Pay Hike Killed in Decisive Votes : House, Senate Actions End Nasty Battle; Reform Drive Rekindled

Congress formally rejected a 50% pay increase Tuesday, ending a nasty, month-long political battle that took a heavy toll on the Democratic leadership and--in the end--only rekindled the drive to reform congressional ethics.

Acting in lock-step, the House voted, 380 to 48, and the Senate, 94 to 6, to reject the proposal, which would have raised the pay of federal judges and top Administration officials as well as the 535 members of Congress. President Bush then signed the bill, preventing the salary increase from taking effect--as scheduled--at 12:01 a.m. today.

The outcome was seen by most members as the inevitable result of an overwhelming public outcry against the pay raise. But that did not relieve the bitter disappointment felt by many prominent members of Congress, who saw it not only as a personal financial setback but also as a severe blow to their self-esteem.

Voices Frustration

In an impassioned floor speech, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) summed up the frustration of those who believed that they had been the victims of political grandstanding by the opposition. “I’m damned if I’m going to apologize . . . “ he declared. “That’s what this has been reduced to--apologizing for serving in the House of Representatives.”

Administration officials and federal judges were equally upset by what Congress had done and many observers predicted that the action would prompt a rash of resignations from those two branches of government. Cabinet officials would have received $155,000 and federal judges had been promised $135,000--the same as members of Congress--under the defeated proposal.

Bush had supported the pay raise, although his aides said not enthusiastically, and said as he signed the measure that “I believe some level of pay increase is in order and I will be working with the House and Senate leadership to develop proposals to achieve that end.” He cited a “special concern” about judges’ pay.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court, speaking for the judiciary, agreed, saying: “We will not be able to attract and retain the kind of judges we need to maintain this standard unless we pay our judges fairly and equitably.”

Rejection of the pay raise was a stunning victory for conservatives such as Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) who led the fight against it, but there was no rejoicing in the halls of Congress after the divisive issue was finally put to rest.

Many members acknowledged that the battle, which began in early January when the pay increase was recommended to Congress by then-President Ronald Reagan, had only succeeded in reinforcing a widely held view that members of Congress are ineffective, hypocritical and sometimes unethical.

“The self-worth of this institution has suffered,” lamented Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento), a leading defender of the pay raise. “I can’t think we’ve enhanced our reputation. My sense is that people will say: ‘Those gutless cowards, they caved.’ ”

Without the pay raise, members of Congress are backing down on their pledge to ban the pervasive practice of accepting speaking fees and other honorariums from special interest groups--a system that many critics contend is a corrupting influence on the nation’s lawmakers. House members currently can accept as much as $26,850 in honorariums per year and Senate members are permitted honorariums up to $35,800.

Nevertheless, even those members who rely heavily on honorariums to meet their family expenses acknowledge that the system is becoming a political liability that their opponents surely will exploit in the next election. “It’s going to become the 30-second (television) spot of 1990,” quipped Fazio.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, announced that his citizens lobbying group will step up its drive to convince Congress to abolish honorariums. And some members such as Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) already have made it known that they will no longer accept honorariums, thus taking a substantial pay cut in 1989.

While honorariums may never be abolished without a commensurate pay increase, members said, there is little doubt that the embarrassment caused by the pay raise battle will precipitate enactment of new congressional ethics legislation as well as the repeal of a controversial law that permits senior House members to convert excess campaign funds to their personal use after retirement. Such a ban would deprive a few members--such as Rostenkowski--of as much as $1 million in retirement income.

But the biggest single loser in the war over the pay raise is believed to be House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), who is being blamed by many of his fellow Democrats for failing to give the raise sufficient personal support.

Republicans immediately sought to capitalize on Wright’s troubles by distributing buttons calling for the election of House Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) as Speaker. “Wright really bungled this, it was terrible,” said a senior White House staff member, who declined to be identified.

Fazio acknowledged that Wright’s lack of firm support hampered efforts to win the pay raise. “Obviously,” he said, “a key player in the process didn’t embrace it.”

But like many other leading Democrats in the House, Fazio quickly closed ranks with the Speaker when it became clear that Republicans intended to exploit the rift. “There has been a tendency to be too critical of the Speaker,” he said.

At the White House, top aides to President Bush were known to be assessing what impact Wright’s apparent humiliation would have on Administration efforts to negotiate a budget agreement and other initiatives requiring the cooperation of the House Democratic leadership.

Bush has indicated that he might offer an alternative proposal that would increase the salaries of judges and top Administration officials while leaving congressional pay at $89,500. But congressional leaders said that Congress would never agree to that arrangement.

The Speaker was not the only target of the recriminations. Many members blamed the news media and talk show hosts for fanning the fires of opposition. Or, as Fazio put it: “We became cartoon cannon fodder for trash television and talk radio.”

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, an outspoken opponent of the pay raise, also came in for considerable criticism from members of Congress. Fazio characterized his role as “despicable,” and another Californian, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), called Nader to task for criticizing members of Congress for accepting honorariums while taking $10,000 for his own speeches.

Dannemeyer, speaking against the pay raise, argued that the increase is indefensible at a time when Congress has failed to curb the mounting federal deficit. To dramatize his point, he volunteered to vote for the $135,000 salary if Congress would combine it with a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

“The biggest problem in raising our pay is the mess we’ve made of the fiscal affairs of this nation,” Dannemeyer said.

According to supporters of the pay raise, many members who opposed it publicly were privately hoping that the House would not reject it.