Federal Firefighters Families First Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/759
Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Sponsored by

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

ID: C001078

Follow the money

The bill

Federal Firefighters Families First Act

HR. 759, 119th Congress.

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. 759, 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.

November 19, 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 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

Labor & Employment Policy
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. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

ID: F000466

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,500
Dec 31, 2024
2
STATA FAMILY OFFICE
Organization
$500
Apr 26, 2024
3
ASHER, ROBERT B.
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Oct 9, 2024
4
ASHER, ROBERT B.
ASHER CHOCOLATES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualGWYNEDD VALLEY, PA
$10,000
Sep 30, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD JR
EDW C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Feb 26, 2024
6
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
7
EVANS, ROGER
GREYLOCK PARTNERS • PARTNER EMERITUS
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Feb 27, 2024
8
LEACH, RONALD
NPX ONE • CHAIRMAN & CEO
IndividualGENEVA, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2024
9
MCCLAIN, MARK
SAILPOINT • CEO
IndividualAUSTIN, TX
$6,600
Mar 2, 2024
10
CROTTY, THOMAS
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$6,600
Mar 8, 2024

Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]

ID: G000598

Top Contributors

10

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
2
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,500
Jun 28, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Dec 22, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Dec 31, 2023
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,000
Jun 28, 2024
7
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Sep 27, 2024
8
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$500
Dec 18, 2023
9
SALAS, RALPH
HARBOR BREEZE • PRESIDENT / CEO
IndividualRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
$6,600
Feb 20, 2024
10
ABDUL-WAHAB, ANDREW
SHANGRI-LA INDUSTRIES • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualLONG BEACH, CA
$6,600
Jun 30, 2023

Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]

ID: B001278

Top Contributors

10

1
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
May 21, 2024
2
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
May 21, 2024
3
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE
OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR
$1,500
Nov 16, 2023
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA RESERVATION
OrganizationPENDLETON, OR
$1,500
Feb 15, 2024
5
MARGOLIN, PHILLIP
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$3,300
Oct 19, 2024
6
SHERMAN, JOHN LEE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$3,300
Nov 21, 2023
7
BRADLEY, KATHERINE
CITY BRIDGE FOUNDATION • FOUNDING CHAIR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 22, 2023
8
PAULSON, JANE S
PAULSON COLETTI • ATTORNEY
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$3,300
Oct 4, 2023
9
MACQUEEN, MARJORIE
NONE • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualTOLOVANA PARK, OR
$3,300
Jun 25, 2023
10
CHAPMAN, MATT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$3,300
Jun 4, 2023

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

ID: B001285

Top Contributors

10

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. Carson, André [D-IN-7]

ID: C001072

Top Contributors

10

1
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 22, 2023
2
INDIANA IMPORT LLC
OrganizationFISHERS, IN
$1,000
Nov 11, 2023
3
MNAYMEH, HALA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCORAL GABLES, FL
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
4
DE LA CRUZ, FABIO
WESTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PARTNER
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
5
KHAN, AZHER M
CALDERON TEXTILES • PRESIDENT
IndividualCARMEL, IN
$3,300
Dec 8, 2023
6
HOGAN, ALAN P.
THE HOGAN GROUP, INC. • CONSULTANT
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Feb 22, 2023
7
JOHNSON, LACY M.
ICE MILLER • ATTORNEY
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Mar 16, 2023
8
STACK, ANN M.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Feb 22, 2023
9
ABDALLA, MIKE A.
MAGNA PROPERTIES • PRESIDENT
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Mar 11, 2024
10
MAMOUN, IHSAN
SDI RADIOLOGY • PHYSICIAN
IndividualSEFFNER, FL
$3,300
Jan 23, 2024

Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]

