Pay raise for Congress

April 2002

David Letterman:

"Here's a bit of news. They spent $18 million on a little subway system between the Senate office building and the Senate chambers, just to move the senators back and forth. Well, the train had a crash the other day and tragically, no one was injured."

July 2002  Congress 'accepted' another raise for themselves, 3rd year in a row.  They now "make" approximately $150,000.00 a year.  The average congressmen that has been in office 4 terms or more owns at least one house valued at over a million dollars.

Thursday, October 02, 1997 again November 2002, 3 per cent.

Oh well, if you insist ...

Congress will 'reluctantly' accept a pay raise.

If most Americans were told they'd be receiving an annual pay hike of $3,073 -- $59 per week ... nearly $1.50 an hour -- they'd consider that "a raise," and a pretty good one. But needless to say, the guys who run things in Washington -- the guys who spent last week wringing their hands over how the IRS abuses their constituents' rights ... one week after voting to increase the budget of that same IRS by $600 million -- aren't like most Americans. No, when congressmen arrange to see their base pay rise from $133,600 to $136,673, that's not a "raise" -- that's just a "cost of living adjustment." Reported The Washington Post on Tuesday: "House and Senate negotiators cleared the way for the first cost-of-living raise in lawmakers' salaries in five years Monday night as Senate bargainers quickly and quietly backed away from opposing the increase." Lawmakers on Wednesday quickly ratified the deal to accept the 2.3 percent increase allowed them under a 1989 law. (Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan voted against the raise, as did Nevada Reps. John Ensign and Jim Gibbons.) "This would be the fifth year we passed up a cost-of-living adjustment," Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told reporters after the meeting. "The retired people have gotten them, the military has gotten them. There's no reason not to get them." That's arguable. But it is interesting to note that during the debate on the pay increase, there has been little discussion of the newest constitutional amendment. The 27th amendment, proposed by James Madison more than 200 years ago, and quietly ratified by the final required state -- Michigan -- in 1992, states with the founder's admirable brevity, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." Thus no such "raises," or "adjustments," or whatever they're called, can take effect for more than a year, until after the fate of the entire House membership and one-third of the Senate seats has been decided by voters. The next scheduled polling is in November of 1998, of course. Surely the ladies and gentlemen have not forgotten?

Cuts of Pork

by Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Throughout last year's (?) debate over the line-item veto, I was frequently asked by reporters whether Bill Clinton would use it to terminate Republican pork-barrel projects. I always unhesitatingly responded: I certainly hope so. Once in a blue moon in American politics a new law works almost precisely as intended. Such has been the case -- at least so far -- with the line-item veto. This year President Clinton has used his new budget-cutting tool to execute scores of white-elephant congressional spending projects, saving taxpayers an estimated $2 billion over five years. Virtually none of these projects were in the national interest.

Ironically, it is this early success of the line-item veto that may prove its undoing. Congress, it turns out, likes the line-item veto far better in theory than in practice. Sen. Trent Lott concedes that there are fewer Republican supporters of the line-item veto today than there were this time last year. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman

Ted Stevens complains that Clinton's line-item vetoes have been a "raw abuse of power." Stevens is threatening to push for the veto's repeal. Robert Livingston, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, charges that President Clinton is using the veto as "a raw exercise of power meant to threaten and intimidate." What is giving congressional Republicans heartburn is that the veto is being used by a Democratic President to trim hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of lard from the budget, and some of it is Republican lard. So far, Clinton has used the veto to eliminate funding for a $600,000 solar waste-water treatment project in Vermont; a $2-million Chena River dredging project in Fairbanks, Alaska, to benefit a single tour-boat operator; a $1-million corporate-welfare grant to the Chamber of Commerce in Carter County, Montana; $900,000 for a Veterans Administration cemetery the VA says it doesn't need; $1.9 million for dredging a Mississippi lake that primarily serves yachts and pleasure boats. It is precisely oinkers like these that enraged the public and led to enactment of the line-item veto in the first place.

In fact, the only legitimate complaint about Bill Clinton's use of this veto is that he has done it too sparingly. This year's Energy and Water bill alone contains 423 unrequested projects -- conveniently, just about one for every district. Clinton canceled just 8 of them; most of the other 415 deserved the same fate. If, as President Clinton has suggested, the criteria for wielding this veto power are that the program in question is one that should be funded at the local level if at all, or that it has costs that exceed public benefits, then the savings could be orders of magnitude higher than the $2 billion achieved so far.

Congress, it turns out, likes the line-item veto far better in theory than in practice.

In fact, that much could probably be saved by carving spending earmarked for just one lightly populated state: Alaska. Alaska's Ted Stevens has been busy using his exalted status as Appropriations Committee chairman to convert Fairbanks into the pork capital of America. Congressional Quarterly reports that Stevens is fast gaining a reputation as a bigger pork-barrel spender than his famed predecessor, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Into this year's Military Construction bill Stevens inserted $1.4 million for a skating rink and $300,000 for a car wash in Fort Wainwright; $650,000 for an Arctic Germplasm Repository; and $1 million to market Alaskan salmon. Apparently the GOP's theme of making government smaller and smarter applies only to the contiguous 48 states. On Capitol Hill, members are calling Stevens's chase for tax dollars the second Alaskan gold rush.

