House ‘Rejects’ Pay Raise but May Pocket It Anyway

Congressmen cast resounding votes Wednesday against a pay raise for themselves and other top government officials, but apparently in such a way that they will immediately start earning $12,100 more a year anyway.

In the House, congressmen voted for a resolution disapproving the raise. But according to congressionally established procedures, such resolutions are effective only if they are passed within 30 days of pay raise recommendations by the President--and Wednesday was the 31st day.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Capitol Hill, the Senate passed legislation that would roll back the pay increase once it takes effect. But the Senate was comfortable in the knowledge that the legislation stands little chance in the House.

Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), one of the most outspoken opponents of the pay raises, called the House maneuver “one of the most baldly hypocritical that I’ve seen.” But he conceded the Senate action “was not nearly what I had hoped.”

Although opponents of the raises vowed to continue the fight either in court or with future legislation, Wilson conceded: “You can only give them so many chances. . . . I would guess now that (the increases) will go through.”

Both the House and Senate measures that were adopted Wednesday were decided by voice votes. That made it virtually impossible to determine how individual members sided on the issue.

Pay increases are the touchiest of issues that Congress must face--a tradition that goes all the way back to 1816, when Daniel Webster and several of his colleagues lost their House seats after voting to replace Congress’ $6 per diem with a $1,500 annual salary. The latest increase would boost House and Senate salaries to $89,500, up 15.6% from their current $77,400.

That salary level was substantially less than the $135,000 proposed by an independent commission established to recommend salary levels for congressmen, judges and top federal bureaucrats. The commission argued that top government officials had seen the purchasing power of their salaries fall 40% since 1969.

President Reagan scaled back the commission’s recommendation in the federal budget that he submitted to Congress on Jan. 5. His raises for about 2,500 judges and top executive branch officials ranged from 2.4% to 15.6%.

Seeks to Avoid Decision

Under a procedure established in 1985, the President’s pay levels take effect automatically unless both houses of Congress reject them within 30 days. Congress set up that procedure to avoid politically treacherous decisions on its own salaries.

With the 30-day deadline looming, the Senate voted last week to block the increases recommended by Reagan. Moreover, it attached the resolution disapproving the pay hikes to politically popular legislation providing $50 million in emergency funds for the homeless, a measure that the Democratic-controlled House was determined to act on.

“The Senate really tried to ace us,” said Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced). Coelho and other House members insisted that the Senate, with its large number of millionaires, found it easy to vote against increasing congressional pay.

“The richer the (lawmaker), the more pure his public speeches,” said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.).

‘Surely Will Be Upheld’

Although the 30-day deadline had passed, House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) insisted to reporters that Wednesday’s vote would invalidate the pay raises. “A rejection voted today probably is as effective as one voted yesterday,” he said. “The action of the House, whenever taken, surely will be upheld by the courts.”

However, officials at Congress’ General Accounting Office, the staff office that determines how big each government pay check should be, disagreed. So did most House members.

“The resolution (against the raises) will have absolutely no effect,” said Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. “Since the House did not vote by that deadline, what we do today . . . is meaningless.”

Meanwhile, in the Senate, opponents of the raise backed away from their original effort to attach the measure rolling back the raise to high-priority highway legislation. Instead, with only a handful of senators present, it passed the legislation as a separate measure. Thus the House has the option of disregarding the latest Senate action without jeopardizing any other major program.