$4,600 congressional pay raise

[Gary Ruskin <gary@essential.org>]

Congressional Reform Briefings			March 15, 1999

To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message:
subscribe CONG-REFORM your name
to listproc@essential.org

-- House leadership wants Members of Congress to receive a $4,600 pay
raise, which would boost congressional salaries to $141,300.  

-- Please contact your Members of Congress to oppose the congressional
pay raise.  The congressional switchboard phone number is (202)
224-3121.  E-mail addresses of Members of Congress are available at:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/Documents.center/congress/conemail.txt

                      NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release:		For More Information Contact:
Monday, March 15, 1999		Gary Ruskin (202) 296-2787

Diverse Groups Want Hastert, Gephardt to Reject Congressional Pay Raise

	Responding to news reports that House Speaker Dennis Hastert and
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt support a $4,600 congressional pay
raise, Ralph Nader said that "Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader
Gephardt shouldn't take advantage of the taxpayers with yet another
congressional pay grab. If anything, Congress deserves a pay cut."

	According to today's Roll Call, "Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) wants
to hand Members bigger paychecks, but he's reluctant to make an
aggressive, public push to raise the $136,700 annual salary...Minority
Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) is equally supportive of the COLA...and
equally adverse to assuming a prominent role in the debate."

	Members of Congress are already overpaid.  They currently earn a
$136,700 annual salary, plus generous pensions, perks, and other
benefits.  Top leadership earns more.  The proposed congressional pay
raise of 3.4%, or $4,600, would boost congressional salaries to $141,300
per year.  Last year, Members of Congress gave themselves a $3,100
raise, effective January 1, 1998. 

	"Members of Congress ought to strip the lard out of their budget -- by
taking aim at congressional pay and perks -- instead of further
indulging themselves at taxpayers expense," said Gary Ruskin, director
of the Congressional Accountability Project.

	"What stronger proof that we have an unrepresentative Congress," said
Paul Jacob, national director of U.S. Term Limits. "They work for the
American people and the people are strongly opposed to another pay
raise...so they plan to sneak this through."

	"Seems the less they do the more they need to be paid for it," said
Russell Verney, chairman of the Reform Party.

	"This bi-partisan salary heist proves that Republicans and Democrats
are perfectly capable of working together -- as long as they personally
benefit from the deal. Americans are getting tired of politicians'
claims that they are just 'serving' the public, when they're really just
serving themselves," said Steve Dasbach, national director of the
Libertarian Party.

	During the last ten years, House Members gave themselves five pay
raises, Senators six.  Congressional salaries grew by $47,200 -- more
than $15,000 above inflation.  In 1989, the base congressional salary
was $89,500.

	Many Americans haven't been so fortunate.  The median income for
full-time, year-round male workers was higher in 1970 ($35,691) adjusted
for inflation, than it was in 1997 ($35,248).  That means many Americans
haven't had a real wage increase in more than a generation.

	"If America didn't get a raise in nearly thirty years, then why should
Congress keep giving itself raises?" Nader asked.

	"Members of Congress have voted themselves such luxurious salaries that
they sympathize with the economic status of corporate and wealthy elites
and forget about regular folks," Ruskin said.  "That has concrete
legislative implications.  Any congressional pay raise would make the
problem worse.  Hastert and Gephardt should raise the minimum wage, not
the congressional salary."

	Many Members of Congress receive large raises when they come to
Congress.  A 1996 Roll Call study found that "all but six of the 73
newly elected House Members will receive large pay hikes when they take
office" compared with their previous employment.

	"Instead of boosting their salary, Congress should pass real campaign
finance reform and ensure the ethics Committee impartially investigates
allegations of corruption," Nader said.

                          -30-
--------------------------------------------------------
The following article is reprinted from the March 15, 1999 issue of Roll
Call, available at <htttp://www.rollcall.com/>.  Reprinted with
permission.

Hastert, Gephardt Want COLA 
Quiet Effort May Lead to Pay Raise For Members

                      By Jim VandeHei 

Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) wants to hand Members bigger paychecks,
buthe's reluctant to make an aggressive, public push to raise the
$136,700 annual salary, according to leadership sources. 

Hastert's reticence illuminates the political sensitivity of pushing a
pay hike when Congress' popularity numbers are in the tank, according to
the leadership sources. It also portends another perilous debate over
how much money Members should earn.

Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the Speaker is for a "cost-of-living
adjustment only," but has no proposal or plan to take a lead on the pay
raise. 

Feehery had little interest in elaborating. Privately, Hastert would
prefer as little attention as possible on the pay raise issue,
leadership sources said.

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) is equally supportive of the
COLA, an adviser said, and equally adverse to assuming a prominent role
in the debate.

Gephardt has good reason to fret: then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)
killed the pay raise last year after he felt Gephardt had leaked their
private talks about a potential pay raise for political gain.

"This is a Members' issue, and we won't talk about it," said one of
Gephardt's top advisers.

In past years, the two sides have considered pledges to not demagogue
the issue or make the pay raise a campaign issue in order to comfort
nervous Members. It's unclear if Hastert or Gephardt will go that far
this Congress.

The last COLA, in September 1997, gave Members a 2.3 percent hike, or
$3,073. It was the first COLA for Members since 1993.

Gary Ruskin of the Congressional Accountability Project said the
reluctance of Hastert and Gephardt to push a COLA publicly shows that
"they know Congressional pay raises are one of the most hated
legislative acts by any Congress."

"But they still stick their toe in the water and that's because so many
Members are greedy,"charged Ruskin. "So, leadership has been doing this
dance for a long time."

Hastert and Gephardt are interested in giving Members a COLA, their
advisers say, and would love to find a way to raise their pay without
infuriating voters back home. 

In past interviews, Hastert has said Members are piling up debts as they
try to maintain two households and put their children through school.

Regardless of his reluctance to discuss the topic, the pay raise issue
is unlikely to surface with force until later this summer, when Members
start work on the annual spending bills. 

A COLA for lawmakers is automatically built into law. Therefore, to deny
Members a pay boost, an amendment must be offered to the Treasury,
Postal Service and government operations spending bill to strip the COLA
from the legislation.

It's unclear if any Member will offer such an amendment, but, if one
does, it likely would spell doom for the COLA. "We need to do this
quietly or not at all," said one leadership source.

Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) is a likely candidate to take a stand against
a COLA without a vote. He recently introduced legislation that would
remove the automatic nature of the COLA.

The legislation would reverse the current procedure by requiring Members
to hold a recorded vote before handing themselves an annual COLA. 

"The fact remains that the public is very uncomfortable with the notion
that we allow ourselves a sneaky automatic cost-of-living adjustment
unless we step in and veto it,"English told Roll Call early last week. 

While English's legislation is not expected to pass, sources said it
could catapult him to the center of the debate when the issue heats up
this summer. English was not available for comment on Friday.

The third-term Congressman has also introduced a bill that would reduce
the special tax deduction Members are allowed for maintaining two
residences from $3,000 to just $1.

While Members complain that $136,700 per year is not enough money, it's
substantially more than the $89,500 they earned prior to the 1989 Ethics
Reform Act. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
	The Congressional Accountability Project is a congressional watchdog
group affiliated with Ralph Nader.  For more information about
congressional pay and perks, or the Congressional Accountability
Project, see http://www.essential.org/orgs/CAP/CAP.html or send e-mail
to gary@essential.org.

To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message:
subscribe CONG-REFORM your name
to listproc@essential.org

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Ruskin | Congressional Accountability Project
1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite #3A | Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 296-2787 | Fax (202) 833-2406
http://www.essential.org/orgs/CAP/CAP.html |
mailto:gary@essential.org |
--------------------------------------------------------------