WASHINGTON UPDATE --- JUNE 10, 1997=

In this issue:

Senate Communication Subcommittee Members Voice Concerns over Next Generation Internet FCC Leadership Grilled on Universal Service Rulings FARNET Members Discuss Universal Service Fund

Senate Communication Subcommittee Members Voice Concerns over Next Generation Internet

June 3 - The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications spent a busy day hearing testimony on the Next Generation Internet (NGI) and Internet2 initiatives in the morning, while taking the afternoon to voice concerns and questions to the FCC leadership regarding their May 8 rulings on Universal Service.

Despite an overall agreement that the NGI project is needed, the senators present cited concerns that funding was not only underestimated, but being unfairly allocated as well. Committee Chairman Burns (R-Mt) and Senator Ron Wyden (R-Ore) were particularly fearful that rural communities were being left out; Senator Burns questioned why rural states were underrepresented on the Presidential Advisory Panel (out of 21 members, 11 are from California); while Senator Wyden expressed confusion over which universities will be allowed to participate in the federally funded program.

At stake is $300 million requested by the Clinton Administration to fund NGI over a three year period to be divided among several federal agencies. (An April 8 version of the draft proposal is available at: (http://www.hpcc.gov/ngi-concept-08Apr97) Under the current proposal, $100 million is to be divided anually between the Penatgon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)/$40 million; the National Science Foundation (NSF)/$10 million; the Department of Energy (DOE)/$35 million; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/$10 million; and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/$5 million. With the NSF's prominent role in creating the first Internet, many are surprised at the small portion of funding it received.

Some industry sources state that the current Clinton proposal seriously under estimates the true cost of the project which could run over $10 billion per year for the next five to ten years if it wishes to meet the technology expectations of increasing transmission speeds up to 1,000 times faster than the current Internet. Funding has not yet been authorized, neither by the House, nor the Senate for the NGI initiative. Currently, NGI is part of several agencies authorization legislation. What really counts though, is appropriations legislation and the various bills containing NGI - agency budgets are still making their way through both House and Senate subcommittees and committees. July 4 looks like the latest deadline for most of the appropriations bills.

Despite such funding concerns, NGI proponents are confident of its success. Dr. Henry Kelley, Acting Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Sciences and Technology Policy (OSTP) stated that the NGI project was being worked in conjunction with the private sector and university interests, many of which are working on the Internet2 project. (http://www.Internet2.edu) According to Dr. Douglas E. Van Houweling, Vice Chairman of the Internet2 project, one quarter of NGI resources go to universities, funds that will support their participation in Internet2. "The goals of these two projects are completely compatible and complementary," according to Van Houweling. Federal funds, however, are less than one quarter of the overall funds necessary to achieve the goals of Internet2. Currently universities and research organizations are expected to contribute over $50 million per year, while the corporate sector is expected to contribute over $10 million.

Contrary to what has been reported in the press, Internet2 is a separate, privately funded initiative than NGI. Because of the misconception by congressmen that they are the same, Internet2 might find it difficult to receive any federal assistance if the concerns surrounding NGI are not resolved. Internet2 members are  responsible for contributing to the initiative and seek government grant programs whenever possible. For example, the NSF Connections Program, a competitive grant program that awards funding for individual universities to connect campus systems to the NSF's vBNS, has awarded 53 out of 66 grants to universities belonging to the Internet2 consortium. Although promoting cooperation between the two projects, such a program still left committee members wondering what requirements are necessary in order to obtain such a grant, and whether smaller and rural universities are being left out due to lack of funding and available
telecommunications infrastructure. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) compared it to a highway project, "where rural states need far more money than urban states because they drive five times as longer." As Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens wields strong influence as to where funding is allocated,  and has the power to hinder future funding for the NGI initiative.

How you can help the Landless Tlingits; Haidas
...Murkowski The Honorable Senator Ted Stevens, The U.S. Senate,...
...Fax:(202) 224-2354 E-mail-* Senator Ted Stevens The Honorable Rep.

The Great 1999 Budget Rip-Off Republicans promised to cut taxes and shore up Social Security. Instead, they voted to spend, spend, spend.

By Ralph Kinney Bennett and Daniel Levine

Standing on the noisy floor of the House of Representatives last October 20, Rep. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) felt sick. In the waning hours of the 105th Congress, the doctor-turned-lawmaker was about to cast his vote on a bill--H.R. 4328--that would appropriate some $500 billion, nearly a third of the entire federal budget. Yet Coburn and his 434 colleagues were expected to pass the measure without having read it. The only copy he saw on the floor of the House was a 40-pound stack of paper almost 4000 pages.

Gingrich had already earmarked $450 million for seven giant C-130J transport planes, even though the Pentagon had sought only one. The planes are manufactured by Lockheed Martin in Gingrich's hometown of Marietta.

Rep. Bud Shuster (R., Pa.), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, stuffed $13 billion into the bill for everything from highways to water taxis. A thick slice of the budget pie went to his home state.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) steered millions to his constituents. Folks in the remote fishing village of King Cove (pop. 700) wanted to be able to reach an all-weather airport 30 miles away and asked Congress to approve a simple land swap to build a new road. When the White House objected on environmental grounds, Stevens grabbed a $38-million package for King Cove, including $15 million for improvements to the village's own tiny airstrip. Local government administrator Robert S. Juettner is "flabbergasted." He's not sure how $15 million can help the airstrip; with its high winds, few planes land there.

Democrats, of course, joined in the spending frenzy. Massachusetts Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry secured $100 million for an underground highway project in Boston. Even Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), the legendary "Prince of Pork," acknowledged that the bill was a "gargantuan monstrosity." But that didn't stop him from salting away $100 million for a new prison and $2 million for the planned National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture in Leetown, W.Va., which has received $16 million in federal funds since 1996.