```

[House Document 110-78]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     

110th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 110-78

 
             AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY INCREASES

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

   AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY INCREASE PAYABLE TO CIVILIAN 
  FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE GENERAL SCHEDULE (GS) AND CERTAIN 
   OTHER PAY SYSTEMS IN JANUARY 2008, PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 5305(a)(3)

    December 11, 2007.--Referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
              Government Reform and ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                     Washington, November 27, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: I am transmitting an alternative plan 
for locality pay increases payable to civilian Federal 
employees covered by the General Schedule (GS) and certain 
other pay systems in January 2008.
    Under title 5, United States Code, civilian Federal 
employees covered by the GS and certain other pay systems would 
receive a two-part pay increase in January 2008: (1) a 2.5 
percent across-the-board adjustment in scheduled rates of basic 
pay derived from Employment Cost Index data on changes in the 
wages and salaries of private industry workers, and (2) 
locality pay adjustments averaging 12.5 percent based on Bureau 
of Labor Statistics salary surveys of non-Federal employers in 
each locality pay area. According to the statutory formula, for 
Federal employees covered by the locality pay system, the 
overall average pay increase would be about 15.0 percent.
    Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement an 
alternative locality pay plan if I view the adjustments 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 is appropriate to exercise my statutory alternative 
plan authority to set alternative January 2008 locality pay 
increases.
    A national emergency, within the meaning of chapter 53 of 
title 5, has existed since September 11, 2001. Full statutory 
civilian pay increases would cost $16.4 billion in 2008 alone. 
That amount exceeds by $12.7 billion the cost of a 3.0 percent 
overall Federal civilian pay increase that I proposed in my 
2008 Budget. Furthermore, the costs would grow at compounded 
rates in subsequent years. Such cost increases would force deep 
cuts in discretionary spending or Federal employment to stay 
within budget. Either outcome would unacceptably interfere with 
our Nation's ability to secure the homeland and pursue the war 
on terrorism.
    Accordingly, I have determined that under the authority of 
section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, locality-based 
comparability payments for the locality pay areas established 
by the President's Pay Agent, in the amounts set forth in the 
attached table, shall become effective on the first day of the 
first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 
2008. When compared with the payments currently in effect, 
these comparability payments will increase the General Schedule 
payroll by about 0.5 percent. When combined with the 2.5 
percent across-the-board increase, the 3.0 percent total 
increase equals the 12-month increase in overall nationwide 
labor costs as of September 2006 (the reference period for 
decisions about the January 2008 pay adjustment under current 
law). Our national situation precludes granting larger locality 
pay increases at this time.
    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. To 
the contrary, since any pay raise above the amount proposed in 
this alternative plan would likely be unfunded, agencies would 
have to absorb the additional cost and could have to freeze 
hiring to pay the higher rates. Moreover, the GS ``quit'' rate 
continues to be very low (2.1 percent on an annual basis), well 
below the overall average ``quit'' rate in private enterprise. 
Should the need arise, the Government has many compensation 
flexibilities, such as special salary rates and recruitment and 
retention incentives, to maintain the high quality workforce 
that serves our Nation.
            Sincerely,
                                                    George W. Bush.

     Alternative Plan for 2008 Locality-Based Comparability Payments

        Locality Pay Area                     Locality Payment (percent)
Atlanta--Sandy Springs--Gainesville, GA-AL........................ 16.59
Boston--Worcester--Manchester, MA-NH-RI-ME........................ 21.74
Buffalo--Niagara--Cattaraugus, NY................................. 14.76
Chicago--Naperville--Michigan City, IL-IN-WI...................... 22.47
Cincinnati--Middletown--Wilmington, OH-KY-IN...................... 17.57
Cleveland--Akron--Elyria, OH...................................... 16.53
Columbus--Marion--Chillicothe, OH................................. 15.40
Dallas--Fort Worth, TX............................................ 18.04
Dayton--Springfield--Greenville, OH............................... 14.76
Denver--Aurora--Boulder, CO....................................... 20.52
Detroit--Warren--Flint, MI........................................ 22.03
Hartford--West Hartford--Willimantic, CT-MA....................... 23.20
Houston--Baytown--Huntsville, TX.................................. 27.02
Huntsville--Decatur, AL........................................... 13.92
Indianapolis--Anderson--Columbus, IN.............................. 13.25
Los Angeles--Long Beach--Riverside, CA............................ 24.64
Miami--Fort Lauderdale--Pompano Beach, FL......................... 18.70
Milwaukee--Racine--Waukesha, WI................................... 16.13
Minneapolis--St. Paul--St. Cloud, MN-WI........................... 18.80
New York--Newark--Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA......................... 25.46
Philadelphia--Camden--Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD....................... 19.49
Phoenix--Mesa--Scottsdale, AZ..................................... 13.98
Pittsburgh--New Castle, PA........................................ 14.54
Portland--Vancouver--Beaverton, OR-WA............................. 18.17
Raleigh--Durham--Cary, NC......................................... 16.50
Richmond, VA...................................................... 14.90
Sacramento--Arden--Arcade--Yuba City, CA-NV....................... 19.62
San Diego--Carlsbad--San Marcos, CA............................... 21.17
San Jose--San Francisco--Oakland, CA.............................. 31.43
Seattle--Tacoma--Olympia, WA...................................... 19.16
Washington--Baltimore--Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA.......... 19.73
Rest of U.S....................................................... 12.91

                                  

```