33% Salary Hike Sought for Congress

The House will vote, perhaps as early as next week, on a new proposal to provide members of Congress, top federal workers and judges with a 33% pay increase over the next 14 months, Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) said Thursday.

The proposal, which was characterized by Foley as a “cost of living” increase, would provide an immediate 7.7% increase and an additional 25% hike after the next election in 1990. It would also prohibit members of Congress from accepting honorariums from special-interest groups, beginning in 1991.

The current pay for members of Congress, top federal officials and judges is $89,500. The proposal would increase compensation to about $96,400 when the legislation was passed and to about $120,500 at the start of the next Congress in January, 1991.

Although the proposal has the support of both Democratic and Republican leaders in the House, it could spark a public outcry similar to the controversy that killed a 51% pay hike proposal earlier this year. As a result, neither the Senate leadership nor President Bush have yet embraced the new proposal in its current form.

“There is not a lot of support in the Senate for the pay raise,” said Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), referring to the House proposal.

Foley indicated that House leaders would not mind if the senators decided to reject a pay raise for themselves, as long as they permit the hike to take effect for House members and other federal officials.

“Our concern would be for the Senate to take whatever action it wishes, but not to impede the other branches of government or the other body,” Foley told reporter.

The Speaker also seemed optimistic that the President would speak out for the pay increase. “I think when the time comes if we go forward, as I expect we will, that the President will be forthcoming in his support,” he said.

By delaying the bulk of the pay increase until after the next election, the House members are hoping to avoid the criticism they heard earlier this year that they were raising their own pay. The 7.7% increase this year is the equivalent of cost-of-living increases that other federal workers have received since Congress last raised the pay of its own members in 1988.

All the details of the proposal will not be unveiled formally until next week, according to Foley. He indicated that some of the provisions are still being negotiated.

Unlike the last pay raise proposal, this one has the support of several key GOP conservatives, including House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

The pay proposal, which was drafted by a bipartisan task force headed by Reps. Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento) and Lynn Martin (R-Ill.), is part of a larger package including several reforms designed to guard against recurrences of the ethics lapses by members of Congress in recent years.

House members currently are permitted to accept the equivalent of 30% of their annual salary--or $26,850--in honorariums from special interest groups. Under the new proposal, honorariums would be frozen at $26,850 once the 7.7% pay increase goes into effect and then honorariums would be abolished entirely with the start of the 25% increase in 1991.

Fazio said that the abolition of honorariums is necessary because many Americans now believe that special interest groups are using the money to buy access to members of Congress. “The public has the impression that we put more time and attention to some people’s problems than to others,” he said.

Nevertheless, members of Congress still would be permitted to direct special interest groups to send the honorariums to their favorite charities after such payments were banned. Members currently are permitted to convert the honorariums they receive in excess of $26,850 into charitable donations, and those gifts frequently help bolster a member’s image in his own district.

In addition, other outside income would be sharply restricted under the proposal. No member could accept money for serving on a corporate board of directors or for providing professional services. This would have a particularly significant impact on lawyers in Congress who still practice law in their spare time.

Other forms of outside income--teaching fees and payments for goods produced by the member, such as handmade jewelry manufactured by Rep. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (D-Colo.)--would still be permitted up to a level equivalent to 15% of the annual salary level mandated by Congress. There would be no limit on income from personal investments.

No member could accept gifts valued in excess of $200 except from members of their own family under the new proposal. But they would be permitted to accept “personal hospitality” of any value as long as it is not a tax-deductible corporate expense.

Currently, members of Congress elected before Jan. 8, 1980, are permitted to keep any surplus campaign contributions for their personal use after retirement. For some members this is as much as $1 million or more. But under the new proposal, no member retiring after early 1993 would be allowed to keep his campaign funds.

Although the measure would make sweeping changes in the current ethics standards, Mitchell indicated that it probably would not go far enough to satisfy him. He said that he also would like the legislation to include restrictions on post-employment lobbying by members of Congress.