The Washington Post

House Republicans target congressional retirement benefits


It’s not unusual for House Republicans to call for limits on federal retirement benefits, but this time the targeted benefits are their own.

During a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee hearing Wednesday, Rep. Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla.) said he is introducing legislation that would help “ensure that members of Congress are treated no better than their fellow citizens in the federal workforce.”

Joe Davidson writes the Federal Diary, a column about federal government and workplace issues that celebrated its 80th birthday in November 2012. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns. View Archive

The catch: Benefits would fall for all federal workers.

Six other Republican congressmen pushed separate bills, all of which would cut benefits for members of Congress or allow them to opt out of those benefits.

Noble sentiments, perhaps. But that’s not the whole story.

House Republicans also support a measure, already approved by their chamber, that would help cover the cost of extending the payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance by having federal employees pay more for what in some cases would be reduced retirement benefits. The measure also would add 12 months to the present two-year freeze on basic federal pay.

A Democrat on the federal workforce subcommittee said the measures aimed at congressional pensions are a diversion to ease the way for cuts affecting the workforce in general.

“It’s a smoke screen to get at federal employees yet again,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, who represents thousands of those workers in his suburban Northern Virginia district. “. . . This is a Trojan horse aimed at trying to get at the current benefit structure of federal employees.”

The method used  to calculate retirement benefits has a higher multiplier for members of Congress, in most cases, than the multiplier for regular federal employees. Ross’s legislation would equalize the formula in a way that would result in lower retirement payments for everybody.

It’s clear “the taxpayer has had enough of ‘Do what I say, not what I do’ from Washington,’ ” said Ross, the subcommittee chairman. “Being a member of Congress is not a career. It’s an honor bestowed upon a few by the great people of this nation.”
  The legislation advocated by the six other Republican congressmen could limit congressional pensions in different ways:

●Rep. Richard B. Nugent (Fla.) said the “Congress is Not a Career Act” would allow members to decline benefits offered through the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and the Thrift Savings Plan.

● Rep. Robert J. Dold (Ill.) would deny congressional pension benefits to former members “convicted of a covered offense that occurred while subsequently serving in any publicly elected office,” including at the state and local levels.

● Rep. Bobby Schilling (Ill.) said his bill ties members’ pension eligibility to the Social Security retirement age. He said they now can receive those benefits at age 50 with 25 years of service.

● Rep. Howard Coble (N.C.) said members should be required to have 12 years of service, instead of the current five years, before they are vested under FERS.

● Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.) told the panel that his bill “would terminate the defined-benefit pension plan available to members of Congress.”

● Rep. Tim Griffin (Ark.) said his “End Pensions in Congress Act” would “end the pension plan for members of the House and Senate who have served for five or more years and do not opt in to continue their pension benefits within 90 days of the bill’s enactment.”

Connolly is not impressed by his colleagues’ attempts to limit congressional pensions.

“The self-loathing just has to stop,” he said.

He has no objection to an examination of congressional benefits, he said, but the real Republican agenda is to use the bills as “a portal” to advance legislation lowering retirement benefits for the general federal workforce.

Legislation intended to do that was discussed at the hearing, although it was approved by the full House last month. “It is clear that the taxpayer cannot afford the current federal pension cost structure, long term,” Ross said.

But forcing federal employees, whose pay freeze is worth $60 billion over 10 years, to sacrifice more is simply not right, said Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (Mass.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee. The hearing is “really an attack on federal workers,” he said during the discussion.

In a prepared statement, he said: “We should be reminded that the vast majority of federal workers are middle-income earners and that subjecting them to an additional year of pay freezes on top of mandating that they shift more of their take-home pay without receiving any additional benefits is simply unfair and untenable, especially given the critical workload, programs and services that our federal employees carry out on a daily basis.”

Follow the Federal Diary on Twitter: @JoeDavidsonWP
Joe Davidson’s column archive is at

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
Republicans debated Saturday night. The South Carolina GOP primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses are next on Feb. 20. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Dan Balz says...
Rarely has the division between Trump and party elites been more apparent. Trump trashed one of the most revered families in Republican politics and made a bet that standing his ground is better than backing down. Drawing boos from the audience, Trump did not flinch. But whether he will be punished or rewarded by voters was the unanswerable question.
GOP candidates react to Justice Scalia's death
I don't know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish.
Sen. Marco Rubio, attacking Sen. Ted Cruz in Saturday night's very heated GOP debate in South Carolina. Soon after, Cruz went on a tirade in Spanish.
The Fix asks The State's political reporter where the most important region of the state is.
The State's Andy Shain says he could talk about Charleston, which represents a little bit of everything the state has to offer from evangelicals to libertarians, and where Ted Cruz is raising more money than anywhere else. In a twist, Marco Rubio is drawing strong financial support from more socially conservative Upstate. That said, Donald Trump is bursting all the conventional wisdom in the state. So maybe the better answer to this question is, "Wherever Trump is."
Past South Carolina GOP primary winners
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the first state in the South to vote, where he faces rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

March 6: Democratic debate

on CNN, in Flint, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.