Pay parity offer leaves less room to bargain for higher 2007 raise

Congressional support for a 2007 pay raise that exceeds President Bush's 2.2 percent request may wane because, in a break from past years, the president's proposal grants military-civilian pay parity.

President Bush's 2007 budget, released Monday, included an equal pay raise for military and civilian employees. But even with parity, a 2.2 percent civilian raise would be the lowest boost since 1988.

Until now, Bush has consistently proposed lower annual raises for white-collar civilian employees than he has for their military counterparts. Congress has responded with a call to make the two groups equal by bumping up the civilian raise.

As a result of this year's offer of pay parity, advocates for a higher federal raise may have lost at least one key ally in Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.

Davis is chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal employee issues. He represents a Virginia district with a large number of federal employees and has been a strong advocate of pay parity.

But Davis spokesman Rob White said the congressman is very pleased with the president's proposal for this year's raise.

"On first glance, the congressman believes [a higher raise] would be a tough fight this year now that we have parity," White said. "It would be a tough sell in Congress."

"Obviously, we look at all the federal employee issues pretty closely," White added, suggesting there is still a possibility for higher raises.

In a statement Davis hailed the president's pay proposal.

"I consider it a personal victory that, for the first time in recent history, the president has linked civilian and military pay raises," he said.

A number of Democrats who represent a large number of federal employees said they will fight for a higher raise despite the absence of a parity argument.

The 2.2 percent raise is "consistent with a low rate of inflation," said Rep. James Moran, D-Va., "but it's grossly insufficient to cover health insurance premiums, the additional cost of gas and heating oil -- in other words, energy costs -- and the cost of living in this area."

"I'm pleased with the parity, but I'm very dissatisfied with the rate," said Albert Wynn, D-Md. "I think 2.2 percent is inadequate if we're trying to keep federal employees and attract federal employees, so I think we've made one step forward and one step backwards."

Others, such as Rep. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, were more ambiguous about their positions, saying the federal pay raise needs a closer look.

Congress could move to increase the military's salary adjustment, which in turn could launch a pay parity debate even without the president's involvement. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in a statement that 2.2 percent may not be sufficient, and that he will work on the issue with the committee that has jurisdiction over the military pay raise.

"In the weeks ahead, I intend to investigate the adequacy of next year's proposed salary adjustment, consulting with respected members of the House Armed Services Committee, Government Reform Committee, as well as representatives of the military and federal civilian workforce," Hoyer said.

"I'm sure that the Congress is going to want to increase the pay rate for the cost of living for military, so we would expect them to do the same for civilians," Moran said.