PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Held at the desk.
Congressional Research Service
Version 25 · Reported to Senate · Oct 3, 2023
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer Retirement Technical Corrections Act
This bill modifies the calculation of retirement benefits for certain U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers.
Under current law, effective July 6, 2008, CBP officers are entitled to an enhanced retirement benefit, subject to certain mandatory retirement requirements. CBP officers who were employed as of July 6, 2008 are entitled to a transitional enhanced retirement benefit without the corresponding mandatory retirement requirements (i.e., proportional annuity).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill specifies that CBP officers who received a tentative offer of employment before July 6, 2008, and who started work on or after that date, are entitled to this proportional annuity. The Office of Personnel Management must correct annuity calculations for these officers, including retroactively, based on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS may also retroactively waive mandatory retirement requirements for these officers so that they may receive the proportional annuity.
The Government Accountability Office must report on CBP's policies and procedures related to enhanced retirement benefits.
People & committees
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5432-5433; text: CR S5432-5433)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S5432-5433; text: CR S5432-5433)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 217.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Peters with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 118-101.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Peters with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 118-101.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.311 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.311 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.311 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.311 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.