Congress divided about giving itself a pay raise

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER ^ | 10-23-05 | Judy Holland

[Cagey]

WASHINGTON -- Squeamish lawmakers wrestling with federal spending cuts to pay for hurricane disasters and the war in Iraq are squirming about whether to give themselves a pay raise.

Senators, about half of whom are millionaires, were eager last week to show their willingness to make a sacrifice by voting overwhelmingly to freeze their own salaries -- and those of their House colleagues.

But House members, whose personal wealth tends to be much more modest, don't share that enthusiasm.

The pay raise, which automatically kicks in unless it is blocked, would give a 1.9 percent boost to annual salaries for rank-and-file lawmakers, an increase of $3,100, to $165,200.

"Most of our members are not individuals of great resources, they're families trying to send kids to college," said House Republican Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., defending his support for a pay raise.

"Most members of Congress probably have more debt after they've been in Congress for a few years then they had when they came to Congress," Blunt said, adding that keeping residences in two places is costly.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also backs the raise.

The Senate included the pay freeze as part of a spending bill that covers federal salaries, but the House has not included the freeze in its version.

The real battle will come next month when a House-Senate conference meets behind closed doors to resolve differences between the two bills.

Members of Congress have accepted cost-of-living increases in seven of the past eight years. They last turned down a raise in 1998.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who is a relative pauper in the Senate with a reported net worth of $257,000, said the 92-6 vote in the Senate for the pay freeze shows members realize "this isn't the year for the Senate to give itself a pay raise." In 2003 and 2002, Feingold failed to freeze pay raises when he couldn't gather enough votes.

If members boost their salaries "it sends a really bad message in a really tough time," Feingold said.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a co-sponsor of the pay freeze, estimated it would save the federal treasury a small amount of money -- $2 million out of a targeted $50 billion in cuts, but he said it has symbolic value.

"If members have made their sacrifice, there's more of an impetus to find the rest of the money," he said.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who opposes the pay raise and whose personal wealth is listed on Senate disclosure forms as more than $13 million, said the conference committee "has become a black hole" where legislation disappears anonymously behind closed doors.

Clinton said House members reluctant to freeze congressional pay are "demonstrating they don't know what's going on in America."

"People can't pay gas prices, can't pay tuition, can't pay for health care," she said. "Why should we be giving ourselves a pay increase?"

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who says he "always wanted to be" part of the millionaire's club but has never qualified, said the overwhelming Senate support for the pay freeze "is another indicator that we are getting serious about controlling federal spending."

Hanging over the pay raise debate is a new Gallup Poll showing that Congress gets only a 29 percent public approval rating, one year before congressional elections.

[MurryMom]

They should be made to cut pork barrel spending in order to finance their pay rise.

I agree for once.

Please identify 3 items you consider to be "pork barrel spending". The top 3 items on my list are Bush's war in Iraq; Sen. Stevens' bridge to nowhere serving 50 islanders in Alaska; and abstinence only education. These 3 items alone amount to over $45 billion per year.

I might agree to many more if you identify them specifically and if they amount to more than chump change in the overall scheme of things.