Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capitol Police Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmaker urges Congress to let Capitol Police board extend retirement waivers to age 65
Summary
A lawmaker told a House committee that a bill would let the U.S. Capitol Police Board grant waivers allowing sworn officers to serve until 65, citing nearly 60 officers already on waivers and a staffing shortfall; the speaker cited 2004 and 2010 precedents and asked for quick passage.
A lawmaker told a House committee that a proposed bill would allow the U.S. Capitol Police Board to grant retirement waivers to sworn officers through age 65 to help address staffing shortages.
The measure, the lawmaker said, would extend the existing waiver timeline so that officers who would otherwise face mandatory retirement could continue serving if the board finds them fit for duty. "It's critical that we quickly pass this statutory change," the lawmaker said.
The speaker said officers are currently forced to retire at age 57 unless they receive a waiver from the Capitol Police Board and may continue working until age 60 under current practice. "Now, nearly 60 sworn officers are working with a waiver. Without this change, they'll be forced to retire in the next few years," the lawmaker added, calling the loss of those officers "the equivalent of more than two recruitment classes for the U.S. Capitol Police."
To bolster the proposal, the speaker pointed to precedent: Congress temporarily raised mandatory federal law enforcement retirement ages from 60 to 65 in 2004 and 2010 during staffing shortages at the FBI. The bill, the lawmaker said, preserves the Capitol Police Board's discretion to determine which officers "still fit for the job." "These officers should not be forced into retirement if they can still do their job, especially given the manpower shortages on the force, coupled with record threats against lawmakers," the lawmaker said.
The speaker thanked "Ranking Member Morelli" for collaborating on the bill and urged colleagues to act quickly to prevent the projected retirements.
No vote or formal motion was recorded in the remarks captured in the transcript; the speaker framed the discussion as an appeal for rapid statutory action rather than reporting a final decision.
