§358. Recommendations of President with respect to pay

(1) After considering the report and recommendations of the Commission submitted under section 357 of this title, the President shall transmit to Congress his recommendations with respect to the exact rates of pay, for offices and positions within the purview of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 356 of this title, which the President considers to be fair and reasonable in light of the Commission's report and recommendations, the prevailing market value of the services rendered in the offices and positions involved, the overall economic condition of the country, and the fiscal condition of the Federal Government.

(2) The President shall transmit his recommendations under this section to Congress on the first Monday after January 3 of the first calendar year beginning after the date on which the Commission submits its report and recommendations to the President under section 357 of this title.

( Pub. L. 90–206, title II, §225(h), Dec. 16, 1967, 81 Stat. 644 ; Pub. L. 99–190, §135(d), Dec. 19, 1985, 99 Stat. 1322 ; Pub. L. 101–194, title VII, §701(f), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1765 .)

Amendments

1989-Pub. L. 101–194 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "The President shall include, in the budget next transmitted under section 1105(a) of title 31 by him to the Congress after the date of the submission of the report and recommendations of the Commission under section 357 of this title, his recommendations with respect to the exact rates of pay which he deems advisable, for those offices and positions within the purview of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 356 of this title."

1985-Pub. L. 99–190 inserted reference to section 1105(a) of title 31, and struck out last sentence defining "budget".

Commission's First Report After July 30, 1983, To Include Recommendation for Appropriate Salary for Members of Congress; Prohibition on Receipt of Honoraria

Pub. L. 98–63, title I, §908(e), July 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 338 , which directed Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries to include in first report required to be submitted by it after July 30, 1983, a recommendation for an appropriate salary for Members, which recommendation was to assume a prohibition on receipt of honoraria by Members, was repealed by Pub. L. 102–90, title I, §6(c), Aug. 14, 1991, 105 Stat. 451 .

Compensation and Emoluments of Attorney General

Pub. L. 94–2, Feb. 18, 1975, 89 Stat. 4 , provided in part that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the Office of the Attorney General on and after Feb. 4, 1975, shall be those that on or after Feb. 18, 1975, attach to offices and positions at level I of the Executive Schedule (section 5312 of Title 5).

Salary Recommendations for 1989 Increases

Transmitted to Congress Jan. 9, 1989

H.Doc. No. 101–21, Cong. Rec., vol. 135, pt. 1, p. 251, Jan. 19, 1989

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) ¹

As required by section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967, Public Law 90–206 (2 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the latest Quadrennial Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries ("Commission") has submitted to me recommendations on salaries for Senators, Representatives, Federal judges, Cabinet officers, and other agency heads, and certain other officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

The statute requires that, in the budget next submitted after receipt of the report of the Commission, I set forth recommendations for adjustment of these salaries. Pursuant to section 225(i), as amended by section 135 of Public Law 99–190 [2 U.S.C. 359], these recommendations will be effective unless Congress disapproves the recommendation by a joint resolution within 30 days following the transmittal of my budget.

The Commission's report, submitted to me on December 14, 1988, documented both the substantial erosion in the real level of Federal executive pay that has occurred since 1969 and the recruitment and retention problems that have resulted, especially for the Federal judiciary. The Commission is to be commended for its diligent and conscientious effort to address the complicated and complex problems associated with Federal pay levels.

The Commission found that Federal executives and legislators have experienced a decline of approximately 35 percent in real salaries since 1969. In contrast, the salaries of General Schedule employees have declined by only 8 percent over the same period. The Commission's recommendations go a long way towards compensating for this salary erosion, but they do not make up the full gap. For example, for an official at Executive Level II, which is also the Congressional salary rate, the salary level adjusted for inflation since 1969 would be $140,340, while the Commission's recommendation is $135,000.

Every one of the Commissions that has met over the past 20 years concluded that a pay increase for key Federal officials was necessary. Each Commission found that pay for senior Government officials fell far behind that of their counterparts in the private sector. They also surmised that we cannot afford a Government composed primarily of those wealthy enough to serve.

