GovernmentExecutive.com

The fiscal 2005 pay parity controversy might be coming to a head this week, according to a Republican lawmaker who has led opposition to the effort.

The House of Representatives is expected to vote Wednesday on a resolution that would provide support for -- but would not mandate -- equal pay adjustments for military and civilian federal workers in the coming fiscal year. House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., are backing the "Sense of Congress" resolution that could shape the appropriations process for fiscal 2005.

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., has fought the equal pay raises, and his office said Monday the impending vote will be a "showdown" and Istook "will lead the charge this week against giving federal workers an extra $2.2 billion."

Istook supports the initial White House proposal to grant military personnel a 3.5 percent pay raise and civilian employees a 1.5 percent cost of living pay adjustment in fiscal 2005. President Bush has said the military deserves a larger pay raise because of continued engagements abroad.

In a letter to Republican leadership earlier this month, Istook said the nation cannot afford the more than $2 billion it would cost to bring the civilian pay increase in line with the military pay raise. The letter was reportedly signed by 50 House lawmakers, but Istook's office and the office of House Speaker Dennis Haster, R-Ill., have refused to release the names of those who signed.

"There's a world of difference between what we demand of our armed forces compared to the office jobs that most federal workers have," Istook said. "Federal workers also get major fringe benefits on top of this."

Supporters of pay parity say an increase in combat pay could be put in place to show support for military personnel serving in harm's way. Several lawmakers have noted that many uniformed personnel work in offices while some civilian federal employees are heavily involved in homeland security operations in the field.

"Federal employees are the FBI, the scientists at [the National Institutes of Health], the scientists at [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], [and] they are the CIA," said Dan Scandling, spokesman for Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., in an interview with Government Executive last month. "Federal employees are on the front lines of fighting the war on terror."

Pay parity received strong bipartisan support in January, when Congress overruled Bush and granted equal 4.1 percent pay raises to military and civilian federal employees for fiscal 2004. Early this month, the Senate Budget Committee included language supporting pay parity in its budget resolution for fiscal 2005. When a similar proposal came before the House Budget Committee, however, it was defeated by the Republican majority in a vote that was split down party lines.

Last week, Davis arranged with Republican leadership to bring a pay parity resolution issue to the full House.

Citing previous congressional support, the need to improve retention and recruitment in the federal government and the homeland security role of some civilian federal agencies, many congressional officials have predicted pay parity will succeed in fiscal 2005. Istook pledged to oppose the equal pay adjustments.

"We should not be giving raises that are twice as big as the president proposes," he said. "We're being very fair to federal workers. They not only enjoy better job security and benefits than the private sector, but they've already been getting dramatically higher raises than almost anyone else in the country."

COMMENTS

• I am a bit confused by all of this talk on the subject of pay parity. My understanding is that the so-called raise at the beginning of the year is a cost-of-living increase. As such, everyone should receive the same cost-of-living increase. I notice that year after year after year it is referred to as a raise. This is not a raise. My raise is my step increase or my promotion. As for the base salary one receives either in the military or as a civilian - if it is inadequate then maybe the pay scales need to be looked at for those particular fields. But, let's stop confusing the issue of cost-of-living increases with pay increases. Government Employee Posted April 5, 2004 12:19 PM
• I did a comparison approximating my salary with my military counterpart. I make about $50 more in SALARY/year. He gets about $23,900 in untaxed housing and food allowances. According to the military's pay calculator, this counterpart in the military gets a tax advantage of about $12,300, i.e., that portion of his income for housing & food that's not taxed. His total compensation is $36,132 more/year! No health benefits, vacation, etc. are included in either compensation package. Let's be very sure when we are talking pay parity, that we are comparing apples to apples! GovExec.com reader Posted April 1, 2004 10:04 AM
• I suspect that Rep. Istook along with his other courageous fifty anonymous cohorts are the same people who worked hard to pass the DoD Civil Service Personnel reform legislation. While everyone agrees that employees must strive for better job performance, I suspect that the real purpose of the legislation is to cut personnel costs. Now that promotions, step increases, and annual cost of living increases have been abolished they are to be replaced with "performance pay". I am curious to see if there will be any additional payroll dollars available for "performance pay" given Rep. Istook's position that the US Government is unable to afford civil service pay raises due to the huge deficit and Representative Istook's perceived undeserving nature of Civil Service duty to the nation. This is a brilliant Dilbertesque strategy. Tell civil service employees that they have to earn their future salary increases, but don't fund the increases, then cover the lack of funds for future increases by implementing a personnel system that blames it all on poor employee performance. My fellow civil service employees, we need to roll up our sleeves and be prepared to offer up more of our pay and benefits to meet the challenging needs of the federal deficit. After all somebody has to sacrifice to help get our national finances in order. As Napoleon the horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm would say, "We all have to work harder to make the new order successful." GovExec.com reader Posted March 31, 2004 8:08 PM