Equal COLA Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/491
Last Updated: September 10, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

ID: C001078

Follow the money

The bill

Equal COLA Act

HR. 491, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$69,150 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy" section, p. 109-111 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 491, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.

September 15, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Allow me to dissect this farce, shall I?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Equal COLA Act (HR 491) claims to aim for parity between cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for annuities under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to placate federal employees and retirees while maintaining the illusion of fiscal responsibility.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 8462 of Title 5, United States Code, to increase COLAs for FERS annuities. The changes are designed to bring FERS COLAs in line with those of CSRS, which is a classic case of "keeping up with the Joneses" – or rather, keeping up with the more generous retirement benefits of CSRS.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Federal employees and retirees under both FERS and CSRS will be affected by this bill. However, let's not forget the real stakeholders here: the politicians who sponsored this bill, eager to curry favor with their constituents and special interest groups. The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) is likely salivating at the prospect of increased benefits for its members.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will increase costs for taxpayers, as the government will need to shell out more money for COLAs. But hey, who's counting? The real impact will be on the federal budget, which will continue to hemorrhage cash due to unsustainable entitlement programs like these. Don't worry, though – our fearless leaders will just magic up some more money or borrow from future generations.

Now, let me put on my medical hat and diagnose this legislative disease:

**Diagnosis:** "COLA-itis" – a chronic condition characterized by an excessive desire for cost-of-living adjustments, often accompanied by symptoms of fiscal irresponsibility and special interest pandering.

**Prognosis:** Poor. This bill will only serve to exacerbate the underlying conditions of our bloated federal bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlement programs.

**Treatment:** A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all, and a willingness to call out the blatant self-interest driving this legislation.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$69,150
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$2,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
1 transaction
$2,900

No committee contributions found

1
PUNARO, ARNOLD
2 transactions
$6,600
2
PUNARO, JULIA
2 transactions
$6,600
3
HALE, KAREN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PHILLIPS, STERLING
2 transactions
$6,600
5
HERSHMAN, MICHAEL J.
1 transaction
$3,300
6
TRONE, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MISENER, PAUL E
1 transaction
$3,300
8
RABAUT, TOM W
1 transaction
$3,300
9
WALKER, KENT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
CARLSON, TERESA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
GURU, RAM
1 transaction
$3,300
12
HALL SR, DON
1 transaction
$3,300
13
HALL, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
ABOD, CARAH
1 transaction
$3,300
15
ABOD, KIM
1 transaction
$3,300
16
BERBERIAN, ANNETTE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

ID: M001225

Top Contributors

34

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$6,600
May 20, 2024
2
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
3
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,300
Jun 22, 2023
6
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 28, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 3, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Oct 28, 2023
9
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$1,300
Oct 4, 2024
10
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Oct 15, 2024

Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12]

ID: T000481

Top Contributors

28

1
ANH MANAGEMENT LLC
OrganizationPATERSON, NJ
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
2
FALAH VENTURES LLC
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$2,000
Mar 31, 2024
3
LAW OFFICE OF AFFAR BAKSH LLC
OrganizationJAMAICA, NY
$1,000
Mar 2, 2024
4
A. ARMUSANDNEEBOM CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationJACKSONVILLE, FL
$1,000
Mar 31, 2024
5
NADIM ISLAM EMERGENCY SERVICES, PLLC
OrganizationHOUSTON, TX
$1,000
Mar 31, 2024
6
KHALAF LLC
OrganizationTROY, MI
$1,000
Mar 31, 2024
7
MEHRIZI PROPERTIES LLC
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$500
Feb 4, 2024
8
MR AND MOSTAK LLC
OrganizationJAMAICA, NY
$500
Mar 31, 2024
9
MAHMOUD, ANNA F.
MAYO CLINIC • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$13,200
Nov 17, 2023
10
MALAS, MOHANNAD
IndividualLAGUNA BEACH, CA
$9,300
Dec 31, 2023

Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]

ID: B001285

Top Contributors

24

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
2
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
3
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 28, 2024
4
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Feb 23, 2024
5
PRISELAC, TOM M.
CEDAR SINAI HEALTH SYSTEMS • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
6
BUCHMAN, MICHELLE J.
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCARBONDALE, CO
$3,300
Nov 18, 2023
7
CONROY, ROBERTA
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA
$3,300
Dec 1, 2023
8
SAVAGE, KEVIN
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
9
STEVENS, SETH R.
SOUTHERN CA PERMANENTE GROUP • DERMATOLOGIST
IndividualNEWBURY PARK, CA
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
10
UNTERMAN, JANET M.
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Dec 8, 2023

Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2]

ID: B001296

Top Contributors

21

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$1,000
Mar 21, 2024
2
WARD, SEAN
BLUE OWL CAPITAL • FINANCE
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$6,600
May 25, 2023
3
WARD, HEATHER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$6,600
May 25, 2023
4
CALLISON, EDWIN H JR
BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE GROUP • EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualBELLEVILLE, IL
$5,400
Oct 23, 2023
5
SINGH, PRITPAL
SINGH SEMICONDUCTORS, INC • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualFREMONT, CA
$5,000
Dec 31, 2023
6
WALTERS, CLELIA
CHARTERHOUSE LLC • FOUNDER
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$3,700
Apr 16, 2024
7
RUBINSTEIN, ANDREW
OBERLAND CAPITAL • HEALTHCARE
IndividualTENAFLY, NJ
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
8
FRIEDMAN, AVI
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWHITE PLAINS, NY
$3,300
Nov 20, 2023
9
SANDBERG, SHERYL
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
10
SMITH, MICHAEL D.
CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualCHEVY CHASE, MD
$3,300
Oct 14, 2023

Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]

ID: C001061

Top Contributors

22

1
BARNES LAW FIRM, LLC
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$2,500
Jul 21, 2023
2
GRAHAM-ANDEBRHAN LLC
OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO
$1,125
Jul 7, 2023
3
OBERHELMAN, DIANE
CULLINAN PROPERTIES LTD. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualEDWARDS, IL
$3,300
Nov 20, 2024
4
EMERSON, BILL
ROCKET COMPANIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualBLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
5
RAYANT, GARRY
SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2023
6
RAYANT, GARRY
SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2023
7
HALL, DAVID
HALLMARK • EXECUTIVE
IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO
$3,300
Jan 25, 2024
8
HALL, DON JR.
HALLMARK CARDS • EXECUTIVE
IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO
$3,300
Jan 25, 2024
9
LOVIER, HEATHER
ROCKET MORTGAGE • CHIEF CLIENT EXP. OFF.
IndividualROCKWOOD, MI
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
10
GRAY, JON
BLACKSTONE • PRESIDENT
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
May 15, 2024

Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1]

ID: D000230

Top Contributors

26

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$2,000
Dec 31, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 6, 2023
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 13, 2024
5
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 31, 2023
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Dec 28, 2023
7
FISHER, DEBORAH
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCOEUR D ALENE, ID
$4,000
Jul 29, 2024
8
BLOOM, BRADLEY
BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS
IndividualWELLESLEY, MA
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
BRAUFMAN, JILL
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
CLAPP, STEPHEN
SELF EMPLOYED • RANCHER
IndividualSEQUIM, WA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024

Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]

ID: M001208

Top Contributors

22

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 14, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 6, 2024
3
WHITE, ROGER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$5,000
Sep 30, 2024
4
RADOW, LINDA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$3,300
Oct 10, 2023
5
RADOW, LINDA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$3,300
Oct 10, 2023
6
ROGERS, JOHN
ARIEL INVESTMENTS LLC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Dec 12, 2023
7
EPSTEIN, MARC
SELF EMPLOYED • PRIVATE EQUITY
IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL
$3,300
Oct 27, 2023
8
OLSEN, KATHY
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNASHVILLE, TN
$3,300
Dec 28, 2023
9
KAHN, SUSAN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualATLANTA, GA
$3,300
Nov 17, 2023
10
RODAN, AMNON
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 23, 2023

Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1]

ID: D000617

Top Contributors

46

1
JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationSEQUIM, WA
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
2
LUMMI INDIAN NATION
OrganizationBELLINGHAM, WA
$5,000
Jul 17, 2024
3
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Jun 28, 2024
4
SNOQUALMIE TRIBE
OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA
$3,300
Nov 2, 2023
5
JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationSEQUIM, WA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
6
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Jun 1, 2023
7
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
8
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,300
Jun 28, 2024
9
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2024
10
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Aug 13, 2024

Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10]