In accepting the Commission's salary recommendations, I recognize that we are under a mandate to reduce the Federal deficit and hold the costs of Government to an absolute minimum. Thus, while I have decided to propose a pay increase that accepts in full the salary recommendations made by the Commissioners in their report to me last month, this proposal will not increase the deficit; the funding for the pay increase will be fully absorbed within proposed budget levels.

This increase fulfills my promise made in January 1987, that, assuming continued progress toward eliminating the deficit and favorable economic conditions, I would recommend another step toward overcoming the erosion of real income.

While this represents a substantial increase in salaries, it is coupled with the salutary recommendation of a ban on receipt of all honoraria in all branches of Government. Although my recommendation concerning honoraria has no legal effect, I urge the swiftest possible consideration of this important reform. The Commission further recommended that Congress enact legislation to bar officials in the three branches from receiving honoraria. I endorse these recommendations of the Commission as an appropriate step toward better government. A salary increase and a prohibition on receipt of honoraria together will help ensure that the Government is able to attract and keep talented senior officials and that the questions that arise from outside payments of honoraria are put to rest.

Accordingly, pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 225(f) and section 225(h) of Public Law 90–206 (81 Stat. 643 and 644), as amended [2 U.S.C. 356(A)–(D), 358] [this section]:

        

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan.      

¹ Editorial note. This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, which were transmitted on January 9, 1989.

Disapproval of Salary Recommendations for 1989 Increases

Pub. L. 101–1, Feb. 7, 1989, 102 Stat. 3 , provided: "That the Congress disapproves in their entirety the recommendations transmitted to the Congress by the President on January 9, 1989, under section 225(h) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967."

Salary Recommendations for 1987 Increases

Transmitted to Congress Jan. 5, 1987

52 F.R. 4125; 101 Stat. 1967

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) ¹

As required by Section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967, Public Law 90–206, (2 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the latest Quadrennial Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries ("Quad Commission") has submitted to me recommendations on salaries for Senators, Representatives, Federal judges, Cabinet officers, and other agency heads, and certain other officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

The statute requires that, in the budget next submitted after receipt of the report of the Commission, I set forth recommendations for adjustment of these salaries. Pursuant to section 225(i), as amended by section 135 of Public Law 99–190 [2 U.S.C. 359], these recommendations will be effective unless Congress disapproves the recommendations by a joint resolution within 30 days following the transmittal of my budget.

As referred to in my Budget Message, I am recommending increases in executive level pay for offices and positions within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. The Quad Commission's report, submitted to me on December 15th, 1986, documented both the substantial erosion in the real level of Federal executive pay which has occurred since 1969 and the recruitment and retention problems that have resulted, especially for the Federal judiciary. The Commission found that Federal executives and legislators have experienced a decline of over 40 percent in real income since 1969. The Quad Commission is to be commended for its diligent and conscientious effort to address the complicated and complex problems associated with Federal pay levels.

Every one of the Quad Commissions that has met over the past 18 years concluded that a pay increase for key Federal officials was necessary. Each Commission found that pay for senior government officials fell far behind that of their counterparts in the private sector. They also surmised that we cannot afford a Government composed primarily of those wealthy enough to serve. Unfortunately, the last major Quad Commission pay adjustment was in 1977-a decade ago.

In considering the Quad Commission's recommendations, I recognize that we are under a mandate to reduce the Federal deficit and hold the costs of government to an absolute minimum. In this environment, I do not believe that we can overcome the erosion of real income since 1969 of these senior government officials in one step and thus do not believe it would be appropriate to fully implement the Quad Commission's recommendations at this time.

Accordingly, I have decided to propose a pay increase, but have cut substantially the recommendations made by the Quad Commissioners in their report to me last month. This increase is but the first step in addressing the loss of real income documented by the Quad Commission. In addition to this pay raise, I anticipate submitting another salary recommendation prior to leaving office-in response to the recommendations of the next Quad Commission, which will be appointed and will make its recommendations in 1988. While I cannot pre-judge those recommendations, assuming continued progress toward eliminating the deficit and favorable economic conditions, I would expect to recommend at that time another step toward overcoming that erosion of real income.

Moreover, I have decided to establish a Career Manager Pay Commission to review and report to me by next August on appropriate pay scales for our elite corps of career Government managers-those technically not included in the Quad Commission's mandate. The pay increases I am now proposing to Congress, together with responses to the recommendations of the new Career Manager Pay Commission and the next Quad Commission, are intended to constitute a significant advancement toward placing Government compensation on a fairer and more comparable footing.

