House Members Deftly Back Into a Pay Raise : Vote to Take Up Issue One Day Past Deadline; 15.6% Hike Still Could Face Court Challenge

In a deft legislative sleight of hand, House members Tuesday gave themselves a chance to cast a politically popular vote against pay raises for themselves and other top federal officials--while still getting the raises.

At least for now.

The House voted 221 to 17 to adjourn abruptly and take up the pay issue again today. But that will be one day after the deadline imposed by a congressionally adopted procedure for vetoing presidentially recommended pay raises for congressmen, judges and top bureaucrats.

Because the deadline was missed by the House, a lawyer for the congressional General Accounting Office said the pay raises will take effect within weeks regardless of whether the House votes today for a resolution vetoing the raise. The maneuver by the House also negates an earlier vote by the Senate disapproving the pay increase, since both houses must concur in that action.

But the maneuver by the House will not end the matter. The raises may be subject to a court challenge. And some members of Congress already are planning new legislation that would roll back salaries to their current, pre-raise levels.

Tuesday’s vote--cast through a procedure in which the positions of individual members were not recorded--outraged those who regard the current congressional pay rate of $77,400 a year as more than adequate without the recommended $12,100 raise, a 15.6% increase.

“This vote crystallizes in the minds of millions of people, liberal or conservative, the arrogance and insensitivity of official Washington generally,” said consumer advocate Ralph Nader. “The maneuver by House Speaker Jim Wright to adjourn today added an element of parliamentary treachery to the leadership’s arrogance on this salary-grab issue.”

The vote indicated that while almost everyone favors the pay raises, few were willing to be on record in favor of them. Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento), who helped engineer Tuesday’s abrupt adjournment, said congressmen know that any vote for a pay raise gives potential opponents “a home run every time.”

One congressman’s press secretary joked that during any vote for a pay raise, his boss would be easy to spot on the House floor: “He’ll be the one with a bag over his head.”

Many House members had hoped that the raises, which were recommended by President Reagan on Jan. 5, would go through automatically. Under procedures adopted by Congress in 1985 to allow members to avoid politically traumatic votes on their own pay, such presidential recommendations are to take effect automatically unless Congress votes them down within 30 days.

Added to Homeless Bill

The Senate last week voted 88 to 6 to approve a resolution rejecting the increases. Moreover, it attached the resolution to politically popular legislation providing $50 million in emergency funds for the homeless. That made it impossible for the House simply to duck a vote on the issue.

The House is scheduled to vote today on the homeless funds as well as the pay raises. Even if the resolution to veto the pay raises is ineffective because it misses the 30-day deadline, members of Congress will be free to introduce legislation to roll salaries back to their current levels.

Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey (R-N.H.) promptly announced plans to do just that. Referring to the House’s sudden adjournment before voting on the resolution disapproving of the raises, he said: “The sneak attack on the Treasury has succeeded.”

Purchasing Power Down

Supporters of the raise argue that top government officials have seen the purchasing power of their wages decline more than 40% since 1969. Top public servants, they say, now work for far less than those in similar jobs in the private sector.

A presidential commission on government salaries recommended even larger increases, but those were scaled back by Reagan. His raises ranged from 15.6% for members of Congress to about 2% for some top-ranking bureaucrats.

Congressmen complain that they face an additional financial burden of maintaining two homes, one in Washington and another in their home districts.

Rep. Arthur Ravenel Jr. (R-S.C.) was moved to verse by the uncomfortable position in which the Senate had placed the House by passing the resolution disapproving the pay raises: “Who are these Scrooges across the hall? Are they demagogues, demagogues, demagogues all?”

Imposing Austerity

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), speaking for opponents of the pay raise, said Congress would be hypocritical if it allowed the raises to go through at a time when it was imposing austerity on others who depend on the federal Treasury for a living.

“How can I look my farmers, seniors and educators in the eye and talk about the need to decrease federal spending when I’m giving myself an increase in pay?” he asked.

Others note that many in Congress add big supplements to their $77,400 annual base pay through speaking fees and other fringe benefits, such as government-provided travel. Many also use campaign funds for clothing, cars, entertainment and other expenses that can be tied even loosely to their reelection efforts.

One group of raises--pay hikes of 2.6% to 10.9% for federal judges--appears at least slightly more certain to take effect. Under a constitutional provision aimed at cushioning the judiciary against political pressure, judges’ pay cannot be reduced while they are in office. However, some have suggested that the increases could be taken away if Congress votes to repeal them before the judges’ next pay period begins March 1.