Federal Firefighters Families First Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]
ID: C001078
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š 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 exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Federal Firefighters Families First Act (HR 759) claims to address pay inequality and improve retirement benefits for federal firefighters. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with a specific constituency while perpetuating the same old bureaucratic nonsense.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to:
1. Amend title 5 of the United States Code to provide pay equality between federal firefighters and other federal employees. 2. Enhance recruitment and retention by including overtime hours in retirement benefit calculations. 3. Establish a maximum regular workweek for federal firefighters (not exceeding an average of 60 hours per week).
These changes are nothing more than cosmetic tweaks, designed to create the illusion of progress while maintaining the status quo.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
1. Federal firefighters and their families (the supposed beneficiaries). 2. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which will be responsible for implementing these "reforms." 3. Congressional sponsors and co-sponsors, who get to tout this bill as a victory for their constituents.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It fails to address the systemic issues plaguing federal firefighting services, such as inadequate funding, outdated equipment, and bureaucratic red tape. Instead, it focuses on minor pay adjustments and workweek regulations that will have little impact on the overall quality of service.
The real beneficiaries are the politicians who sponsored this bill, who get to claim credit for "supporting our brave firefighters" while doing nothing to address the underlying problems. The OPM will likely struggle to implement these changes, given their track record of inefficiency and bureaucratic inertia.
In conclusion, HR 759 is a classic example of legislative malpractice: a feel-good bill that accomplishes little but provides ample opportunities for self-serving politicians to grandstand. It's a symptom of a deeper disease – the chronic inability of our government to address real problems in favor of empty gestures and photo ops.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 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.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.