Give A Little, Get a Little

By NANCY TRAVER

For a show that had flopped in its last tryout, The Pay-Raise Follies enjoyed a remarkably rapid revival. There was House Speaker Tom Foley last week, a bipartisan cast gathered around him, calling earnestly for more money. Here again came consumer advocate Ralph Nader, stirring up rabid radio talk-show hosts to bash Capitol Hill for insatiable greed. George Bush, once more standing in the wings, sent his best wishes.

But the House members had learned from their pay-hike fiasco of last January, when they were seeking a raise from $89,500 to $135,000. This time they voted for a smaller increase in two stages: to $96,600 next year (when they must stand for election), then to nearly $125,000 by 1991. More important, they offered a swap: they would take the pay raise in exchange for passing a much needed package of reforms, including the gradual elimination of outside income. Even though the Senate refused to go along, Congressmen can argue that taxpayers will be getting something for the extra money they will be paying their legislators.

Credit for the smoother performance goes to Foley and Minority Leader Robert Michel. Last winter Foley watched former Speaker Jim Wright fumble painfully as he tried to sneak a raise through the House without a vote. Wright's clumsiness on the issue helped push him from power in May. Foley took office promising his rank and file he would bring the pay raise to the House floor again this year. But he was determined to do things differently.

Foley and Michel began by appointing a bipartisan task force to craft an ethics package that would combine the salary increase with real reform. With the raise stalled as a hoped-for Thanksgiving adjournment approached, Foley and Michel closed ranks again. They limited partisan bickering and promised not to use the pay hike as a campaign issue next year. On Thursday they won a hasty 252-174 vote in favor of the increase. After the victory, task force chairman Vic Fazio of California declared, "We have decided to reinvest in this institution and take the responsibility for its future."

Along with senior Government officials and judges, House members will receive a 7.9% salary increase in 1990 and a 25% hike in 1991. Tacked onto the raise was a ban on outside speaking fees or honorariums, which enable House members to boost their salaries by as much as $26,850 a year by giving pep talks to lobbyists and industry groups.

Lawmakers who retire after 1993 will also be forbidden to transfer campaign contributions into personal funds; such transfers can total hundreds of thousands of dollars. Congressmen will not be allowed to accept gifts worth more than $200, and where some members now spend several weeks or more on expenses-paid voyages around the globe, their paid junkets will be limited to four days in the U.S. and seven overseas. It was the most extensive revision of ethics rules in more than a decade.

For some, that was not enough to justify a nearly 40% salary increase. "We come forward with ethics reform, and we instead sneak in a pay raise," said Democratic Congressman James Traficant of Ohio. "With the huge budget deficit we face, now is not the time." Nader spokesman Bob Dreyfuss pointed out that while Congress was looking after its own interests, it had delayed action on a federal child-care plan and failed to pass a budget -- leaving servicemen, Medicare recipients, farmers and other federal beneficiaries vulnerable to the automatic Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cutbacks. "If the issue were based on merit alone," he said, "Congress would be forced to take a pay cut."

Others saw the ethics package as an important first step. The reforms, said Common Cause President Fred Wertheimer, established the principle "that public officials should be paid by the public and not by private interests." The President too chose to focus on the positive aspects of the deal. In his carefully crafted message of support, Bush told Congress, "I fully support the reforms you are prepared to bring before the House of Representatives this week."

Matters were more complicated for the Senate, whose members earn the same $89,500 salary as Representatives but rake in more from speaking fees. They were able to bury the plan by speaking up for reform: first they added a provision to prohibit retired congressional and Executive Branch employees from lobbying their former colleagues for one year. Then they left the pay- for-ethics package in place for the House (along with the raises for judges and bureaucrats), but rejected it for themselves. At week's end, after three attempts by Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina to scuttle the raise, Majority Leader George Mitchell realized he did not have the votes to win approval of the House plan.

As a substitute, Mitchell offered a 9.9% cost of living raise for Senators on Jan. 1. That will put Senate salaries at $98,400 next year, temporarily greater than those in the House. In exchange, the limit on honorariums was trimmed to $26,568 from $35,800, so Senators' potential incomes were left virtually unchanged. When the larger congressional pay hike takes effect in 1991, Senators would be paid less than members of the House. While Congressmen must return to their districts to convince skeptical constituents of the wisdom of their actions, Senators have decided that the appearance of virtue is its own reward.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Chart

CAPTION: MONEY CHANGING