ID: F000476

Top Contributors

22

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Jun 28, 2024
2
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$500
Sep 26, 2023
3
HULL, MEGAN
SELF EMPLOYED • ACTIVIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 17, 2024
4
HARRIS, WILLIAM
PERKINS + WILL • ARCHITECT
IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Oct 29, 2023
5
BOYLAND, DORIAN
BOYLAND AUTO ORLANDO • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualWINDERMERE, FL
$3,300
Oct 13, 2023
6
TILLMAN, BRIAN
WINDOW WORLD • OWNER
IndividualORLANDO, FL
$3,300
Oct 20, 2023
7
PISCITELLI, JUNE
SMARTHINKING • INSTRUCTOR
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$3,300
Oct 6, 2023
8
WILLIAMS, TERESA
SELF EMPLOYED • MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
IndividualWINTER PARK, FL
$3,300
Dec 2, 2023
9
HARRIS, WILLIAM
PERKINS + WILL • ARCHITECT
IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Oct 29, 2023
10
PISCITELLI, JUNE
SMARTHINKING • INSTRUCTOR
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$3,300
Oct 6, 2023

Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

ID: C001068

Top Contributors

22

1
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Nov 5, 2024
2
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$2,000
Nov 5, 2024
3
KEENEY, MIKE
LEWIS THOMASON • LEWIS THOMASON
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Feb 6, 2024
4
RITCHEY, JANICE C
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
5
RITCHEY, KENT
WOLFCHASE TOYOTA • AUTOMOBILE DEALER
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
6
WALTON, CHRISTY
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
7
KEENEY, MICHAEL
LEWIS THOMASON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
May 25, 2023
8
SEGAL, GORDON
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Apr 10, 2023
9
SMITH, FREDERICK
FEDEX • CEO
IndividualMEMPHIS, TN
$3,300
Jul 31, 2024
10
BEKTAS, MELIH
SELF EMPLOYED • ENGINEER
IndividualNORTH PROVIDENCE, RI
$3,000
Oct 19, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 36 nodes and 41 connections

Total contributions: $41

Top Donors - Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 of the bill increases the cost-of-living adjustment for Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) annuities, which may benefit federal employee unions and their members, thereby supporting labor unions.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 109-111AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section address federal retirement benefits and COLAs, but the bill seeks to increase FERS COLAs to match CSRS (greater generosity), whereas Project 2025 advocates for reducing the extravagance of federal benefits and moving toward market‑based, less generous compensation."

Key themes:federal retirement benefitsCOLAFERSCSRSbenefit parity

— 76 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to delay. With the proper limitation of labor union actions, the FLRA should have limited reason for appeals. The EEOC’s federal employee section should be transferred to the MSPB, and many of the OCS’s investigatory functions should be returned to the OPM. The MSPB could then become the main reviewer of adverse actions, greatly simplifying the burdensome appeal process. Making Civil Service Benefits Economically and Administratively Ratio- nal. In recent years, the combined wages and benefits of the executive branch civilian workforce totaled $300 billion according to official data. But even that amount does not properly account for billions in unfunded liability for retirement and other government reporting distortions. Official data also report employment as approximately 2 million, but this ignores approximately 20 million contractors who, while not eligible for government pay and benefits, do receive them indirectly through contracting (even if they are less generous). Official data also claim that national government employees are paid less than private-sector employees are paid for similar work, but several more neutral sources demonstrate that pub- lic-sector workers make more on average than their private-sector counterparts. All of this extravagance deserves close scrutiny. Market-Based Pay and Benefits. According to current law, federal workers are to be paid wages comparable to equivalent private-sector workers rather than compared to all private-sector employees. While the official studies claim that federal employees are underpaid relative to the private sector by 20 percent or more, a 2016 Heritage Foundation study found that federal employees received wages that were 22 percent higher than