Panel to Urge Big Pay Hike for Top Officials : Proposed Raises of Up to 50% for President, Congress, Judges Tied to Ban on Honorariums

A high-level presidential commission is expected to recommend today that American taxpayers finance a huge pay increase of as much as 50% for members of Congress, federal judges and top Administration officials, including the President.

In exchange for the big raise, which some experts estimate would cost taxpayers about $300 million a year, members of Congress would be asked to renounce what in recent years has become a highly lucrative and controversial source of income: honorariums from special interest groups.

It is not clear whether Congress, the President or the taxpayers will support the unique trade-off--which is being contemplated by members of the Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries--but the commission’s recommendation is certain to spark a lively and perhaps bitter debate over the next few months.

A 50% pay increase, which appeared to have considerable support among the commission’s nine members before their final public meeting today, would establish an annual salary of $300,000 for the President, $172,500 for the vice president, $149,250 for Cabinet members and $135,000 for members of Congress and judges.

President Reagan must act on the commission’s recommendation by Jan. 9, when he is scheduled to submit a salary proposal to Congress along with his budget for fiscal 1990. The increase would take effect 30 days later unless both houses of Congress vote to reject it.

Advocates of a big pay raise argue that top federal salaries have been kept artificially low in recent years as a result of congressional honorariums, which they contend corrupt the system by allowing special interests to put money directly into the pockets of members of Congress.

“Honoraria fees represent one of the most insidious ethics problems in government today,” contends Fred Wertheimer, president of the citizens’ lobby Common Cause. “In fact, the term honoraria has become one of Washington’s most striking misnomers--there is no ‘honor’ involved on either end of the bargain when money is used by special interests to obtain political access and influence and when elected representatives in Congress actively seek and accept the payments.”

But opponents of the proposal contend that members of Congress deserve neither the honorariums nor a pay raise. Among other things, they note that the increase would further complicate the efforts of Congress and the Administration to reduce the federal budget deficit.

“The real issue is taxpayer affordability,” said David L. Keating, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers’ Union. “Is it too much to ask today’s Congress and high-ranking government officials to freeze their pay for a few years while the federal budget is being brought into balance?”

Eight Raises Since 1969

Although the President’s annual salary of $200,000 has not been raised since 1969, members of Congress, judges and high-ranking executive branch employees have enjoyed eight pay raises since then. Members of Congress, judges and sub-Cabinet officers now receive $89,500 a year and Cabinet officials $95,500.

Pressure for a big increase in top federal salaries grew out of the efforts by Common Cause and other public interest groups to prohibit members of Congress from accepting honorariums from special interests. The proposal caught fire on Capitol Hill after the last election, when several incumbents such as Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-Conn.) were defeated by opponents who criticized them for accepting large amounts of honorariums.

In fact, critics of honorariums have become so vocal in recent months that House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) and other congressional leaders have reversed their longstanding support of the current system. In addition, a few other members such as Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), who earned $34,100 in fees during 1987, recently have decided to voluntarily forgo accepting any honorariums for speaking appearances in the future to avoid controversy.

Under the current rules, members of the House may accept outside earned income equivalent to 30% of their annual salary, or $26,850, and senators may accept the equivalent of 40% of their salary, or $35,800. All honorariums in excess of these amounts must either be rejected or given to charity, and no single honorarium can exceed $2,000.

Wertheimer argues that the rapid growth in honorariums over the last few years is prima facie proof that lobbyists view it as a good way to buy influence with members of Congress. He notes that such groups as the American Trucking Assns., the National Assn. of Broadcasters, the Securities Industry Assn. and the Tobacco Institute each gave more than $100,000 to members of Congress in 1987.

Members of Congress received a record $9.8 million in honorariums during 1987, most of it from big lobbying groups seeking special consideration in Congress. While most of it was compensation for speeches, some corporations and special interest groups now pay honorariums to members for simply showing up at a breakfast, touring a plant or participating in a weekend retreat at a resort.

Members themselves acknowledge that the honorarium system has the potential for corruption. “Some votes may be influenced,” Cranston said.

But members of Congress who have grown to rely on honorariums for their family income are reluctant to give up the money without a commensurate pay increase. While admitting that $89,500 is a good salary by any measure, they argue that the cost of maintaining two residences--one in the Washington area and one in their home districts--makes it difficult for them to live on that sum.

As for the judges and executive branch officials, proponents of the pay increase argue that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the President to recruit and retain these people at the current salary level. Judges note that starting lawyers in many big law firms currently receive about as much money as they do.

James C. Miller III, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, notes that the District of Columbia, where most presidential appointees live, is one of the most expensive cities in the nation.

“In most parts of the country, you could buy a mansion for what passes as serviceable family housing in this area,” Miller said. “In most parts of the country a person earning a hundred grand would be considered rich; in this area, that is simply not the case.”

Purchasing Power

In its draft report released last week, the commission supported the view of those seeking a vast increase in pay. While the draft report contained no specific salary recommendations, it noted that the purchasing power of the salaries paid to members of Congress, District Court judges and sub-Cabinet officials has declined 65% since 1969.

To restore their 1969 purchasing power, commission members assert, these officials would have to receive a minimum increase of 30% in their annual salaries. But Commission Chairman Lloyd Cutler has argued for a 50% increase that would compensate members of Congress both for the erosion in their buying power and the anticipated loss of honorariums.

While Reagan has given no indication how large an increase he favors, he has strongly indicated during the last year that he would like to help shrink the disparity between top government and corporate salaries before he leaves office Jan. 20.

Just as they have done in the past, opponents of higher congressional pay, such as Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey (R-N.H.), are expected to offer resolutions in Congress again this year disapproving whatever the President proposes. As a result, congressional leaders do not intend to introduce legislation abolishing honorariums unless a commensurate pay raise is approved first.