[House Document 108-8]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 108-8
AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY INCREASES
__________
COMMUNICATION
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY INCREASES PAYABLE TO CIVILIAN
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY SYSTEM IN JANUARY
2003, PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 5305(a)(3)
January 7, 2003.--Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and
ordered to be printed
The White House,
Washington, November 27, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am transmitting an alternative plan for
locality pay increases payable to civilian Federal employees
covered by the General Schedule (GS) pay system in January
2003.
Under title 5, United States Code, civilian Federal
employees covered by the GS pay system would receive a two-part
pay increase in January 2003: (1) a 3.1 percent across-the-
board increase in scheduled GS rates of basic pay 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 increase based on Bureau of Labor Statistics'
salary surveys. For Federal employees covered by the locality
pay system, the overall average pay increase would be about
18.6 percent.
For each part of the two-part pay increase, title 5, United
States Code, authorizes me to implement an alternative pay 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.'' For the reasons
described below, I have determined that it would be appropriate
to exercise my statutory alternative plan authority to limit
the locality pay portion of the January 2003 GS pay increase.
A national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001.
Full statutory civilian pay increases in 2003 would interfere
with our Nation's ability to pursue the war on terrorism. They
would cost about $13.6 billion in 2003 alone--$11.2 billion
more than the 2.6 percent overall Federal civilian pay increase
I proposed in my 2003 Budget--and would build in later years.
Such cost increases would threaten our efforts against
terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or
Federal employment to stay within Budget. Neither outcome is
acceptable. Therefore, I have determined that a total pay
increase of 3.1 percent would be appropriate for GS employees
in January 2003.
Because 5 U.S.C. 5303 already mandates an across-the-board
GS pay increase of 3.1 percent in January 2003, GS locality-
based comparability payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304 must remain at
current levels. While my Administration remains committed to
the principle of adjusting civilian Federal pay rates in
keeping with changes in local labor market rates, our national
situation precludes granting larger pay increases to GS
employees at this time.
Accordingly, I have determined that:
(1) Under the authority of section 5303(a) of title
5, United States Code, the pay rates for each statutory
pay system will be increased by 3.1 percent, effective
on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 2003; and
(2) Under the authority of section 5304a of title 5,
United States Code, locality-based comparability
payments in the percentages set forth in the attached
table will remain in effect in 2003.
Finally, the law requires that I include in this report an
assessment of the impact of my decision on the Government's
ability to recruit and retain well-qualified employees. I do
not believe this decision will materially affect our ability to
continue to attract and retain a quality Federal workforce.
Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, is at 2.1
percent, well below the 3.1 percent across-the-board pay
increase already mandated by current law, and Federal quit
rates are at an all-time low of 2.1 percent per year, well
below the overall average quit rate in private enterprise.
Should the need arise, the Government has many compensation
tools, such as recruitment bonuses, retention allowances, and
special salary rates, to maintain the high-quality workforce
that serves our Nation so very well.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush.
Attachment.
Locality-Based Comparability Payments Under Alternative Plan
Locality payment
Locality Pay Area (in percent)
Atlanta, GA....................................................... 9.74
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT............................ 13.57
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI.................................... 14.58
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN..................................... 12.09
Cleveland-Akron, OH............................................... 10.33
Columbus, OH...................................................... 10.70
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX............................................. 10.90
Dayton-Springfield, OH............................................ 9.62
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO........................................ 13.34
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI....................................... 14.71
Hartford, CT...................................................... 14.11
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX.................................... 18.61
Huntsville, AL.................................................... 9.08
Indianapolis, IN.................................................. 8.85
Kansas City, MO-KS................................................ 9.28
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA........................... 16.05
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL......................................... 12.45
Milwaukee-Racine, WI.............................................. 10.05
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI....................................... 11.56
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA................... 15.23
Orlando, FL....................................................... 8.67
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD................ 12.11
Pittsburgh, PA.................................................... 9.52
Portland-Salem, OR-WA............................................. 11.64
Richmond-Petersburg, VA........................................... 9.67
Sacramento-Yolo, CA............................................... 11.99
St. Louis, MO-IL.................................................. 8.98
San Diego, CA..................................................... 12.70
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA................................ 19.04
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA...................................... 11.77
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV................................. 11.48
Rest of U.S....................................................... 8.64