GovernmentExecutive.com

The House passed an appropriations bill Tuesday night that includes a 4.1 percent pay raise in 2004 for civilian and wage grade federal employees, spurning a Bush administration proposal to hold the federal, white-collar pay raise at 2 percent next year.

"Unlike President Bush, the Congress understands and respects the valuable role our federal civilian employees play in providing for this country's defense," said Rep. James Moran, D-Va., who sponsored an amendment to the 2004 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill (H.R. 2989) along with House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. Under the bill, civil service and wage grade employees would get the same raise as uniformed military service members are slated to get in 2004.

"Federal workers go to work every day to make this country safer and better for all our citizens. We shouldn't shovel the cost of a war and expensive tax cuts onto their shoulders," Hoyer said after the bill's passage.

Two weeks ago, the Bush administration announced its plans to hold white-collar civil service raises at 2 percent next year and allow managers to use money in a $500 million fund to give some employees larger raises based on their performance. House leaders approved an amendment, offered by House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., creating the fund in the fiscal 2004 Defense authorization bill. But House leaders, including Davis, railed against the smaller pay raise and on Tuesday, the full chamber supported the larger pay raise.

Union leaders applauded the House action.

"It certainly is refreshing to see that despite annual White House efforts to shortchange our nation's civil servants, Congress has again stepped up to the plate in recognizing that pay parity between federal and military workers is not a practice that the administration can simply ignore," said International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers President Greg Junemann.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General Government approved similar legislation on Sept. 3. That bill is headed to the full committee.

COMMENTS

• The person that responded to Sean is right on target. I couldn't have said it better myself. GovExec.com reader Posted September 12, 2003 12:46 PM
• To respond to Sean's comments. PLEASE, since when has the military, except for the high ranking officers, ever been paid at any rate close to the civilian population. The military is a learn as you go organization. Kids right out of high school or college go in for the "learning" experience. If they hang around longer after they get the experience, that’s their problem. Once they get out and go to work for a civilian organization (either public or private) that experience pays them more. The simple fact is, civilians should be receiving even a higher percentage than the military. I don't know if you ever served, or if you’re serving now, but I did (back when we were getting pennies an hour compared to dollars an hour for "the same work" as our civilian counterparts). They volunteered to serve. If their previous experiences could have gotten them a better paying job or if they weren't week-end warriors, they wouldn't be where they are today. If they want better pay, let them get out of the service and work where they'd get more. The military is a cushy job, when there’s no war or when your stationed in some great place, and anyone who says different is full of it. The problem is there’s a self-induced war going on now, thanks to a administration of mostly Chickenhawks that have never served a day in their lives and they're going to need the military's support to keep their jobs in 2004. GovExec.com reader Posted September 12, 2003 8:14 AM
• Mr. Saunders, where does it say the military is supposed to catch up with the civilians pay? You must mean the civilians are supposed to be catching up with non-government workers. At least the Bush administration is happy to know they are confusing a few federal workers. Should we turn your name in and tell King George to NOT give you the 4.1%? GovExec.com reader Posted September 12, 2003 7:48 AM