Pay parity amendment set for this week
A senior Democratic lawmaker will introduce an amendment later this week to grant federal civilian employees the same 3.5 percent pay raise that military personnel will receive in 2005.
The White House and a group of Republican House members are pushing for a 1.5 percent pay raise for civil servants and a 3.5 percent raise for the military. President Bush has said that service members deserve the larger raise because of ongoing military conflicts. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., has said that the government cannot afford the additional $2.2 billion that equal pay raises would cost.
House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., is planning to introduce the pay parity amendment when the House Appropriations Committee's Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Subcommittee marks up its spending bill, which is expected to happen on Friday, according to a congressional aide.
In March, the House overwhelmingly endorsed pay parity in a nonbinding "sense of Congress" resolution. Officials believe that the resolution, sponsored by House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., will guide future dialogue on the pay parity issue.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers last week sent letters to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., and ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., urging support for the amendment. The letters, which prominently mentioned the March pay parity vote, were first reported by The Washington Post.
"In nearly every year over the last two decades, the annual pay adjustments have been identical. We firmly believe it is imperative to continue this tradition in the coming fiscal year, due to the essential service military and civilian employees provide to our nation," said the letter, which was signed by Davis; Hoyer; Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.; Reps. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Albert Wynn, D-Md.; Jim Moran, D-Va.; Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Frank Wolf, R-Va.
"As we fight the war on terrorism at home and abroad," the letter added, "both the armed services and the federal civilian workforce are integral to fulfilling the role of government for the American people, and both must be compensated accordingly."
COMMENTS
- I do believe in pay parity, we have many civilians traveling all over the world including in the combat zones and do not even get the extra combat pay as the military. Besides $2.5 billion is nothing compared to the $85 billion being wasted in Iraq. Ronnie in Pa Posted July 21, 2004 5:58 PM
- Pay parity is as it should be - parity - period. A sack of potatoes and a loaf of bread costs virtually the same for both groups. Having said that, the White House and Congress should address the deserved increased remuneration for the military as a part of special pay, i.e, combat pay, family separation pay, hazardous duty pay, etc. That's what those categories were designed for. It isn't a new concept. GovExec.com reader Posted July 20, 2004 3:29 PM
- Ms. Colgan could not be more right. If the argument is made for a differential pay increase based on the hazards of military service, then it is fundamentally dishonest to say ALL military deserve it. For example, Public Health Service officers (the "Commissioned Corps") are military, and very few of them, to say the least, are daily at the same risk as the troops in Basra. Hazardous duty pay yes. Extra pay just because you have a uniform, no. Allen Posted July 20, 2004 2:50 PM
