GovernmentExecutive.com

Federal employees are likely to get the same 3.5 percent pay raise as military personnel in 2005, but congressional wrangling may keep workers from seeing a bigger pay check until the spring, according to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

In remarks at the National Press Club Tuesday morning, Hoyer said, Congress is unlikely to complete work on fiscal 2005 spending bills in time for the raise to take effect in January. As a result, Hoyer says, government will be funded at current levels -- because of continuing budget resolutions -- until the spending bills are approved.

In addition, federal employees might have to wait until as late as next spring when a budget is approved to get their raise. The pay increase would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005, so employees would not lose money.

The Bush administration has called for the military to receive a 3.5 percent pay raise next year because of the strain of continual overseas deployments. But the White House sought only a 1.5 percent raise for federal workers with an eye toward keeping down federal spending.

Congress, however, has indicated that it will give civilians the same raise as the military. The House Appropriations Committee backed pay parity in July, while the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and Transportation recently approved the increase in the proposed budget.

Hoyer, meanwhile, slammed the Bush administration for outsourcing work in Iraq and said prison abuses occurred there because too much work has been turned over to contractors and the military has "lost control."

Congress is unlikely to place any limits on outsourcing, because Republican leaders in the House and Senate oppose it.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., plans to propose an amendment to the fiscal 2005 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill that would prevent the Bush administration from using new outsourcing rules for federal jobs that he says put federal employees at a disadvantage.

The White House has said it will veto the bill if that provision is included because it would shut down the administration's competitive sourcing initiative.

COMMENTS

• ie., vote this guy out of DC and send him back to TX.....I plan to do so. GovExec.com reader Posted October 4, 2004 7:38 PM
• If only the president would do the right thing and give the Federal Employees a respectful pay raise and sign it and put it in the queue we would not be having this conversation. Please vote this guy out of DC and back to Tx. GovExec.com reader Posted September 28, 2004 7:14 AM
• I too am with USDA. I checked my data, and it looks like they are not using the retroactive date as per the SF-50 to reflect the correct salary rate for the year. What is happening, is they are using the salary of the first SF-50 of the year which has the partial percentage increase, and then the SF-50 showing the retroactive payment which shows the true salary of the year. This in actuality is reflecting two different salaries for the year! Definitely a problem here since this is not what is factual! Art you've nailed it with your statement of, "just because you don't get the money doesn't mean you didn't earn it". Akin to taxes, we owe 'em, we just don't pay 'em til April 15th but we still owe the whole thing!!! GovExec.com reader Posted September 24, 2004 6:11 PM