[House Document 105-122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - House Document 105-122
ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE PAY ADJUSTMENTS
__________
COMMUNICATION
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE PAY ADJUSTMENTS, TO
TAKE EFFECT IN JANUARY 1998, PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 5305(c)(1)
September 3, 1997.--Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and ordered to be printed
The White House,
Washington, August 29, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am transmitting an alternative plan for
Federal civilian employee pay adjustments, to take effect in
January 1998.
Under title 5, United States Code, Federal civilian
employees would receive a two-part pay raise in January 1998:
(1) a 2.8 percent base salary raise linked to the part of the
Employment Cost Index (ECI) that deals with changes in the
wages and salaries of private industry workers; and (2) a
locality pay raise, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
salary surveys of nonfederal employers in local pay areas,
costing about 7.2 percent of payroll. Thus, on a cost-of-
payroll basis, the total Federal employee pay increase would be
about 10 percent in 1998.
But, for each part of the two-part pay increase, title 5
gives me the authority to implement an alternative pay
adjustment plan if I view the adjustment that would otherwise
take effect as inappropriate due to ``national emergency or
serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare.''
Over the past 20 years, Presidents have used this or similar
authority for most annual Federal pay raises.
In evaluating ``an economic condition affecting the general
welfare,'' the law 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.
In assessing Federal civilian pay increases for 1998, I
reviewed the indicators cited above as well as other pertinent
economic and budgetary factors--including the compatibility of
pay increases with the limits on Federal discretionary spending
under the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement.
The Budget Agreement continues the spending discipline that
my Administration initiated in 1993 and that has contributed to
sustained economic growth, low inflation and unemployment, and
a sharp cut in the budget deficit. Full statutory civilian pay
increases of 10 percent in 1998 are inconsistent with the task
of reaching balance by 2002. They would cost about $7.9 billion
in 1998 alone--$5.7 billion more than the 2.8 percent increase
I proposed in my fiscal 1998 Budget--and would build in later
years. Such cost increases either would threaten our achieving
balance by 2002, or force deep cuts in discretionary spending
or Federal employment to stay within spending targets. Neither
outcome is acceptable for maintaining the economic prosperity
of the American people.
Therefore, I have determined that my proposal for a total
civilian raise of 2.8 percent remains appropriate. This raise
matches the 2.8 percent basic pay increase that I proposed for
military members in my fiscal 1998 Budget, and that the
Congress will likely include in the 1998 defense authorization
bill.
Because many Federal civilian employees do not receive
locality pay, I will put the bulk of the 2.8 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:
(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 2.3 percent, effective
on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 1998.
(2) Under the authority of section 4304a 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,
1998. When compared with the payments now in effect,
these comparability payments will increase the General
Schedule payroll by about 0.5 percent.
Finally, the law requires that I include in this report an
assessment of the impact of my decisions 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 larger pay increase, I do not believe that
it will materially affect our ability to continue to attract
and retain a quality Federal work force.
Due to our continuing efforts to reinvent Government,
creating a Government that works better and costs less, the
number of Federal employees continues to fall; consequently,
hiring and attrition are low. In addition, should the need
arise, the Government has many 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
Comparability Payment Effective January 1998 \1\
Pay Locality (In percent)
Atlanta MSA....................................................... 6.18
Boston CMSA....................................................... 8.61
Chicago CMSA...................................................... 9.21
Cincinnati CMSA................................................... 7.71
Cleveland CMSA.................................................... 6.35
Columbus, OH, MSA................................................. 6.90
Dallas CMSA....................................................... 6.90
Dayton MSA........................................................ 6.19
Denver CMSA....................................................... 8.46
Detroit CMSA...................................................... 9.36
Hartford MSA \2\.................................................. 9.13
Houston CMSA...................................................... 11.96
Huntsville MSA.................................................... 5.84
Indianapolis MSA.................................................. 5.63
Kansas City MSA................................................... 6.06
Los Angeles CMSA \3\.............................................. 10.31
Miami CMSA........................................................ 7.86
Milwaukee CMSA.................................................... 6.19
Minneapolis MSA................................................... 7.32
New York CMSA..................................................... 9.76
Orlando MSA....................................................... 5.42
Philadelphia CMSA................................................. 7.67
Pittsburgh MSA.................................................... 6.21
Portland, OR, CMSA................................................ 7.17
Richmond MSA...................................................... 6.12
Sacramento CMSA................................................... 7.64
St. Louis MSA..................................................... 5.71
San Diego MSA..................................................... 7.94
San Francisco CMSA................................................ 12.06
Seattle CMSA...................................................... 7.34
Washington CMSA \4\............................................... 7.27
Rest of United States \5\......................................... 5.42
\1\ The comparability payment is a cumulative percentage, beginning with
the first comparability payments in 1994, applied to base salary to
calculate total pay. It is not the percentage increase in the
comparability payment over the previous rate.
\2\ Pay locality also includes that portion of New London County, CT,
not already part of the Hartford MSA.
\3\ Pay locality also includes Santa Barbara County and Edwards Air
Force Base, CA.
\4\ Pay locality also includes St. Marys County, MD.
\5\ 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 96-08, June
28, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------