Accordingly, pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) of subsection (f) of section 225(h) of Public Law 90–206 (81 Stat. 644) [2 U.S.C. 356(A)–(E), 358]:

        

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan.      

¹ Editorial note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, which were transmitted on January 5, 1987. The recommendations are effective at the beginning of the first day of the first pay period which begins for such office or position after the end of the thirty day period for congressional consideration (2 U.S.C. 359). The text is published in accordance with 2 U.S.C. 361.

² Editorial note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to William D. Ford, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and John Glenn, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

January 23, 1987

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you undoubtedly realize, the recommendations for Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries accompanying the Fiscal Year 1988 Budget erroneously included one category of position that is no longer directly subject to the quadrennial review process. Under section 1556 of Public Law 99–514, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Special Trial Judges of the Tax Court no longer have their pay set directly under the quadrennial review process, but are instead paid 90 percent of the salary paid to judges of the Tax Court, a position that does remain under the quadrennial review process. Thus, the inclusion of these positions in the report can be ignored since it was erroneous and of no force and effect.

Under the President's executive pay recommendations, the Tax Court Judges would be paid $89,500; the Tax Court's Special Trial Judges would consequently be paid $80,550, rather than the amount shown in the executive pay message ($72,500).

Sincerely yours,

James C. Miller III,

Director.

Disapproval of Salary Recommendations for 1987 Increases

Pub. L. 100–6, §3, Feb. 12, 1987, 101 Stat. 94 , provided that: "The recommendations of the President relating to rates of pay for offices and positions within the purview of section 225(f) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 [2 U.S.C. 356], as included (pursuant to section 225(h) of such Act [2 U.S.C. 358]) in the budget transmitted to the Congress for fiscal year 1988, are disapproved."

[The recommendations became effective pursuant to section 359 of this title.]

Salary Recommendations for 1981 Increases

Transmitted to Congress Jan. 7, 1981

H.Doc. No. 97–6, Cong. Rec., vol. 127, pt. 1, p. 241, Jan. 9, 1981

To the Congress of the United States:

If the Federal Government is to meet successfully the enormous challenges it faces in these difficult times, it must be able to attract and retain men and women of outstanding ability and experience for its highest posts.

Monetary awards are not the principal attractions offered by the public service, and complete parity with private sector salaries is neither desirable nor possible. Those who serve at the highest levels of the Federal Government expect and are willing to make some financial sacrifice to serve their country. Nevertheless, compensation levels today have fallen below the point at which they provide adequate monetary recognition of the complexity and importance of top Federal jobs.

The financial sacrifice demanded of top Federal officials is becoming far too great. Since the last quadrennial adjustment in 1977, the salaries of those officials have increased only 5.5 percent. During that same period, the CPI has risen by about 45 percent, which means that the purchasing power of these salaries has declined by about 28 percent.

I fully recognize that the salaries already being paid these officials look very large to the average taxpayer. But when we are seeking to fill an Assistant Secretary position, a Bureau Chief position, or one of the other top level policymaking positions in the Executive Branch, we want people who know the specialized field involved and who have had extensive experience and success in it. Usually, these people are already being highly paid, and there is a limit to the financial sacrifices they can afford to make.

Not only is the discrepancy between private sector executive pay large now; it is continuing to widen. Since 1977, for example, while Federal executive pay has risen only 5.5 percent, private sector executive pay has gone up about 25 percent. If this gap continues to widen, government service will be so unattractive that increasing numbers of the best qualified will refuse to serve.

These observations apply equally to the selection of judges. The Federal judiciary has traditionally drawn a substantial number of appointees from the top echelons of the legal profession. These individuals are mature, experienced, and often at the height of their career earnings. When they become judges, it is usually at a financial sacrifice. If the sacrifice we ask becomes too great, increasing numbers of those best qualified will refuse consideration for appointment. The Attorney General tells me we are already receiving many declinations from lawyers of the quality we desire. We must not allow that trend to accelerate.

