GovernmentExecutive.com

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed equal pay raises for military and civilian federal workers Wednesday in a nonbinding "Sense of Congress" resolution.

House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., sponsored H. Res. 581, which states that in the fiscal 2005 budget, "compensation for civilian employees of the United States should be adjusted at the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of compensation for members of the uniformed services." The House passed the resolution by a vote of 299-126.

President Bush and a bloc of Republican lawmakers in the House, led by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., have strongly opposed the push for equal pay raises. Bush instead proposed a 3.5 percent raise for military personnel and a 1.5 percent raise for civilian federal workers in fiscal 2005, saying uniformed personnel deserve a higher raise because of ongoing military engagements overseas.

The GOP congressional bloc said the federal government cannot afford the additional $2.2 billion that equal pay raises would cost. Istook told colleagues that the raises would draw money away from other federal programs, but pay parity backers dismissed Istook's allegations.

There would be no budgetary impact "involved with the pay parity issue, nor would there be any impact on member projects, despite Mr. Istook's scare tactics," said one Republican aide. "Agencies would just have to find the additional funds within their existing salaries and expenses accounts, something they've done for the vast majority of the last two decades."

Supporters of equal pay adjustments have argued that the federal government needs the higher civilian pay raise for recruitment and retention efforts. Some lawmakers have criticized Bush's justification of the higher military raise, saying that many civilian and military personnel work side by side, performing the same tasks.

Davis arranged to have the issue brought to the full House after the House Budget Committee refused to include pay parity in its fiscal 2005 budget resolution. That resolution traditionally is used to guide spending in the coming fiscal year. The Senate Budget Committee included pay parity in its fiscal 2005 resolution.

Earlier this week, Istook's office described Wednesday's House vote as a "showdown".

With the showdown now over, pay parity supporters are hoping the successful resolution will shape the appropriations process, where the pay raises ultimately will be decided.

On Wednesday, 203 Democratic lawmakers supported the resolution. On the Republican side of the aisle, 95 lawmakers supported the pay parity effort and 126 voted against it. The lone independent representative, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voted for the resolution.

After the final vote was tallied, Istook accused pay parity supporters of ignoring recent federal budget shortfalls.

"The clear majority of Republicans agreed that we shouldn't give oversized raises to federal civil service employees during this time of huge deficits," Istook said. "If only an equal portion of Democrats would agree, then we'd have a chance to get spending under control."

Davis, the resolution sponsor, applauded the vote and criticized arguments made by pay parity opponents.

"I am extremely pleased that my colleagues recognized the important role our federal civilian employees play in protecting the homeland, fighting crime, battling disease and otherwise providing critical services to the American people ... You don't get top talent on the cheap," Davis said. "We were able to separate fact from fiction by emphasizing some important points: There is no cost associated with the resolution, and the resolution mirrors language and policy approved by Congress every year for almost two decades. In the end, common sense and equity prevailed."

COMMENTS

• I am a federal worker who does not agree that military and civilians should be paid the same. They are two different jobs. The military work 24-7 when needed with no extra pay under sometimes very harsh and life threatening circumstances. Sometimes when they have a desk job on a base civilians forget that they were probably out in the field before that. They are separated from their families often for long periods of time and may have to move to unfamiliar and often undesirable places. Civilian federal workers for the most part work 40 hour weeks. Go home every night to their family, do not have to move unless they choose. They get a maximum of 80% of their whole pay for retirement where military get 75% of their basic pay maximum. They try to equate GS-5 with 01 and up but most military have a much larger management role in terms of managing numbers of people and scope such as Ships etc. Bottomline I think military should be paid more.... Patsy Lake Posted April 13, 2004 8:57 AM
• I was home sick the day the House passed this measure, and watched the whole thing on CSPAN. EVERY SINGLE "NO" VOTE came from the Republican side of the aisle. I keep hearing my staunchly Republican co-workers praise the president and the Republican party, telling me they are the only ones that care about we civil service types. When I came back to work the day after this vote, they were strangely silent. I understand that the military in harms way should be compensated, but if I am processing travel vouchers in a disbursing office at a stateside base, why should my cost of living raise be less than half than that of the young E-4 sitting at the next desk, who does the same identical job as me? GovExec.com reader Posted April 5, 2004 8:09 AM
• Well, Rep. Istook's big showdown at the outhouse corral has come and gone. I hate to gloat and say I told you so Ernie. But! I'm really gonna enjoy this. So, the Bushwacker and his "Hole in the head gang" of semi-intelligent Republican lawmakers led by Ernest Istook have charged into ANOTHER dead end canyon and been soundly defeated, AGAIN! You boys just don't LEARN, do ya? Saying uniformed personnel deserve a higher raise because of ongoing military engagements overseas is pretty lame. Only a small percentage of military personnel are involved and they receive special pay for going in harm's way. The pay parity is an across the board thing guys. Give it a rest will ya? Everybody is wise to your scam. Somebody! Stop letting Ernest lead the charge with his mouth wide open. Saying something like "The clear majority of Republicans agreed that we shouldn't give oversized raises to federal civil service employees during this time of huge deficits" borders on sheer stupidity. What?! It's okay to give oversized raises to the military during these times of huge deficits?! Of course it isn't okay. And by the way, you jokers are the ones who got us into this situation, remember? One last thing. To the 203 Democratic lawmakers, 95 Republican lawmakers and the one lone independent representative from Vermont who voted for the resolution. Well done! Very well done indeed! Art Doss Posted April 2, 2004 8:10 PM