The 119th Congress began Jan 3, 2025 and will run through 2027, meeting during the first two years of President Trump's second presidency. Image: Adam McCullough/Shutterstock.com
Among the bills offered early in this Congress are three sponsored by only Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents and one sponsored by only Republicans, which reflect their differing priorities for the federal workforce:
* HR-494 and S-216, to set an average January 2026 federal employee raise of 4.3 percent—0.5 percentage points higher than the figure indicated under federal pay law, which often has not been followed in practice, though.
An early marker was set for the January 2026 raise late last year, with an increase in the employment cost index of 3.8 percent over the 12 months ending in September, under a Labor Department calculation released at the Federal Salary Council meeting this week.
Under federal pay law, the ECI measure of growth in wages—not living costs—for the 12 months through each September is supposed to be used in setting the across the board portion of the proposed raise in the White House’s subsequent budget proposal for the next fiscal year. A half percentage point is to be shaved off the indicated amount and separate locality pay is supposed to be paid in addition, varying by locality.
* HR-492 and S-134, to effectively block an excepted service Schedule F by specifying that policy-related positions currently in the competitive service cannot be converted to the excepted service—and that appeal, union representation and other competitive service rights would continue for any other types of positions that are converted.
* HR-491, to make COLAs paid to those retired under the FERS system equivalent to those paid to CSRS system retirees; currently, FERS COLAs are capped at 2 percent if the figure is between 2 and 3 percent and are 1 percentage point lower if the figure is above 2 percent.
* HR-472 and S-124, to revise a 2017 law giving VA management additional powers in disciplinary actions in order to overcome court and other rulings that had read those provisions narrowly, in turn causing the Biden administration to stop using them, saying they only bogged down the department in legal disputes and that standard disciplinary policies are sufficient.
The 2017 law, passed in the wake of a number of scandals at the VA over the preceding years, shortened the notice and response time within the VA, shortened the time that the MSPB can consider an appeal, required that the department need only show “substantial” evidence supporting its decision in an appeal to the MSPB, and said that the MSPB cannot lessen a penalty the department chooses, only either affirm or overturn it.
Shutdown Meter Ticking Up a Bit
Judge Backs Suit against Firings of Probationers, but Won’t Order Reinstatements
Focus Turns to Senate on Effort to Block Trump Order against Unions
TSP Adds Detail to Upcoming Roth Conversion Feature
White House to Issue Rules on RIF, Disciplinary Policy Changes
Hill Dems Question OPM on PSHB Program After IG Slams Readiness
See also,
How Do Age and Years of Service Impact My Federal Retirement
The Best Ages for Federal Employees to Retire