Federal Daily News

House committee advances federal retirement reforms

[Editor's note: This story has been changed to clarify that the bill's proposed changes to the FERS multiplier apply only to a new class of Secure Annuity Employees.]

A House committee approved a package of reforms which would make sweeping changes to the federal retirement system.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7 voted 22-16 to advance the Secure Annuities for Federal Employees (SAFE) Act (H.R. 3813).
 
The bill, introduced by Oversight Subcommittee on Federal Workforce Chairman Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), would change the employee share of contributions to retirement, introduce a high-five formula for the pension calculations of new employees, and eliminate the FERS supplement in cases of early, non-mandatory retirement. The changes also apply to congressional employees, special occupational groups and members of Congress.

The bill would raise the employee share of contributions to the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System by an additional 1.5 percent of salary over three years, beginning in 2013—the CSRS employee share would go from 7 percent to 8.5 percent of salary, and the FERS employee share would go from 0.8 percent of salary to 2.3 percent.
 
Additionally, the bill would establish new, separate rules for employees hired after Dec. 31, 2012, who have less than five years of creditable service for retirement purposes. Rules for this new class of “Secure Annuity Employee” would set new employees’ contribution to FERS at 4 percent of salary, rather than the current 0.8 percent; the contribution for special occupational groups would be set at 4.5 percent of basic pay.

The legislation also would use an average of the highest five years of salary in the FERS pension calculations of new employees. The bill would be grandfathered to allow existing CSRS and FERS employees to use the high-3.

If passed into law, the bill would eliminate the FERS supplement for individuals younger than age 62 who are not subject to mandatory retirement, beginning Jan. 1, 2013—excluding employees who are subject to mandatory retirement ages, such as law enforcement officers, firefighters, air traffic controllers and nuclear materials couriers.
 
For the new class of Secure Annuity Employees, the bill would set the FERS pension formula multiplier for employees, congressional employees, and members of Congress at 0.7 percentage points, instead of 1 percent or 1.7 percent.  Employees in special occupational groups are subject to a proportional adjustment to the multiplier (0.3 percentage points lower than current law).



 

Reader comments

Wed, Aug 15, 2012 SleepyPete1958

Tue, June 5, 2012 I thought the same way you did until I did some research and found this statement in the bill. (Sec. 502) Eliminates the annuity supplement for FERS employees hired after December 31, 2012, except for certain law enforcement officers, firefighters, nuclear material couriers, border protection officers, and air traffic controllers. So you and I can retire and receive the supplement.

Tue, Jun 5, 2012

Eliminating the FERS supplement will not save the GOV any money. Most FERS employees will not retire until 62 if the supplement goes away. That will add at least six years of service to each employee which will result in a 6% higher annual FERS retirement benefit, plus six more years of matching in the TSP the GOV will have to kick in. It simply delays the payout. With an average life expectancy of around 75, paying 6% higher annual retirement benefits for 13 years will eat up anything saved from the six years of supplement eliminated.

Mon, May 21, 2012 The Juneau Raven Juneau, AK

Changes to the system should be applied to new employees only as they can then decide if the deal being offered is better than what they may get in private industry. Congress should not pull a Darth Vader and "alter the deal" especially for employees close to retirement. This breaks an implied contract to change terms of employment and/or benefits AFTER the employee does their end of the implied contract.

Thu, Apr 26, 2012

They just keep on hitting us "out of the park."

Sat, Mar 3, 2012

I converted to FERS from CSRS in 1988 during the push to incent employees to a more cost-effective retirement program. The MRA is 56, not 55, the defined benefit of FERS is one-half that of CSRS, and I pay FICA. The incentive to me was portability and higher self-funded contribution limits, plus the meager FERS supplement from 56-62. So my retirement was already cheaper than under CSRS. I am eligible to retire in 2013 and they pull this political stunt. The needle on my conservative vote is moving left.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above