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”.

Section effective Dec. 16, 1967, see section 220(a)(1) of Pub. L. 90–206, set out as a note under section 3110 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

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salary for Members, which recommendation was to assume a prohibition on receipt of honoraria by Members, was repealed by Pub.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.

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).

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,

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.