GovernmentExecutive.com

Congress is not exactly the legislative equivalent of the Autobahn, Germany's famously fast motorway, but recently, bills related to the federal workforce have moved swiftly through both House and Senate committees toward floor consideration. Here's a look at several pieces of current legislation that would affect the pay and benefits of feds:

• Pay parity: On the House side, the Appropriations Committee approved a 3.9 percent civilian pay raise on Wednesday afternoon. Though President Bush initially proposed a 2.9 percent civilian pay raise, a consensus seems to be emerging in Congress that pay parity between civilians and members of the military should be the annual rule.
• Parental leave: The House approved last week a bill that would provide federal employees with four weeks of paid parental leave when they have or adopt a child. It also would allow them to use their accrued leave to take an additional eight weeks off. The president's advisers have recommended he veto the bill if it passes the Senate.
• Special benefits for Customs officers, firefighters: House appropriators this week also moved to fully fund law enforcement officer benefits for Customs and Border Protection officers. Congress granted those benefits, which include earlier retirement, in the 2008 omnibus spending bill, but Bush sought to repeal them in his fiscal 2009 budget proposal.
  
  On Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee was slated to take up a whole package of federal workforce bills, including the 2007 Federal Firefighters Fairness Act.
  
  That legislation would ensure that federal firefighters who contract or die from certain diseases commonly associated with fire protection would automatically collect their disability benefits, instead of having to prove that the disease was a result of their job. Many state and local firefighters already receive presumptive disability benefits.
• GAO pay: Also on tap at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is the 2008 Government Accountability Office Act, which would restore across-the-board annual pay increases for employees who received satisfactory ratings under the agency's pay-for-performance system. Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., authored that legislation in response to research that showed clear discrepancies in the performance reviews that African-American and Caucasian employees at GAO were receiving.
• COLAs: A proposal to bring areas currently covered by cost-of-living adjustments into the locality pay system also will get airtime at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' business meeting as will bills aimed at increasing the diversity of the Senior Executive Service and making the chief human capital officer at DHS a position appointed by the secretary.

It's probably too early to tell which bills will pass and which will end in a presidential veto. But it's encouraging that federal workforce legislation is getting some much-needed attention. It may be that in an election year, the federal workforce is uncontroversial enough that its business is such that it can be accomplished in a highly charged partisan environment. It's less likely that Congress suddenly has seen the light and decided these issues are a matter deserving of urgent attention. But either way, legislation is moving, providing those who do consider the state of the federal workforce a priority, something to watch this summer.

COMMENTS

• Dan, I thought that our debate was about whether the 3.9% pay raise should consider the cost of living, or the cost of labor. You have now expanded this discussion to address whether I live in a Democratic State or County (actually I live in a Republican district) and that you think that I should move to Cuba or Venezuela. As an American, who loves his country, I like living in the US. You now imply that military annual pay raises should be 20%, presumably because we are at war. This seems to indicate that you believe that the only motivation for military is money (not patriotism or sense of duty). This type of mindset implies that military personnel are the same money grubbing people that you accuse civil service personnel of being. This type of thinking explains why Blackwater will probably become a future Military service. I think that it is time to end this discussion as it has degraded to the level of an AM radio talk show. Paul Saunders Posted July 3, 2008 7:23 AM
• 1. "No Paul the military deserves more than the 3.9%..." 2. "If the taxes haven't gone down on your house you must like in a Democratic state or county because republican counties are cutting taxes on homes". 3."What your preaching is everyone needs to contribute more of their income to make sure your happy, communism is dead so if you like that life style you can only move to Cuba or Venezuela" Response to 1. I don't think the military deserves more, this is YOUR value system not mine. If military raises are not adequate, then get out, we don't have a draft so no one is compelled to serve. Response to 2. I live in Cook County Illinois and heck will freeze over before real estate taxes are cut here. Only if the assessed valuation goes down will that happen, and we just has a re-assessment, so that't won't happen soon. If real estate taxes have been cut where you live, I want to move there. 3. ? This rant is totally off point, but what else is new? Why Do I Try to Reason with the Unreasonable? Posted July 2, 2008 4:52 PM
• No Paul the military deserves more than the 3.9%. Every employment model says you pay more when you are short talent so a 20% raise would be in order for them. On the other hand their is no shortage of applicants for Fed Employment so the taxpayer need not be generous. If the taxes haven't gone down on your house you must like in a Democratic state or county because republican counties are cutting taxes on homes. What your preaching is everyone needs to contribute more of their income to make sure your happy, communism is dead so if you like that life style you can only move to Cuba or Venezuela Dan ketter Posted July 2, 2008 11:08 AM