introduces age-based uncertainty that affects all officers regardless of gender. Would women be better off under this? — The bill introduces age-based uncertainty that affects all officers regardless of gender.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The bill changes retirement age criteria which could impact the timing of benefits for law enforcement personnel.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill shifts retirement age determination from a fixed standard to a discretionary Board decision.
- 4/28/2026
- Received in the Senate.
- 4/27/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3116)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3116)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8364.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3116-3117)
- Mrs. Bice moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 4/22/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 8 - 0.
- 4/20/2026
- Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Joseph MorelleDemocrat · New York