House Revokes Earnings Hike After One Day

House members got cold feet Wednesday and rescinded a lucrative but politically embarrassing increase in outside earning power that they had approved for themselves at breakneck legislative speed only the day before.

Ignoring charges that they lacked the “guts” to vote themselves a needed raise, lawmakers voted 333 to 68 to revoke a controversial rules change that would have let them keep at least an additional $7,510 a year in pay from private sources for making speeches, writing articles and performing other tasks.

Vote by Californians

Ten Californians voted to keep the higher earnings limit, including Democrats Mervyn M. Dymally of Compton, Richard H. Lehman of Sanger, Matthew G. Martinez of Monterey Park, Pete Stark of Oakland and Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, as well as Republicans Robert E. Badham of Newport Beach, Jerry Lewis of Highland, Charles Pashayan Jr. of Fresno, Norman D. Shumway of Stockton and William M. Thomas of Bakersfield.

Rep. John P. Murtha, a crusty Pennsylvania Democrat, had resorted to a complex parliamentary move to get the rules revision through a nearly empty House chamber early Tuesday.

Neither Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.), who was presiding at the time, nor Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was also in the room, made any attempt to block Murtha’s action, suggesting that the move had the backing of at least some leaders from both parties.

If it had survived, the change would have raised the self-imposed ceiling on honoraria that House members are allowed to accept from 30% to 40% of their $75,100 annual pay--matching a similar increase that senators approved for themselves last year.

However, staff analysts in the House said that Murtha’s measure was defectively written and would have eliminated all current restrictions on the amount of money legislators may pocket from professional fees and salaries from other jobs.

Questions Propriety

Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who led the rollback movement, criticized sponsors of the increase for steamrolling it through the House without debate in committee or on the floor. He also questioned the propriety of House members acting to increase their own incomes at a time when Congress is trimming back federal programs to reduce deficit spending.

“It is the wrong thing to do and the wrong time to do it and the wrong way to do it,” Durbin complained.

But O’Neill, while insisting that he was not part of Tuesday’s rule-changing maneuver, said that members deserved to be paid at least $100,000 a year because they have to maintain households in Washington and their home districts.

“They haven’t got the guts and the courage to say: ‘We need a pay raise,’ ” O’Neill snapped. “ . . . As soon as the press picks it up, they change their attitudes on it.”

Relatively Few Benefit

Critics contend that raising outside income limits may increase the susceptibility of lawmakers to pressure from special interests. But a Democratic staff analysis of the measure indicated that the change would benefit relatively few members. Only about 18% of the 435-member body now comes close to earning the maximum of $22,530 in honoraria that they are allowed to keep each year, the study found.

Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and a close friend of Murtha, earned $93,000 in speaking and writing fees in 1984, nearly twice as much as any other House member. According to statistics compiled by Common Cause, a public-interest lobbying group, he gave $72,000 of the money to charity. Under Murtha’s proposal, Rostenkowski would have been able to retain an additional $7,510 of such funds each year.

Some of the opposition to Murtha’s proposed change came from legislators who complained that they would not benefit financially from it but would still face political heat from outraged constituents who erroneously believed that they were lining their pockets.

“This provision doesn’t benefit the average member of Congress,” said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who in 1977 authored the original outside income cap. “It benefits about 20% of the high-rollers. . . . It doesn’t do anything for the other 80% except to give them black eyes.”