wages for similar private-sector workers; if the value of employee benefits was included, the total compensation premium for federal employees over their private-sector equivalents increased to between 30 percent and 40 percent.18 The American Enterprise Institute found a 14 percent pay premium and a 61 percent total compensation premium.19 Base salary is only one component of a federal employee’s total compensation. In addition to high starting wages, federal employees normally receive an annual cost-of-living adjustment (available to all employees) and generous scheduled raises known as step increases. Moreover, a large proportion of federal employ- ees are stationed in the Washington, D.C., area and other large cities and are entitled to steep locality pay enhancement to account for the high cost of living in these areas. A federal employee with five years’ experience receives 20 vacation days, 13 paid sick days, and all 10 federal holidays compared to an employee at a large private company who receives 13 days of vacation and eight paid sick days. Federal health benefits are more comparable to those provided by Fortune 500 employers with the government paying 72 percent of the weighted average premiums, but this is much higher than for most private plans. Almost half of private firms do not offer any employer contributions at all. — 77 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy The obvious solution to these discrepancies is to move closer to a market model for federal pay and benefits. One need is for a neutral agency to oversee pay hiring decisions, especially for high-demand occupations. The OPM is independent of agency operations, so it can assess requirements more neutrally. For many years, with its Special Pay Rates program, the OPM evaluated claims that federal rates in an area were too low to attract competent employees and allowed agencies to offer higher pay when needed rather than increased rates for all. Ideally, the OPM should establish an initial pay schedule for every occupation and region, monitor turnover rates and applicant-to-position ratios, and adjust pay and recruitment on that basis. Most of this requires legislation, but the OPM should be an advocate for a true equality of benefits between the public and private sectors. Reforming Federal Retirement Benefits. Career civil servants enjoy retire- ment benefits that are nearly unheard of in the private sector. Federal employees retire earlier (normally at age 55 after 30 years), enjoy richer pension annuities, and receive automatic cost-of-living adjustments based on the areas in which they retire. Defined-benefit federal pensions are fully indexed for inflation—a practice that is extremely rare in the private sector. A federal employee with a preretire- ment income of $25,000 under the older of the two federal retirement plans will receive at least $200,000 more over a 20-year period than will private-sector work- ers with the same preretirement salary under historic inflation levels. During the early Reagan years, the OPM reformed many specific provisions of the federal pension program to save billions administratively. Under OPM pres- sure, Reagan and Congress ultimately ended the old Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) entirely for new employees, which (counting disbursements for the unfunded liability) accounted for 51.3 percent of the federal government's total payroll. The retirement system that replaced it—the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)—reduced the cost of federal employee retirement dis- bursements to 28.5 percent of payroll (including contributions to Social Security and the employer match to the Thrift Savings Plan). More of the pension cost was shifted to the employee, but the new system was much more equitable for the 40 percent who received few or no benefits under the old system. By 1999, more than half of the federal workforce was covered by the new system, and the government’s per capita share of the cost (as the employer) was less than half the cost of the old system: 20.2 percent of FERS payroll vs. 44.3 percent of CSRS payroll, representing one of the largest examples of government savings anywhere. Although the government pension system has become more like private pension systems, it still remains much more generous, and other means might be considered in the future to move it even closer to private plans. GSA: Landlord and Contractor Management. The General Services Administration is best known as the federal government’s landlord—designing, constructing, managing, and preserving government buildings and leasing and