In addition to the recruiting problem, there are important considerations of retention and of equity. Resignations from the Federal bench show a disturbing tendency: only seven Federal judges resigned in the 1950's, and eight in the 1960's; but 24 resigned in the 1970's. Three resigned in 1980 alone.

The Constitution wisely provided that Federal judges would be appointed for life. The founders believed, and experience has confirmed, that lifetime service enhances the integrity and independence of a judge's performance. It also strengthens public confidence that judges possess these qualities, and increases public respect for their decisions. When lifetime judges leave the bench because of inadequate salaries, the public loses more than their experience and efficiency. The public also loses the confidence in the judicial process that is central to the success of our Constitutional system.

Obviously, many judges will not leave the bench even for the much larger salaries they could earn by returning to private practice. But the devotion of these judges should not be rewarded by unfair treatment. Something must be done to encourage and reward continuous judicial service.

Turning now to career executives, you know that Executive Levels IV and V [5 U.S.C. 5315 and 5316] are by law the ceiling for career salaries. You know also that General Schedule salaries have risen by 31.9 percent over the period in which executive salaries rose by only 5.5 percent. As a result, more and more GS employees each year reach the executive pay ceiling.

Consequently, we now have a salary system in which up to seven levels of career executives and managers are all receiving the same pay. Career executives who are promoted to more responsible and demanding positions often receive no pay increase whatsoever to compensate them for taking on heavier responsibilities. Agencies with field organizations, which need to advance successful managers from district offices to regional offices to headquarters offices find it increasingly difficult to persuade capable employees to move their families for "promotions" that carry no pay increase.

One result of this compression is that many experienced and valuable career executives are retiring as quickly as they become eligible for retirement. For the twelve month period ending last March, a startling 75 percent of career executives in the 55–59 age bracket who were at the executive pay ceiling and were eligible to retire, did so. The result is that talented, experienced and creative public servants are leaving when they are of maximum value to their agencies. Unless these trends are reversed, the nation cannot expect to retain a high quality senior career group.

Congress shares many of these salary problems. We all know that people do not run for office because of the salaries involved, and that many people would run for Congress even if the members drew no pay at all. But it is of vital importance to have Congressional salaries high enough to attract a broad range of people, including those who want their families to enjoy the same standard of living they would if they were carrying even moderately comparable responsibilities in other occupations.

Congressional salaries have experienced the same loss of purchasing power as those already discussed. Yet, Congressmen face even greater expense than the other groups because they must maintain two residences and have other expenses stemming from their unique responsibilities. So they, too, need pay increases.

As the law provides, a Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries has considered these and related salary issues. This Commission, which was composed of distinguished private citizens with no selfish interests in Federal pay scales, made the findings I have summarized above. To correct them, it has unanimously recommended salary increases averaging about 40 percent.

I have no doubt that the facts fully justify those recommendations. Nevertheless, I continue to be concerned that we balance compensation needs against Federal Government leadership in fighting inflation and in minimizing the overall costs of government. Consequently, I am recommending to you in my budget for fiscal year 1982 that smaller increases be allowed at this time, but-just as importantly-that we commit ourselves to allowing future increases annually to prevent these salary problems from continuing to worsen.

As you know, General Schedule employees received increases in fiscal year 1979 and fiscal year 1980 that totaled 16.8 percent. By operation of Public Law 94–82 [see Short Title of 1975 Amendment note set out under 5 U.S.C. 5312], the legal salaries of top level officials also increased by these same amounts. Congress, with my concurrence, enacted appropriation language that temporarily prohibited the payment of those increases to the top officials. Consequently, their payable salaries are now 16.8 percent below their legal salaries. Several judges sued over the application of that appropriation limitation to the judiciary and recently won a Supreme Court decision that means many judges will receive the 16.8 percent in question.

I believe the least we can do at this point is to give the Executive and Legislative branch officials the 16.8 percent already received by most General Schedule employees and already won by the judges. Just as important as the immediate increase, however, is adoption of the principle that we will allow whatever increase is granted General Schedule employees in October of 1981 and in subsequent years to be paid also to the top level officials, as Public Law 94–82 [see Short Title of 1975 Amendment note set out under 5 U.S.C. 5312] provides. Only by following this principle can we prevent the salary muddle from becoming worse every year. Experience has shown that if we wait four years to make salary adjustments in a time of rapid inflation, the needed catch-up will be so large as to be unacceptable to out [our] citizens.