ID: C001117

Top Contributors

10

1
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
Feb 28, 2024
2
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$3,300
Feb 28, 2024
3
TAMELING, GRETTA A.
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualWHEATON, IL
$3,500
Jul 9, 2024
4
HUANG, CAROLINE B
N/A • NOT-EMPLOYED
IndividualBELMONT, MA
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
5
PRICE, RICHARD S
MESIROW FINANCIAL • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualHIGHLAND PARK, IL
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024
6
SIMON, DEBORAH
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCARMEL, IN
$3,300
Nov 7, 2024
7
ABDEY, JULIAN
CAPITAL GROUP. • FINANCE
IndividualHILLSBOROUGH, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2023
8
ANDREAE, CHRISTINE
SELF EMPLOYED • WRITER/ARTIST
IndividualBENTONVILLE, VA
$3,300
Oct 14, 2023
9
ANDREAE, ERICA
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Dec 9, 2023
10
ANDREAE, MORGAN
CUMMINS • ENGINEER
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$3,300
Dec 9, 2023

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

ID: C001068

Top Contributors

10

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

Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21]

ID: C001059

Top Contributors

10

1
TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA
OrganizationFRIANT, CA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Sep 18, 2024
3
JJF SP TRUST
OrganizationSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
4
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RANCH
OrganizationFRESNO, CA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
5
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Jul 31, 2023
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Sep 8, 2023
7
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
May 19, 2023
8
CHAPPELL-MCLULLAR TRUST
OrganizationHONOLULU, HI
$500
Mar 2, 2024
9
ARK, MANDEEP
SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER
IndividualFRESNO, CA
$6,500
Aug 14, 2024
10
AFZAL, TEHMINA
SELF EMPLOYED • INTERPRETER
IndividualCHINO HILLS, CA
$6,500
Aug 14, 2024

Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]

ID: D000096

Top Contributors

10

1
CONSULATE OF JAMAICA
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$2,500
Jun 30, 2023
2
PLASTY PAC
OrganizationARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL
$1,000
Jul 1, 2024
3
DLV
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$955
Oct 10, 2023
4
AL BOSTAAN SERVICES
OrganizationBRIDGEVIEW, IL
$500
Jun 30, 2023
5
COMMITTEE TO ELECT JUDGE THOMAS MORE DONNELLY
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$500
Jun 30, 2023
6
MELISSA FOR CHICAGO
OrganizationCHICAGO, IL
$500
Jun 30, 2023
7
ALLEN, ANDRE
RIGHTEOUS WORKS • BUNDING ENG.
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Sep 18, 2023
8
CHEN, YONG
EATON • ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
IndividualBURBANK, IL
$3,300
Aug 2, 2023
9
CHOPRA, PARAMJIT S.
FIELD MUSEUM • FUNDRASING
IndividualGLENVIEW, IA
$3,300
Sep 5, 2023
10
CUCCO, FRANK T
IMPACT NETWORKING • CEO/PARTNER
IndividualKILDEER, IL
$3,300
Aug 30, 2023

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

ID: D000617

Top Contributors

10

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

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 52 nodes and 37 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $112,750

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

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

1 Org1 Committee16 Individuals

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: 63%
Pages: 109-111AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section address federal employee pay and retirement benefits, but the bill seeks to increase firefighters' compensation and benefits while Project 2025 advocates for market-based pay, benefit rationalization, and scrutiny of perceived extravagance, resulting in only tangential alignment."

Key themes:federal pay equalityretirement benefits reformOPM oversightmarket-based compensationbenefits rationalization

— 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: 62%
Pages: 109-111AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section address federal employee compensation and benefits, but the bill seeks to increase pay and retirement benefits for federal firefighters, whereas Project 2025 aims to curb perceived extravagance and align benefits with market-based, more rational levels."

Key themes:federal employee benefitsOPM rolecompensation reformretirement benefitslabor union considerations

— 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.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal
Vector: 64%
Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Federal Firefighters Families First Act focuses on pay equity, retirement benefits, and workweek standards for federal firefighters, which is unrelated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development policies in Project 2025 that address housing market regulation, DEI/CRT/ESG reforms, housing supply, and homelessness approaches."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

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