PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2977-2978)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 18, 2016
Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act
This bill expands the definition of "law enforcement officer" under provisions of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to include: (1) federal employees not otherwise covered whose duties include the investigation or apprehension of suspected or convicted criminals and who are authorized to carry a firearm; (2) Internal Revenue Service employees whose duties are primarily the collection of delinquent taxes and the securing of delinquent returns; (3) U.S. Postal Inspection Service employees; (4) Department of Veterans Affairs police officers; and (5) certain U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees who are seized-property specialists with duties relating to custody, management, and disposition of seized and forfeited property.
Service performed by an incumbent (an individual appointed before enactment of this bill to a position that is considered to be a law enforcement officer under FERS and the CSRS only by virtue of the expanded definition in this bill) on or after enactment of this bill shall be treated as service performed as a law enforcement officer. Service performed by an incumbent before enactment of this bill shall be treated for federal retirement purposes as service performed as such an officer only if a written election is submitted to the Office of Personnel Management within five years after enactment of this bill or before separation from service, whichever is earlier. An incumbent who makes an election before enactment of this bill may pay a deposit into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund to cover prior service.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Nothing under current law respecting mandatory separation from government service under CSRS or FERS shall cause the mandatory separation of an officer during the three-year period beginning on the enactment of this bill.
People & committees
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2977-2978)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2946 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2946 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2946 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2946 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.