The public uproar over the proposed 51 percent pay increase for Congress has faded, but the ears of our senators and representatives are still ringing. And with good reason.

People exercised their right to criticize the government and practiced their role in holding their elected officials accountable for their ethics.

Pay increases for Congress are proposed by a special commission to the President, who then makes a recommendation to Congress. If both houses do not vote against the raise within 30 days, it automatically takes effect.

The system -- sneaky, at best -- allows the Speaker of the House to delay a vote on the raise until the 30-day deadline passes. In effect, Congress receives pay raises by doing nothing but hoping nobody notices.

This time, people noticed.

Poll after poll reported that Americans were outraged at the raise and the underhanded method Congress used to try to "earn" it. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader articulated the anger of many in his vehement public opposition to the raise. Our own representative, William F. Clinger, R-Warren, said he received more than 300 letters of complaint.

Subsequently, the outcry pressured Congress to vote on the issue, and ironically its members defeated the proposal.

Who says our voices don't count? In a system that was designed to be democratic, it is encouraging to see public opinion shaping the actions of our government.

Some members of Congress argued that leaving salaries at their current levels would lead to a decrease in the quality of candidates for national office. This reasoning falters by assuming only those who are lured by high salaries make qualified public servants. While these officials may need adequate compensation, they also need to receive it through an upfront system.

Although the actual dollars involved make up only a miniscule part of the budget, the raise also represented the worst kind of hypocrisy. Last November these congressmen stumped across the nation calling for swift, decisive action on the deficit. After the elections ended, they responded to an unnecessary expense with silent inaction.

With the rejection of this pay raise, Congress also rejected a raise for federal judges and allowed congressmen to continue accepting honoraria and speaking fees. These issues also need the consideration of a public debate, but by attaching them to the congressional pay raise, they never had that chance.

Our congressmen -- notably, Clinger, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sen. John Heinz, R-Pa. -- deserve some credit for joining the majority of their colleagues in rejecting the raise. However, the strongest praise belongs to those who spoke against the raise and set a fine example for making our elected leaders accountable to their constituents.