GovernmentExecutive.com

The House Appropriations Committee approved legislation Thursday that would provide equal pay adjustments for military and civilian federal employees in 2005.

The panel passed by a 42-16 vote an amendment to the fiscal 2005 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill that would grant federal civilian employees - and blue-collar workers - the same 3.5 percent pay raise that military personnel will receive next year. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., joined with House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., and Reps. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and Jim Moran, D-Va., to steer the measure through committee.

"Military personnel and federal civilian employees work side-by-side and for the same employer," Hoyer said after the amendment's passage. "Our nation is able to deploy our air, sea and land fleets safely and swiftly thanks to the muscle and logistical support of both federal civilian employees and military employees. So it is appropriate to provide them with equal pay adjustments. In addition, a fair pay adjustment is needed to keep pace with private-sector salaries so the federal government can compete for quality employees."

The move counteracts a push by President Bush and a bloc of House lawmakers, led by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., to provide a lower raise for civil servants than for uniformed military service members. Istook has said the government cannot afford the additional $2.2 billion that equal pay raises would cost. The president has said that ongoing military conflicts make uniformed personnel more deserving of a higher raise.

On Thursday, however, the pay parity measure received bipartisan support.

"Both the armed services and the federal civilian workforce are integral to fulfilling the role of government for the American taxpayer; both must be compensated accordingly," Davis said.

National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley, lauded the pay parity measure, saying, "It would help federal employees' paychecks keep pace with their counterparts in the private sector."

Last year Bush requested a 2 percent salary boost for white-collar federal employees and a 4.1 percent pay raise for military employees in his 2004 budget proposal. Congress overruled the president's request and granted 4.1 percent pay hikes to military and civilian federal workers.

COMMENTS

• Ya can dress'em up. Ya can send'em to school. Ya can even lead'em to the fountain of knowledge. And whatta they do? Eat the books and puke in the spring! Sigh. Okay "credibility". If GovExec would indulge me here. By the numbers. Shall we dance? As you said, "Posting your own assumptions (and that's ALL they were) about a complete stranger and then insulting that person based on those assumptions is unneeded and only undermines your credibility." Va Beach: "I do not feel the civil service employees need a raise. Salaries are high enough for these employees." (I believe that qualifies as an opinion about hundreds of thousands of total strangers) Va Beach: "Most are higher than anyone else outside of government employment who have the same type of position requirements." (that's an assumption. obviously an uninformed one considering the current President's father, the former President, was instrumental in passing a law to achive pay equity between federal employes and their counterparts outside of government) Va Beach: "Some, if not most, do not fulfill their job requirements. There is a lot of dead weight within the civil service community." (is this not the unneed posting of a definitive statement disgused as an insulting opinion towards hundreds of thousands of total strangers based on rather obviously uniformed assumptions? it is in my neighborhood.) The original story was in reference to a general, across the board, 3.5 percent pay raise. It had nothing to do with deployed troops protecting our country, its interests or going in harms' way. Va Beach obviously had "a bone to chew." But at least they used a pseudonym in lieu of their name. You, however didn't have that courage. So should I refer to you as credibility or Dingus? Lest you take offense, my Websters dictionary defines dingus as a "humorous substitute for a name not known". Art Doss Posted August 18, 2004 4:52 PM
• Staying skeptical of government is good, but this was not the issue of disagreement. Posting your own assumptions (and that's ALL they were) about a complete stranger and then insulting that person based on these assumptions is unneeded and only undermines your credibility - or in this case, Art's credibility. We're all entitled to our own opinions. GovExec.com reader Posted August 12, 2004 11:41 AM
• Art has observed this baloney for a long time. He knows what he is talking about. He is right and the rest of us should keep his counsel in mind the next time we get "a deal we can't refuse." Being skeptical of government is a virtue. GovExec.com reader Posted August 11, 2004 8:28 AM