Does Congress Get What It Deserves?

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 13, 2000 | by Cherry Sheila R.

Cengressmen earn six-figure salaries and enjoy perks constituents can only dream about. But do Americans believe the compensation is fair for the demands of the job?

When was your last raise? Members of Congress thank you for theirs; you were most generous. For all their hard work in 1999, the men and women of the 106th Congress gave themselves a $4,600 raise. After all, they did have to prosecute and defend impeachment of a wayward president and managed to balance the federal budget without tapping into the Social Security Trust Fund. Or so they say.

The annual salary of a member of Congress is $141,300, plus benefits. If you are wondering why you weren't aware of this generosity with your money, it's because there's little reason why you should be. Your public servants didn't even have to ask for it. It came to them "automatically" in the form of a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA. Some of them think they're worth every penny. Others disagree.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, divides the amount of his COLA adjustment as donations to the International Foundation, a charitable organization in Maryland, and to a Presbyterian church in his home state, according to spokesman Gary Hoitsma. A number of other members, including Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California, have announced over the years their intention to donate their additional compensation to charities or return it to the Treasury.

When the GOP won control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, the Republicans said they were determined to make changes. "The November elections were a call for change from voters who wanted a limited federal government, efficiency in its operations, and accountability by its officials," declared Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman of the GOP's congressional transition team.

According to some Congress watchers, things -- the small things-indeed have changed. Aaron Taylor, a spokesman for Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW, says there still are a lot of perks associated with being a member of Congress. He likens efforts to stem congressional perquisites to trying to plug holes in a dike. Once one is stopped, another springs into flood. But, he says, the Republicans did eliminate a lot of the systemic abuse and institutional featherbedding when they took control.

Gary Ruskin, a spokesman for the Congressional Accountability Project, or CAP, makes a distinction between perks and abuse. "Often, but not always," he says, "perks are something you can stick in your pocket."

On the heels of a check-kiting scandal in the House bank, unintended use of postal privileges and bloated staffs, GOP reformers in 1995 cleaned up administrative systems and increased disclosure. Just five years ago information about such things was pretty hard to come by, says Jason Poblete, a spokesman for Rep. William Thomas, chairman of the Committee on House Administration. With the addition of a central computer server, the House now hosts more than 10,000 Websites to provide information. This connection of detailed information, legislative activity and technology "is the bigger picture here." Poblete tells Insight. Citizens and media can look to the Internet to track everything from biographies of members to their voting records.

Still, concern about things such as congressional pay raises and exclusive fitness facilities resonate with taxpayers. Fitness-center membership, once a taxpayer-subsidized benefit for members, appears to have been converted to a pay-as-you-go system. While members still are allowed to use the frequent-flyer miles they accrue on official trips, they must do so in accordance with administrative guidelines. But those pay raises, you see, they are just, well, automatic.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas tells Insight he was strongly opposed to the congressional pay raise and is outraged at the scheme for making it seem that congressmen are not voting themselves pay raises. The 3.4 percent increase was attached to a COLA, he says, because "we have a `fiat currency'" so that when an individual's salary does not increase to accommodate inflation it loses value.

Paul even rejected his congressional pension because, he says, it's the "most outrageous of all the benefits." The taxpayer-subsidized private pension plan is based on a member's length of service. Members are required to pay a small initial contribution, but taxpayers subsidize the rest, and with COLAs the payoff is very big indeed. Members of Congress become vested in the pension plan after five years, which can include years from previous federal employment or military service. They become eligible for benefits after age 62 or a total of 25 years on the federal payroll.

Similarly, ,congressional health benefits are a lot "perkier" than those for ordinary citizens. Members are quick to note that Congress uses the same federal-employee health benefits as everyone else in federal service. They just tend to leave out three significant details that CAP's Ruskin points out. In addition to their federal health benefits, members of Congress can receive free outpatient care at either Bethesda Naval Hospital or Walter Reed Army Medical Center. For a small annual fee ($275 for the House; $520 for the Senate) they also get on-site treatment from the Capitol Office of the Attending Physician.