2 U.S. Code § 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.

Source

(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. 101–194amended 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. 99–190inserted 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salary for Members, which recommendation was to assume a prohibition on receipt of honoraria by Members, was repealed by Pub.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).
Recommendations for Increases in Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries

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. 351et 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 ofPublic 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) andsection 225(h) ofPublic Law 90–206 (81 Stat. 643 and 644), as amended [2 U.S.C. 356 (A)–(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, 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.”
Prior Salary Recommendations

A prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries, which was transmitted to Congress on Jan. 5, 1987 (52 F.R. 4125; 101 Stat. 1967), was disapproved by Pub. L. 100–6, § 3,Feb. 12, 1987, 101 Stat. 94. However, such recommendation became effective pursuant to section 359 of this title.
A prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries, which was transmitted to Congress on Jan. 7, 1981 (H.Doc. No. 97–6, Cong. Rec., vol. 127, pt. 1, p. 241, Jan. 9, 1981), was 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.
A prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries was transmitted to Congress on Jan. 17, 1977 (42 F.R. 10297; 91 Stat. 1643).
A prior recommendation of the President for increases in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries was transmitted to Congress on Jan. 15, 1969 (34 F.R. 2241; 83 Stat. 863).

 

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.