House Approves Pay Raise and Ethics Package

House members, ignoring the public opposition that prevented them from taking a salary increase just 10 months ago, passed a pay and ethics package Thursday that would raise compensation for themselves, federal judges and top Administration officials to almost $125,000 a year over the next 13 months.

The unusually wide margin of 252 to 174 reflected a widespread view by Republicans and Democrats that American taxpayers will not oppose the nearly 40% pay increase, since it is tied to ethics reform and since most of it would not take effect until after the next election.

House leaders also succeeded in undermining opponents of the pay raise by scheduling a vote less than 24 hours after details of the measure were made public. Printed copies of the complex 100-page legislation were not available until shortly before the vote.

The House-passed increase would not apply to members of the Senate. The Senate is expected to act today on a different pay proposal, which also was being kept secret until shortly before the vote.

In exchange for an increase of more than $30,000 from their current salary of $89,000, House members accepted the first overhaul of their code of conduct in two decades--including a ban on pocketing speech honorariums, which currently can generate as much as $26,850 a year.

As a result, many senior House members who regularly collect the maximum allowable honorariums would realize only a small net increase in pay from the legislation. Junior members who seldom get honorariums for speeches would be the chief beneficiaries.

Under the House legislation, members would receive a 7.9% “cost-of-living” increase before the end of the current year, followed by another, unspecified cost-of-living raise and a mandated 25% pay increase in January, 1991. It is estimated that the 1991 cost-of-living raise would be about 3%, bringing the total salary to $124,330 after the final increase.

The salaries of federal judges and top executive branch officials would increase in tandem with congressional pay, although many of these federal employees would not get the initial increase because they already received a cost-of-living increase earlier this year.

The base salary of members of Congress, judges and top federal employees has been $89,500 since February, 1987, when it was increased by 16%. But members of Congress usually vote to forgo the cost-of-living increases they would receive automatically if they took no action.

The House measure, which would cost taxpayers an estimated $70 million in 1990, was the product of 10 months of behind-the-scenes negotiations designed to fashion a bill that could be supported by Democrats, Republicans and President Bush. These talks began after the House voted last February to reject a 51% pay raise that had failed to win GOP support.

Speaking for the majority during two hours of House debate, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), the majority leader, characterized the pay-ethics package as “the right thing to do.” Gephardt acknowledged, however, that many of his constituents would probably oppose such a large pay raise for officials who already are in the top 1% of the nation’s wage-earners.

“I can understand and sympathize with people in my district who make $15,000 and $20,000 and $30,000 a year who would have trouble understanding why this kind of pay level is needed,” Gephardt said.

Some members spoke out against the package either because they believed that the ethics reforms did not go far enough or because the pay increase would come at a time when budget cuts are being imposed on many federal agencies.

Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) said that voters expect members of Congress to do more to earn a pay raise. He argued that it should be tied to passage of a balanced budget amendment.

“The reality is that the American public doesn’t have much sympathy for those of us running the Congress today because the majority of this country’s fiscal affairs has been a disaster,” Dannemeyer said.

The only member of the Orange County congressional delegation to vote in favor of the pay raise and ethics package was Rep. Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad), whose district includes the southern section of the county.

Packard said he has worked during his seven years in Congress to strengthen ethics regulations and that the measure provided a rare opportunity to enact reforms, including restrictions on outside Congressional income.

“I have held elective office for 26 years, and I have never in my life . . . voted myself a pay raise,” Packard said. “I would have voted against the pay raise this time if it had been a separate up-and-down vote on that issue alone. . . . I chose ethical reform. I would do it again. It was the right vote.”

Opposed were Reps. C. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Lomita) and Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove).

Cox said he supported the ethics provisions of the pay raise bill as well as the pay increase for federal judges but that he voted against the measure because “congressional spending on the Congress itself has gone wildly out of control. . . . For Congress to have held judges’ salaries hostage until its own members get a pay raise . . . is cynicism of the worst kind.”

Most House members characterized the ethics package as a radical reform that would help restore confidence in the House in the wake of a string of embarrassing scandals.

Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) said that the ban on pocketing honorariums, combined with severe restrictions on outside employment, would restore the principle set forth in the Constitution that members of Congress be paid only by the American people.

