PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 15, 2010
Law Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity Act of 2010 - Redefines the term "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 by such term whose duties include the investigation or apprehension of suspected or convicted individuals and who are authorized to carry a firearm; and (2) such employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whose duties are primarily the collection of delinquent taxes and the securing of delinquent tax returns.
Requires that service performed by an incumbent law enforcement officer be treated: (1) for all purposes, as service performed as a law enforcement officer, irrespective of how such service is treated for retirement purposes; and (2) for retirement purposes, as service performed as such an officer, but only if an appropriate written election is submitted to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) five years after the enactment of this Act or before separation from government service, whichever is earlier.
People & committees
Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] · D–MD
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.
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.3944 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.3944 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.3944 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.3944 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.