Pub. L. 90–206, title II, § 225(h)81 Stat. 644Pub. L. 99–190, § 135(d)99 Stat. 1322Pub. L. 101–194, title VII, § 701(f)103 Stat. 1765(, , ; , , ; , , .)
Editorial Notes
Amendments
Pub. L. 101–194section 1105(a) of title 31section 357 of this titlesection 356 of this title1989— amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: “The President shall include, in the budget next transmitted under by him to the Congress after the date of the submission of the report and recommendations of the Commission under , 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 .”
Pub. L. 99–190section 1105(a) of title 311985— inserted reference to , and struck out last sentence defining “budget”.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
section 220(a)(1) of Pub. L. 90–206section 3110 of Title 5Section effective , see , set out as a note under , Government Organization and Employees.
Commission’s First Report After , To Include Recommendation for Appropriate Salary for Members of Congress; Prohibition on Receipt of Honoraria
Pub. L. 98–63, title I, § 908(e)97 Stat. 338Pub. L. 102–90, title I, § 6(c)105 Stat. 451, , , which directed Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries to include in first report required to be submitted by it after , a recommendation for an appropriate salary for Members, which recommendation was to assume a prohibition on receipt of honoraria by Members, was repealed by , , .
Compensation and Emoluments of Attorney General
Pub. L. 94–289 Stat. 4section 5312 of Title 5, , , provided in part that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the Office of the Attorney General on and after , shall be those that on or after , attach to offices and positions at level I of the Executive Schedule ().
Executive Documents
Recommendations for Increases in Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries
Transmitted to Congress H.Doc. No. 101–21, Cong. Rec., vol. 135, pt. 1, p. 251,
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)1
Public Law 90–2062 U.S.C. 351et seqAs required by section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967, ( .), 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.
section 135 of Public Law 99–1902 U.S.C. 359The 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 [], 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 , 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.
section 225(h) of Public Law 90–20681 Stat. 6432 U.S.C. 356(A)Accordingly, pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 225(f) and ( and 644), as amended [–(D), 358] [this section]:
For the Vice President of the United States | $175,000 |
For offices and positions under the Executive Schedule in subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, as follows: |
|
Positions at level I | 155,000 |
Positions at level II | 135,000 |
Positions at level III | 125,000 |
Positions at level IV | 120,000 |
Positions at level V | 115,000 |
For the Speaker of the House of Representatives | 175,000 |
For the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, and majority leader and minority leader of the House of Representatives | 155,000 |
For Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, Delegates to the House of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico | 135,000 |
For other officers and positions in the legislative branch as follows: |
|
Comptroller General of the United States | 135,000 |
Deputy Comptroller General of the United States, Librarian of Congress, and Architect of the Capitol | 125,000 |
General Counsel of the General Accounting Office, Deputy Librarian of Congress, and Assistant Architect of the Capitol | 120,000 |
For Justices, judges, and other personnel in the judicial branch as follows: |
|
Chief Justice of the United States | 175,000 |
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court | 165,000 |
Judges: |
|
U.S. Courts of Appeals | 140,000 |
Court of Military Appeals | 140,000 |
U.S. District Courts | 135,000 |
Court of International Trade | 135,000 |
Tax Court of the United States | 135,000 |
U.S. Claims Court | 135,000 |
Sincerely,
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 .
Prior Salary Recommendations
101 Stat. 1967Pub. L. 100–6, § 3101 Stat. 94section 359 of this titleA prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries, which was transmitted to Congress on (52 F.R. 4125; ), was disapproved by , , . However, such recommendation became effective pursuant to .
A prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries, which was transmitted to Congress on (H.Doc. No. 97–6, Cong. Rec., vol. 127, pt. 1, p. 241, ), was disapproved by House Resolution No. 109, Ninety-sixth Congress, , Senate Resolution No. 89, Ninety-sixth Congress, , Senate Resolution No. 90, Ninety-sixth Congress, , Senate Resolution No. 91, Ninety-sixth Congress, , and Senate Resolution No. 92, Ninety-sixth Congress, .
91 Stat. 1643A prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries was transmitted to Congress on (42 F.R. 10297; ).
83 Stat. 863A prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries was transmitted to Congress on (34 F.R. 2241; ).