“It says, boys and girls, this is a full-time job,” Obey said. “Pay attention to what’s going on here. We’ll compensate you straight from the public treasury, right out in the open, but no more side employment deals.”

Increasingly over the last few years, members of Congress have come to rely on honorariums from special interests to supplement their incomes because of their reluctance to take the political heat generated by a pay increase. The House now permits members to accept honorariums up to a limit of 30% of their income; the Senate sets a limit of 40%.

Under the House pay bill, the limit on honorariums would be frozen at $26,850 until January, 1991, when honorariums would be prohibited entirely. Members would still be allowed to instruct special interest groups to donate up to $2,000 to specified charities in their names--a practice that enhances the political image of members of Congress.

In addition, House members and top federal officials would be prohibited from accepting compensation for serving on corporate boards of directors or for performing professional services. Some outside earned income such as teaching fees would still be permitted, with a limit equivalent to 15% of a member’s annual pay.

House members would be prohibited from accepting gifts in excess of $200 from any source except relatives. Personal hospitality would be exempt as long it was not claimed by a corporation as a tax exemption. All meals purchased for House members would also be exempt, even if paid for by lobbyists.

Travel by House members that is paid for by special interest groups would be limited to four days and three nights within the borders of the United States or seven days and six nights for trips overseas. Travel expenses reimbursed by special interests would be subject to stricter public disclosure than now is required.

Rep. Hank Brown (R-Colo.) said the reforms are insufficient, that Congress should, among other things, require members to disclose favorable interest rates they receive when they borrow money.

In addition, Brown said that members should be prohibited from placing their holdings in blind trusts, where they are shrouded from public scrutiny.

After the vote, there was a clear sense of relief felt by many members who hate to deal with the sticky issue of pay and ethics. “This is like root canal work without anesthesia,” said Rep. Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.). “It’s enormously painful, but it needs to be done.”

THE PAY AND ETHICS BILL PAY

A 1989 cost-of-living increase for House members, federal judges, and top executive branch officials upon enactment, plus the 1990 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in January, for a total 7.9% increase; raising pay from $89,500 to $96,600.

A 25% salary increase in 1991, plus whatever COLA is set for other federal employees, reduced by 0.5% and not to exceed 5%, meaning at total of at least $120,000.

HONORARIUMS-OUTSIDE INCOME

Prohibits acceptance of honorariums, such as speaking fees, by House members and all government employees (except senators) begining in 1991. Permits donation of honorariums up to $2,000 to charity.

Limits outside earned income to 15% of salary begining in 1991.

GIFTS-TRAVEL EXPENSES

Bars members from accepting gifts valued at more than $200 except from relatives.

Limits privately funded speaking trips and similar events to four days inside the United States and seven days for foreign travel.

CAMPAIGN FUNDS

In 1993 repeals provision of House rules that allows members elected before 1980 to convert campaign funds to personal use when they retire. On enactment of bill it freezes amounts that can be converted before 1993.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Requires more detailed disclosure of honorariums, spouse’s honorariums, travel expenses; tightens blind trust requirements to ensure independence of trustee; requires termination reports on finances 30 days after leaving office.

ETHICS COMMITTEE

Expands House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from 12 to 14 members.

Requires committee to separate its investigative and formal hearing phases, to be handled by separate subcommittees.

SOURCE: United Press International

VOTE ON PAY RAISE

WASHINGTON--Here is how members of the California delegation voted on a measure to raise members’ salaries and revise ethics rules:

Democrats for--Bates, Beilenson, Bosco, Boxer, Brown, Dellums, Dixon, Dymally, Edwards, Fazio, Hawkins, Lantos, Lehman, Levine, Martinez, Matsui, Miller, Mineta, Panetta, Pelosi, Roybal, Stark, Torres, Waxman.

Republicans for--Campbell, Gallegly, Hunter, Lewis, Lowery, Moorhead, Packard, Thomas.

Democrats against--Anderson, Condit.

Republicans against--Cox, Dannemeyer, Dornan, Dreier, Herger, Lagomarsino, McCandless, Pashayan, Rohrabacher, Shumway.

Democrats not voting--Berman.