Bill That Cuts Benefits for Federal Workers Advances Amid Rising Opposition
A bill that would cut federal benefits advanced in the House, but there are signs the legislation may ultimately fall short.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee narrowly advanced its portion of the Republican budget reconciliation bill by a vote of 22-21. One Republican, Mike Turner of Ohio, joined with all committee Democrats in voting against the legislation.
“I believe that making changes to pension retirement benefits in the middle of someone’s employment is wrong,” said Rep. Turner during the markup.
Under the budget framework, the Oversight Committee needed to find $50 billion in cuts over ten years. To reach that number it included the following provisions aimed at federal employee benefits:
Raises the contribution to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) to a mandatory 4.4 percent.
Eliminates the FERS supplement for employees who retire before Social Security kicks in at age 62. There are exceptions for law enforcement and other jobs with a mandatory retirement age.
Changes the formula for calculating an annuity from the average of highest three years of salary to the average of the highest five years.
Requires new hires to elect between waiving their civil service protections, or paying an additional five percent of their basic pay toward their FERS annuity.
Establishes a fee of $350 for employees to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Audits the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) to remove employees and dependents who are not eligible.
“The simple truth is a significant amount of the cost associated with federal employees’ benefits are funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector, and now increasingly government borrowing,” said Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY).
The committee did approve carveouts to higher FERS contribution rates and the move from High-3 to High 5 for certain public safety and mandatory retirement positions, including those covering federal law enforcement, as well as preserving the FERS annuity supplement for such positions.
Democrats Stand Firm in Opposition
Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) said the choice of waiving civil service protections or paying more into retirement, amounts to “extortion.”
And Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who is filling in as ranking Democrat on the committee after former ranking member Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) stepped down due to health issues, echoed that view.
“Particularly egregious is the plan to force any newly hired employee to accept at-will employment—with no civil service protections—or face an additional 5 percent contribution on top of the 4.4 percent that’s already required. Those who choose to remain under the merit-based system with employment protections would be forced to contribute nearly 10 percent of their paycheck toward retirement at the same time that we’re reducing the amount of that retirement,” said Rep. Lynch.
Uncertain Path
With approval from the Oversight Committee, the bill now advances to the full House Budget Committee, where its fate is uncertain.
There is a possibility that additional Republicans echo Representative Turner’s views that the cuts are too deep.
“I have talked to enough people on the House floor that I do think that this will not be included in the final bill, and that this bill ultimately will have to be changed if it’s going to be included,” said Rep. Turner.
In an update to members promising “this fight is far from over,” Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) President Mathew Silverman said, “Our primary focus between now and the House floor vote is to continue pressing for a complete carve out for law enforcement from any changes to the annuity supplement, and to ensure that our non 6(c) members are excluded from either the High 5 or the higher contribution rates.”