Congress OKs First Pay Hike in Five Years

Without the widespread public criticism that usually accompanies such votes, the Senate approved the first congressional pay raise in five years Wednesday, boosting the base salaries of federal lawmakers with a $3,100 cost-of-living increase.

On a 55-45 vote, the lawmakers gave final approval to a compromise Treasury-Postal Service spending bill, which contained a provision for a 2.3% inflation-related adjustment to members of Congress’ $133,600 base pay. Earlier this week, the House voted, 220 to 207, on the conference report, also accepting the pay raise.

Every year since 1993 when the adjustments were instituted, lawmakers have inserted a provision in the spending bill to deny themselves a raise. But this year, with bulls running on Wall Street and Capitol Hill boasting a string of popular, bipartisan achievements, House members sensed little political backlash to breaking with tradition and accepting a raise.

Although senators originally had balked at the raise, voting against it when it came to the floor of their chamber, the Senate ultimately embraced the pay hike by accepting the House version of the legislation.

Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, said that the lack of public outrage over Congress’ decision to accept the raise reflects “people’s mellower mood” toward Washington.

“For the first time in quite a while, the American public feels that Congress really did earn its pay,” he said. “The public has declared a truce with Congress.”

The Senate vote did not come without a fight, however.

Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), who sponsored the original amendment to block the pay raise, said that Congress should not raise its own pay at a time when budget cuts are demanding sacrifice by others.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate,” said Wellstone. “I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), co-sponsor of the raise-blocking amendment, said that “Congress should not receive a COLA [cost-of-living adjustment] until we balance the budget.”

During the vote, Senate leaders hovered around the table where the count was being taken and asked several senators to switch their votes from “no” to “yes” to guarantee passage.

Although the raise was embedded in the appropriations legislation, political observers say the pay raise issue was the most meaningful and defining part of the bill. Among the senators voting for the measure were 29 Democrats and 26 Republicans; 16 Democrats and 29 Republicans opposed it. California’s senators, both Democrats, split on the issue, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein supporting the raise and Sen. Barbara Boxer opposed.

Baker, author of a 1995 book on Congress, said that in the past lawmakers have been reluctant to vote themselves a pay raise, fearing a citizens’ revolt.

Lawmakers passed a law in 1989 to give themselves an annual cost-of-living adjustment, in part to take the politics out of pay raises and shield them from political backlash. Since then, just to be safe, they have voted not to accept the raises.

Now, said Baker, lawmakers are pointing to the balanced-budget agreement and welfare legislation as achievements popular with voters that will counter any hostility directed against the raise.

And, he added, it is unlikely very many voters will remember the raise when they next enter a voting booth.

“This is a good sign,” he said. “It really does, in a passive way, acknowledge that the public believes most members do work hard and deserve a raise.”

In a separate appropriations matter, the House approved a six-month extension of transportation funding, effectively bringing a temporary pause to political in-fighting that pitted the GOP leadership against one of its most influential committee leaders.

On a voice vote, the House agreed to spend $11.5 billion over the next half year on federal highway projects and planned to resume discussions on the massive, multiyear transportation spending bill next year.

The need for the extension stemmed from a feud between Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

Over the last few weeks, Shuster had pushed for a six-year transportation bill that Gingrich and his GOP budget leaders said would bust the balanced-budget deal reached with President Clinton. Shuster backed down only after Gingrich promised to allow him to bring up his bill next year.

A Senate version of the transportation bill is expected to come to the floor later this month.

The House also voted Wednesday to provide $98 million to fund the National Endowment for the Arts. Although the GOP-led House voted in July to deny the endowment any federal funds, a White House veto threat persuaded a House-Senate conference committee on Tuesday to accept funding of the arts group and the House accepted that decision.