Federal law enforcement officers, as defined in statute, and a few related occupations—such as federal firefighters an d air traffic controllers—are eligible for enhanced retirement benefits. Congress decided that these occupations should be composed of young men and women who possess the strength and endurance necessary to perform the required duties. Enhanced retirement benefits help to maintain this type of workforce by permitting employees in these positions to retire earlier and accrue pension benefits faster during earlier years of service than regular civilian federal employees. Many individuals and employee groups who work in law enforcement-related positions, but who have not qualified as law enforcement officers for retirement purposes, have sought enhanced benefits through legislation in recent Congresses. Incorporating additional occupations may address problems of attrition and perceived inequity across law enforcement-related positions. However, expanding access to enhanced retirement benefits also generates concerns over additional expenditures on federal retirement benefits. Currently, the definition of a federal law enforcement officer (LEO) for retirement purposes is limited to an employee who performs certain duties defined in statute under either the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which covers federal employees hired before 1984, or the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), which covers federal employees hired in 1984 or later. Individuals employed in positions that meet the statutory definition of a LEO, as well as certain personnel who have obtained LEO-equivalent benefits through direct legislation, are eligible to retire earlier with fewer years of service and receive a benefit accrual rate during the first 20 years of service that is higher than the benefit accrual rate for regular federal civilian employees. LEOs and employees who have enhanced retirement benefits also contribute more to their own benefits than regular civilian federal employees and are subject to a mandatory retirement age. Under CSRS, a LEO is an employee whose primary duties are "the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position." The definition of a LEO under FERS is nearly identical to the CSRS definition, though more specific. In addition to an employee whose primary duties are "the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the United States," the FERS definition includes an employee whose primary duties are "the protection of officials of the United States against threats to personal safety." The FERS statutory definition of a LEO also provides an explicit standard for rigorous duty. For those employees whose primary duties are as described above, these duties must be "sufficiently rigorous that employment should be limited to young and physically vigorous individuals." The implementing regulations for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers CSRS and FERS benefits, establish that the definition of a law enforcement officer "does not include an employee whose primary duties involve maintaining law and order, protecting life and property, guarding against or inspecting for violations of law, or investigating persons other than persons who are suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States." Furthermore, qualification for enhanced retirement benefits does not depend on the law enforcement mission of an agency, nor does it depend on the classification of a position within an occupational series of the Federal Classification and Job Grading System. Effectively, this has excluded police officers, guards, and inspectors from the definition of "law enforcement officer" for federal retirement purposes. Typically, for a group of employees to be eligible for enhanced retirement benefits under CSRS or FERS, the employing agency must determine that the duties of the position meet the statutory definition of a LEO and submit their evaluation to OPM. OPM rarely overturns the decision of the head of an agency but retains the right to do so. Alternatively, some groups whose agencies and OPM have determined that they do not meet the statutory definition of a LEO have gained access to enhanced retirement benefits through direct legislation that either added them to the statutory definition of a LEO or provided benefits similar to those received by LEOs. If an employee feels that he or she has been unjustly excluded from the LEO definition and the concomitant retirement benefits, that individual may appeal the final decision of the relevant agency to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Table 1 provides a list of groups of employees eligible for enhanced retirement benefits as a LEO or similar position. The left column includes examples of groups of employees that meet the statutory definition of a LEO under CSRS or FERS. The right column lists employee groups that have either been added to the LEO definition or granted enhanced retirement benefits through direct legislation. As described above, LEO determinations are made on the basis of position duties or by direct legislation. Therefore, the list in Table 1 is presented for illustrative purposes and is not intended to be exhaustive. Table 2 provides further details on major occupational groups that have either been added to the LEO definition or granted enhanced retirement benefits through direct legislation. The center column lists the public law that provides enhanced retirement benefits for each group. The far right column shows the