Because the case for a significant increase in the salaries of Federal judges is especially strong, I urge also that Congress give consideration to a salary scale for judges that would explicitly recognize the public importance of continuous judicial service; for example, by an annual or periodic increase for longevity in addition to the cost of living adjustments that are made from time to time.

In addition, I urge that Congress give careful consideration to the five non-salary recommendations made by the Commission, especially their proposal for a special two year study of the complex and harmful compensation problems that now exist.

The Commission concluded that the conditions I have outlined constitute ". . . a quiet crisis, unperceived by most citizens of the nation but requiring an immediate response by the President and the Congress to safeguard the high quality of its senior officials." I agree with that conclusion and urge you to act favorably upon my recommendations. President-elect Reagan has authorized me to say that he fully supports these recommendations.

Public Law 95–16 [probably should be 95–19, title IV, §401(a), Apr. 12, 1977, 91 Stat. 45, which amended section 356 of this title] provides that each House must within 60 days conduct a separate recorded vote on my recommendations for each branch of government. In addition, if you wish to accept my recommendation to make the current legal rates payable now, you should amend section 101(c) of Public Law 96–536 [Dec. 16, 1980, 94 Stat. 3167] accordingly.

In the event that you decide you do not wish to approve increases for your own Members, I strongly urge that you allow them for officials of the Executive and Judicial branches. The gravity of the "quiet crisis" those branches face requires you to do no less.

Jimmy Carter.      

Disapproval of Salary Recommendations for 1981 Increases

The recommendations of the President for salary increases were disapproved by House Resolution No. 109, Ninety-sixth Congress, Mar. 12, 1981, Senate Resolution No. 89, Ninety-sixth Congress, Mar. 12, 1981, Senate Resolution No. 90, Ninety-sixth Congress, Mar. 12, 1981, Senate Resolution No. 91, Ninety-sixth Congress, Mar. 12, 1981, and Senate Resolution No. 92, Ninety-sixth Congress, Mar. 12, 1981.

Salary Recommendations for 1977 Increases

Transmitted to Congress Jan. 17, 1977

42 F.R. 10297; 91 Stat. 1643

As required by section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967, Public Law 90–206 (2 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries has submitted to the President recommendations on salaries for Senators, Representatives, Federal judges, Cabinet officers, and other agency heads, and certain other officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

The statute requires the President, in the budget next submitted by him after receipt of the report of the Commission, to set forth his recommendations for adjustment of these salaries. Under the statute, the President's recommendations become effective 30 days following transmittal of the budget, unless in the meantime other rates have been enacted by law or at least one House of Congress has enacted legislation which specifically disapproves all or part of the recommendations.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 225(h) of Public Law 90–206 (81 Stat. 644) [2 U.S.C. 358], the President recommends the following rates of pay for executive, legislative, and judicial offices and positions within the purview of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of subsection (f) of that section [2 U.S.C. 356(A)–(D)]:

        

Salary Recommendations for 1969 Increases

Transmitted to Congress Jan. 15, 1969

34 F.R. 2241; 83 Stat. 863

Public Law 90–206, approved December 16, 1967 [this chapter], established the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries. The Commission is required to make recommendations to the President, at 4-year intervals, on the rates of pay for Senators, Representatives, Federal judges, Cabinet officers and other agency heads, and certain other officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The law requires that the President, in the budget next submitted by him after receipt of a report of the Commission, set forth his recommendations with respect to the exact rates of pay he deems advisable for those offices and positions covered by the law. The President's recommendations become effective 30 days following transmittal of the budget, unless in the meantime other rates have been enacted by law or at least one House of Congress has enacted legislation which specifically disapproves of all or part of the recommendations.

At the request of the President, the first report of the Commission was submitted to him in December 1968. The report has been considered by the President and, in accordance with section 225(h) of Public Law 90–206, approved December 16, 1967, 81 Stat. 644 [this section], the President recommends the following rates of pay for executive, legislative, and judicial offices and positions within the purview of subsection (f) of that section:

        

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 359, 360, 362 of this title.