[House Document 104-111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House
Document 104-111
FEDERAL PAY ADJUSTMENT--ALTERNATIVE PLAN
__________
COMMUNICATION
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR A FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' PAY ADJUSTMENT TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FIRST APPLICABLE PAY PERIOD ON OR
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1996, PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 5305(c)(1)
September 6, 1995--Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and ordered to be printed
The White House,
Washington, August 31, 1995.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The law requires that the President
transmit to the Congress an alternative plan for Federal pay
adjustments if he views the pay adjustments that would take
effect under the law as inappropriate. Therefore, to ensure
that substantially larger increases do not take effect
automatically, I am transmitting an alternative plan for the
1996 pay adjustments.
Under section 5303(a) of title 5, United States Code, the
rates of basic pay would rise by 2.4 percent, effective in
January 1996. In addition, pursuant to section 5304 of title 5,
General Schedule employees also would receive an increase in
their locality-based comparability payments that would cost 2.7
percent of payroll. When combined with the 2.4 percent basic
pay increase, the locality-based payments would produce a total
payroll increase of about 5.1 percent that would cost $3.9
billion in 1996--$2 billion more than the 2.4 percent pay
increase I proposed in my 1996 Budget and which is included in
my Balanced Budget Plan.
Sections 5303(b) and 5304a of title 5, however, provide me
the authority to implement an alternate pay adjustment plan if
I view the pay adjustments that would otherwise take effect as
inappropriate due to ``national emergency or serious economic
conditions affecting the general welfare.'' As you know,
Presidents have used such authority many times over the past 15
years.
In evaluating ``an economic condition affecting the general
welfare,'' the statute directs me to consider such economic
measures as the Index of Leading Economic Indicators, the Gross
National Product, the unemployment rate, the budget deficit,
the Consumer Price Index, the Producer Price Index, the
Employment Cost Index, and the Implicit Price Deflator for
Personal Consumption Expenditures. I have reviewed these and
other pertinent measures of our economy.
The budget discipline that my Administration has put in
place has contributed to sustained economic growth and low
inflation. To continue this discipline and its favorable impact
on economic conditions, I have determined that an alternative
pay adjustment of 2.4 percent is appropriate for the 1996 pay
raises under sections 5303 and 5304. This raise matches the 2.4
percent basic pay increase that I proposed for military members
in my fiscal 1996 Budget and that the Congress likely will
include in the 1996 Defense Authorization bill.
Because many Federal civilian employees do not receive
locality pay, I will put the bulk of the 2.4 percent adjustment
into the general increase under section 5303, thus giving all
employees a meaningful raise. I will apply the remainder to
increasing the locality-based comparability payments under
section 5304.
Accordingly, I have determined that the following alternate
pay plan is appropriate:
(1) Under the authority of section 5303(b) of title
5, United States Code, the pay rates for each statutory
pay system shall be increased by 2 percent, effective
on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 1996.
(2) Under the authority of section 5304a of title 5,
United States Code, locality-based comparability
payments in the amounts set forth on the attached table
shall be effective on the first day of the first
applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1,
1996. When compared with the payments currently in
effect, these comparability payments will increase the
General Schedule payroll by about 0.4 percent.
Finally, the law requires that I include in this report on
assessment of the impact that my decisions will have on the
Government's ability to recruit and retain well-qualified
employees. while I regret that our fiscal situation does not
permit granting Federal employees a pay increase greater than
2.4 percent, I do not believe this will have any material
impact on the quality of our work force. In accordance with the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, I am committed to
reducing Government employment substantially; consequently,
hiring and attrition are very low. In addition, the Government
has at hand many pay tools, such as recruitment bonuses,
retention allowances, and special salary rates, to maintain the
high quality work force that serves our Nation so very well.
Sincerely,
William J. Clinton.
LOCALITY-BASED COMPARABILITY PAYMENTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE PLAN
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparability Increase
payment over
Pay locality effective January
January 1996 1995 rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta MSA................................. 5.14 0.48
Boston CMSA................................. 7.68 0.71
Chicago CMSA................................ 7.63 0.71
Cincinnati CMSA............................. 5.87 0.54
Cleveland CMSA.............................. 4.67 0.44
Columbus, OH, MSA........................... 5.84 0.54
Dallas CMSA................................. 6.23 0.58
Dayton MSA.................................. 5.72 0.53
Denver CMSA................................. 6.34 0.59
Detroit CMSA................................ 7.26 0.67
Houston CMSA................................ 9.40 0.87
Huntsville MSA.............................. 4.84 0.45
Indianapolis MSA............................ 5.04 0.46
Kansas City MSA............................. 4.38 0.41
Los Angeles CMSA \1\........................ 8.15 0.76
Miami CMSA.................................. 5.94 0.55
New York CMSA............................... 8.05 0.75
Philadelphia CMSA........................... 6.90 0.64
Portland, OR, CMSA.......................... 5.20 0.49
Richmond MSA................................ 4.41 0.41
Sacramento CMSA............................. 5.81 0.54
St. Louis MSA............................... 4.72 0.44
San Diego MSA............................... 6.76 0.62
San Francisco CMSA.......................... 8.97 0.83
Seattle CMSA................................ 6.44 0.60
Washington CMSA \2\......................... 6.04 0.56
Rest of United States \3\................... 4.13 0.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pay locality also includes Santa Barbara County and Edwards Air
Force Base, CA.
\2\ Pay locality also includes St. Marys County, MD.
\3\ Does not include Alaska, Hawaii, or U.S. territories or possessions.
NOTE: MSA means Metropolitan Statistical Area and CMSA means
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, both as defined by the
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] in OMB Bulletin Number 95-04,
June 30, 1995.