year in which each law was enacted. In the remainder of this report, the above-mentioned groups are referred to collectively as law enforcement personnel. Differences in retirement benefits pertaining to any specific occupational group are noted. The duties of law enforcement personnel place unique physical and psychological demands on individuals employed in those positions. Because physical and mental health decline with age, Congress deemed it necessary to maintain a youthful workforce to ensure the quality of law enforcement services. Law enforcement personnel are subject to a mandatory retirement age to maintain this goal, which leads to an expectation of limited federal service for these employees. Consequently, Congress has established enhanced retirement benefits for individuals in these occupations. The provision of enhanced retirement benefits for law enforcement personnel was initially implemented with two primary intentions. The first was to create a retirement system under which it is financially reasonable for officers to retire at an earlier age with fewer years of service than regular civilian federal employees. Second, the enhanced retirement benefits, which encourage entry at a young age, continuous service, and early retirement, are intended to help maintain a young and vigorous federal law enforcement workforce. Enhanced retirement benefits, however, are not intended as compensation for the stress and hazard of the duties that federal law enforcement personnel perform. In 1947, Congress first legislated enhanced retirement benefits and an early retirement age, but only for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. At the time, the agency was losing agents to more lucrative employment in nonfederal positions. A more generous retirement program was considered necessary to retain youthful individuals for career service. Shortly thereafter, many federal employee groups with comparable duties to FBI agents began to petition for enhanced benefits. In 1948, the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service submitted a report to Congress expressing that it would not oppose granting benefits to groups of employees similar to the FBI agents that Congress had previously approved for enhanced benefits. The committee report stated that "it is only fair to grant such retirement benefits that are provided for under the bill to law-enforcement agents in all parts of the Government at an earlier age, because it is physically impossible to carry on the necessary strenuous activities after reaching 50 years of age." Rather than recognize individual groups, Congress developed a blanket definition to authorize benefits for these occupational groups. The legislation that followed defined a "law enforcement officer" and expanded the provision of enhanced retirement benefits to individuals employed in the relevant occupations. Following the 1948 decision by Congress, legislation has done little to alter the definition of a LEO for retirement purposes. FERS was enacted in 1986 ( P.L. 99-335 ) and sought to mimic the policies put in place by its predecessor, CSRS. Consequently, the definition of a law enforcement officer under FERS is similar to the definition under CSRS and maintains enhanced retirement benefits for those personnel. For retirement purposes, most federal employees are covered under either the Civil Service Retirement System, for those hired before 1984, or the Federal Employees' Retirement System, for those hired in 1984 or later. Congress passed the Civil Service Retirement Act of 1920 (P.L 66-215) to create a pension plan for civilian federal employees. The Social Security system followed in 1935 to create a retirement plan for private-sector workers. Federal employees were excluded from Social Security until Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983 ( P.L. 98-21 ) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 ( P.L. 99-335 ), which together incorporated all civilian federal employees, hired in 1984 or after, into Social Security as part of a new federal retirement system. Additionally, FERS covers employees who were hired before 1984 and were covered by CSRS but elected to switch to FERS during the "open seasons" that Congress authorized in 1987 and 1998. The CSRS annuity is the primary retirement benefit available to eligible individuals under CSRS. Employees covered by CSRS generally do not pay Social Security taxes, nor do they claim Social Security benefits. The CSRS annuity is a monthly pension based on years of service, the average of the three highest consecutive years of pay, and the accrual rate for each year of service. Employees covered under CSRS may participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), but they receive no matching contributions from employing agencies. The TSP is a defined contribution retirement plan much like plans authorized under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code for private-sector employers. Contributions to the TSP are at the discretion of the employee up to an annual limit. Retirement benefits under FERS have three components: the FERS basic annuity, Social Security, and TSP. Employees covered by FERS pay Social Security taxes and receive Social Security benefits. The annuity, as under CSRS, is a monthly pension based on years of service, the average of the three highest consecutive years of pay, and the accrual rate for each year of service. However, the annuity portion is smaller compared with CSRS, as it is supplemented with Social Security and TSP.