TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/112789/11278900.053

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 5.6 KB | 117 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 24

Give a Little, Get a Little


Congress finally finds a way to hand itself a raise

By Nancy Traver


    For a show that had flopped in its last tryout, The
Pay-Raise Follies enjoyed a remarkably rapid revival. There was
House Speaker Tom Foley last week, a bipartisan cast gathered
around him, calling earnestly for more money. Here again came
consumer advocate Ralph Nader, stirring up rabid radio talk-show
hosts to bash Capitol Hill for insatiable greed. George Bush,
once more standing in the wings, sent his best wishes.

    But the House members had learned from their pay-hike
fiasco of last January, when they were seeking a raise from
$89,500 to $135,000. This time they voted for a smaller increase
in two stages: to $96,600 next year (when they must stand for
election), then to nearly $125,000 by 1991. More important, they
offered a swap: they would take the pay raise in exchange for
passing a much needed package of reforms, including the gradual
elimination of outside income. Even though the Senate refused
to go along, Congressmen can argue that taxpayers will be
getting something for the extra money they will be paying their
legislators.

    Credit for the smoother performance goes to Foley and
Minority Leader Robert Michel. Last winter Foley watched former
Speaker Jim Wright fumble painfully as he tried to sneak a raise
through the House without a vote. Wright's clumsiness on the
issue helped push him from power in May. Foley took office
promising his rank and file he would bring the pay raise to the
House floor again this year. But he was determined to do things
differently.

    Foley and Michel began by appointing a bipartisan task
force to craft an ethics package that would combine the salary
increase with real reform. With the raise stalled as a
hoped-for Thanksgiving adjournment approached, Foley and Michel
closed ranks again. They limited partisan bickering and promised
not to use the pay hike as a campaign issue next year. On
Thursday they won a hasty 252-174 vote in favor of the increase.
After the victory, task force chairman Vic Fazio of California
declared, "We have decided to reinvest in this institution and
take the responsibility for its future."

    Along with senior Government officials and judges, House
members will receive a 7.9% salary increase in 1990 and a 25%
hike in 1991. Tacked onto the raise was a ban on outside
speaking fees or honorariums, which enable House members to
boost their salaries by as much as $26,850 a year by giving pep
talks to lobbyists and industry groups.

    Lawmakers who retire after 1993 will also be forbidden to
transfer campaign contributions into personal funds; such
transfers can total hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Congressmen will not be allowed to accept gifts worth more than
$200, and where some members now spend several weeks or more on
expenses-paid voyages around the globe, their paid junkets will
be limited to four days in the U.S. and seven overseas. It was
the most extensive revision of ethics rules in more than a
decade.

    For some, that was not enough to justify a nearly 40%
salary increase. "We come forward with ethics reform, and we
instead sneak in a pay raise," said Democratic Congressman James
Traficant of Ohio. "With the huge budget deficit we face, now
is not the time." Nader spokesman Bob Dreyfuss pointed out that
while Congress was looking after its own interests, it had
delayed action on a federal child-care plan and failed to pass
a budget -- leaving servicemen, Medicare recipients, farmers and
other federal beneficiaries vulnerable to the automatic
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cutbacks. "If the issue were based on
merit alone," he said, "Congress would be forced to take a pay
cut."

    Others saw the ethics package as an important first step.
The reforms, said Common Cause President Fred Wertheimer,
established the principle "that public officials should be paid
by the public and not by private interests." The President too
chose to focus on the positive aspects of the deal. In his
carefully crafted message of support, Bush told Congress, "I
fully support the reforms you are prepared to bring before the
House of Representatives this week."

    Matters were more complicated for the Senate, whose members
earn the same $89,500 salary as Representatives but rake in
more from speaking fees. They were able to bury the plan by
speaking up for reform: first they added a provision to prohibit
retired congressional and Executive Branch employees from
lobbying their former colleagues for one year. Then they left
the pay-for-ethics package in place for the House (along with
the raises for judges and bureaucrats), but rejected it for
themselves. At week's end, after three attempts by Republican
Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina to scuttle the raise,
Majority Leader George Mitchell realized he did not have the
votes to win approval of the House plan.

    As a substitute, Mitchell offered a 9.9% cost of living
raise for Senators on Jan. 1. That will put Senate salaries at
$98,400 next year, temporarily greater than those in the House.
In exchange, the limit on honorariums was trimmed to $26,568
from $35,800, so Senators' potential incomes were left
virtually unchanged. When the larger congressional pay hike
takes effect in 1991, Senators would be paid less than members
of the House. While Congressmen must return to their districts
to convince skeptical constituents of the wisdom of their
actions, Senators have decided that the appearance of virtue is
its own reward.