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 109-111AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill seeks to increase retirement benefits for FERS annuitants by equalizing COLAs with CSRS, while Project 2025 advocates for reducing federal retirement benefits to align more closely with private-sector models and curb costs. The two are in direct tension regarding the desired direction of federal retirement reform."

Key themes:federal retirement benefitsCOLA adjustmentsFERS vs CSRSOffice of Personnel Management (OPM)

— 77 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy The obvious solution to these discrepancies is to move closer to a market model for federal pay and benefits. One need is for a neutral agency to oversee pay hiring decisions, especially for high-demand occupations. The OPM is independent of agency operations, so it can assess requirements more neutrally. For many years, with its Special Pay Rates program, the OPM evaluated claims that federal rates in an area were too low to attract competent employees and allowed agencies to offer higher pay when needed rather than increased rates for all. Ideally, the OPM should establish an initial pay schedule for every occupation and region, monitor turnover rates and applicant-to-position ratios, and adjust pay and recruitment on that basis. Most of this requires legislation, but the OPM should be an advocate for a true equality of benefits between the public and private sectors. Reforming Federal Retirement Benefits. Career civil servants enjoy retire- ment benefits that are nearly unheard of in the private sector. Federal employees retire earlier (normally at age 55 after 30 years), enjoy richer pension annuities, and receive automatic cost-of-living adjustments based on the areas in which they retire. Defined-benefit federal pensions are fully indexed for inflation—a practice that is extremely rare in the private sector. A federal employee with a preretire- ment income of $25,000 under the older of the two federal retirement plans will receive at least $200,000 more over a 20-year period than will private-sector work- ers with the same preretirement salary under historic inflation levels. During the early Reagan years, the OPM reformed many specific provisions of the federal pension program to save billions administratively. Under OPM pres- sure, Reagan and Congress ultimately ended the old Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) entirely for new employees, which (counting disbursements for the unfunded liability) accounted for 51.3 percent of the federal government's total payroll. The retirement system that replaced it—the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)—reduced the cost of federal employee retirement dis- bursements to 28.5 percent of payroll (including contributions to Social Security and the employer match to the Thrift Savings Plan). More of the pension cost was shifted to the employee, but the new system was much more equitable for the 40 percent who received few or no benefits under the old system. By 1999, more than half of the federal workforce was covered by the new system, and the government’s per capita share of the cost (as the employer) was less than half the cost of the old system: 20.2 percent of FERS payroll vs. 44.3 percent of CSRS payroll, representing one of the largest examples of government savings anywhere. Although the government pension system has become more like private pension systems, it still remains much more generous, and other means might be considered in the future to move it even closer to private plans. GSA: Landlord and Contractor Management. The General Services Administration is best known as the federal government’s landlord—designing, constructing, managing, and preserving government buildings and leasing and — 78 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise managing outside commercial real estate contracting with 376.9 million square feet of space. Obviously, as its prime function, real estate expertise is key to the GSA’s success. However, the GSA is also the government’s purchasing agent, connecting federal purchasers with commercial products and services in the private sector and their personnel management functions. With contractors performing so many functions today, the GSA therefore becomes a de facto part of governmentwide personnel management. The GSA also manages the Presidential Transition Act (PTA) process, which also directly involves the OPM. A recent proposal would have incorporated the OPM and GSA (and OMB). Fortunately, this did not take place in that form, but it would make sense for GSA and OPM leadership and staff to hold regular meetings to work through matters of common interest such as moderating PTA personnel restrictions and the relationships between contract and civil service employees. Reductions-in-Force. Reducing the number of federal employees seems an obvious way to reduce the overall expense of the civil service, and many prior Administrations have attempted to do just this. Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama began their terms, as did Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, by mandating a freeze on the hiring of new federal employees, but these efforts did not lead to permanent and substantive reductions in the number of nondefense federal employees. First, it is a challenge even to know which workers to cut. As mentioned, there are 2 million federal employees, but since budgets have exploded, so has the total number of personnel with nearly 10 times more federal contractors than federal employees. Contractors are less expensive because they are not entitled to high government pensions or benefits and are easier to fire and discipline. In addition, millions of state government employees work under federal grants, in effect administering federal programs; these cannot be cut directly. Cutting federal employment can be helpful and can provide a simple story to average citizens, but cutting functions, levels, funds, and grants is much more important than setting simple employment size. Simply reducing numbers can actually increase costs. OMB instructions fol- lowing President Trump’s employment freeze told agencies to consider buyout programs, encouraging early retirements in order to shift costs from current bud- gets in agencies to the retirement system and minimize the number of personnel fired. The Environmental Protection Agency immediately implemented such a program, and OMB urged the passage of legislation to increase payout maximums from $25,000 to $40,000 to further increase spending under the “cuts.” President Clinton’s OMB had introduced a similar buyout that cost the Treasury $2.8 billion, mostly for those who were going to retire anyway. Moreover, when a new employee is hired to fill a job recently vacated in a buyout, the government for a time is paying two people to fill one job.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal
Vector: 60%
Pages: 618-620AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Equal COLA Act concerns retirement cost-of-living adjustments for federal employees, while the Project 2025 DOL section focuses on sex discrimination enforcement, pro-life workplace measures, religious accommodations, and EEOC reforms; there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:federal workforceemployment benefits

— 585 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.” PRO-LIFE MEASURES l Promote pro-life workplace accommodations for mothers. Federal law should protect life and promote pro-family policies. Current law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,3 provides nondiscrimination protections in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)4 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for women “to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” unless “the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the [employer’s] business.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides nondiscrimination and accommodation protections in the workplace for certain pregnancy-related disability.5 None of these laws requires an employer provide health insurance benefits for elective abortion. l Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions. Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion. l Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans. Some benefits attorneys and pro-choice advocates have argued since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision6 that the longstanding doctrine of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)7 preemption should block individual states’ efforts to prohibit employers from helping employees procure abortions via offering various kinds of coverage under employee-sponsored benefit plans. ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.” RELIGION l Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs — 586 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws. l Issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees. The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs. l Clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions. Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws. l Provide Robust Accommodations for Religious Employees. Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices unless it poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business. These accommodation protections also apply to issues related to marriage, gender, and sexuality. Unless the Supreme Court overrules its bad precedent, Congress should clarify that undue hardship means “significant difficulty or expenses,” not “more than a de minimis cost” as the Court has previously held. General EEOC Reforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) does not have rulemaking authority under Title VII and other laws it enforces, yet it issues “guidance,” “technical assistance,” and other documents, including some that push new policy positions. EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions and abide by the guidance reforms dis- cussed below. l EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions. l Affirm decision-making via majority vote of Commissioners. EEOC should affirm as policy the Title VII requirement that it exercise substantive power via majority vote of Commissioners, not by unilateral Chair action or by delegation to staff.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills