GovernmentExecutive.com

The House Budget Committee voted against an amendment Wednesday to include equal pay adjustments for military and civilian federal employees in the fiscal 2005 budget resolution.

"I am very disappointed that the House Budget Committee failed to support the bipartisan principle of pay parity," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Unlike the House, a bipartisan majority in the Senate has embraced pay parity."

Early this month, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., included pay parity language in his committee's fiscal 2005 budget proposal.

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., a member of the House Budget Committee, tried to include pay parity in the House resolution. Hoyer said he would continue to work with other lawmakers, including some Republican allies, to implement equal pay adjustments.

Several congressional staffers, however, said this week that they expect Congress to approve equal pay adjustments despite opposition from the White House.

In the fiscal 2005 White House budget proposal, President Bush asked for a 3.5 percent pay increase for military personnel and a 1.5 percent average raise for civil servants. The president said uniformed personnel deserve the larger raise because of continuing military operations overseas. Administration officials and some Republican lawmakers in the House have said that the federal government cannot afford to grant the equal increases.

The White House proposed a disparate pay adjustment last year as well, but Congress overruled that plan in January and gave both military and civilian employees a 4.1 percent raise. Supporters of pay parity have said that civilian employees of the federal government are heavily involved in homeland security efforts and should not be snubbed.

Clay Johnson, the Office of Management and Budget's deputy director for management, has been visiting Capitol Hill recently in an attempt to convince lawmakers pay parity is not feasible, according to a congressional staffer.

"They have all sent a clear message to him that pay parity will be in effect at the end of the day," the staffer said, noting that the equal pay movement has strong backing from senior Republicans and Democrats.

"Chairman Nickles did not have to include that language. He's retiring," the staffer noted.

While the pay parity effort is facing some resistance, the staff member said that it might become more difficult in future years. The White House is pushing an initiative to move the federal government into a pay-for-performance system. As more federal agencies adopt the performance pay approach, standard pay raises for federal civilian workers will not be guaranteed.

"This may be one of the last years that we have an easy ride with pay parity," the staffer said.

COMMENTS

• Unbelievable! All this whining. I've been military, government and private so think I have a broad enough view to weigh in. All this complaining about parity... Life isn't fair always. In all segments there are those that are overworked and underpaid. Get over it. If we ran the government like a business, half of the pols and about that of the federal workforce would be laid off because we can't afford it. If you haven't noticed, our national income (taxes) don't equal the out-go (every politician's pet programs and pork). But a pol that brings federal deficit into his/her district won't be voted out - whether or not we can afford it as a nation is immaterial; it's jobs to her/his voters. Be happy the majority of you still have jobs. Approximately 15% of my company was fired in the past two years due to the downturn in the economy. As to competitive sourcing: where civil service is the best value, the nation needs your service. Where you aren't, the nation needs to lower costs. Go get a job with a private employer and deal with that. Maybe your salary goes up. Maybe it goes down. Life happens... GovExec.com reader Posted May 25, 2004 8:00 AM
• I think they should be the same. I served in the military for 5 years and always felt "underpaid". I must say though, that I remained single, lived in military housing (or the ship) and really when I think about it, I was never short of money. Sure I couldn't buy a $25,000 car at the time, but again, I was never poor. I'm sure it's different for the married guys with small children who can't afford the day care etc. I would propose to give everyone the same raise but why don't they just raise the combat pay for the military troops? Also troops in combat zones pay no income taxes, they are exempt. So in reality the ones that are sacrificing receive more than just a raise. Most vets I know always say that the military experience they had was one of the best of their lives and they wouldn't take it back for anything (there are exceptions of course). Furthermore, I have worked for the government for 13 years total. I am in law enforcement and have had some situations arise where my life has been in danger during my civilian government career. To say we should get a lower raise is just disgraceful. GovExec.com reader Posted April 7, 2004 12:46 PM
• For all of you Bush lovers, send your pay raise back to George. He will find a way to waste it on another invasion of some country. George loves to hear civil servants don't want a pay raise. He loves hearing that you are buying his lies. But please don't put the rest of us in a losing position, we work hard and die for our country, just like the military does. You may not like it but it is the truth. That is more than George will give you. GovExec.com reader Posted April 6, 2004 7:28 AM