GAO-06-708 

HUMAN CAPITAL

Trends in Executive 

and Judicial Pay 

June 2006 

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on the Federal Workforce and Agency 

Organization, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

HUMAN CAPITAL

Trends in Executive and Judicial Pay 

Highlights of GAO-06-708, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Federal 

Workforce and Agency Organization, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

Critical to the success of the 

federal government’s 

transformation are its people—

human capital. Yet, the government

has not transformed, in many 

cases, how it classifies, 

compensates, develops, and 

motivates its employees to achieve

maximum results within available 

resources and existing authorities.

GAO has reported that the federal 

government as a whole may face 

challenges in offering competitive

compensation to its senior leaders 

who have reached a statutory pay 

cap. 

As requested, GAO (1) provided 

trend data for basic pay rates of

selected federal executive and 

judicial pay plans from 1970 to

2006, (2) identified elements of

total compensation for the selected

pay plans in 2006, and (3) identified 

principles for any possible 

restructuring of these pay plans. 

We selected 1970 as a baseline

because salary increases went into

effect in 1969 for executive-level 

positions as recommended by the 

Commission on Executive,

Legislative, and Judicial Salaries.

The pay plans cover the

following—career Senior Executive

Service (SES), administrative law 

judges (ALJ), senior-level (SL),

Executive Schedule (EX), scientific 

or professional (ST), and members

of Boards of Contract Appeals 

(BCA), as well as federal justices 

and judges—the Chief Justice, 

associate justices, circuit judges, 

district judges, and judges of the 

U.S. Court of International Trade. 

The basic pay rates for all of the selected federal pay plans increased in 

nominal dollars from 1970 to 2006. However, when adjusted for inflation to 

2006 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product price deflator, the pay rates 

for those under the EX pay plan and the federal justices and judges 

decreased and the pay rates for the SES, SL/ST, and ALJ positions increased. 

For example, in 1970, cabinet secretaries were paid $250,204 (in 2006 

dollars) compared to $183,500 in 2006. Their pay actually declined in value

by about 27 percent during this period. In 1970, ALJs were paid $148,058 (in 

2006 dollars) compared to $152,000 in 2006. Their pay increased in value by 3 

percent during this period. In comparison, when adjusted for inflation to 

2006 dollars using the Consumer Price Index, the pay rates for all of the 

selected pay plans decreased. For example, pay actually declined in value for

cabinet secretaries and ALJs by 41 percent and 17 percent, respectively. 

The elements of total compensation vary among the selected pay plans. For

example, SES and SL/ST positions may receive cash awards/bonuses, while,

at present, selected EX positions, ALJs, BCA positions, and federal justices 

and judges do not due to the nature of the positions. All of the positions 

within the selected pay plans may receive noncash or deferred benefits, such 

as health and life insurance, retirement, and access to child care facilities. 

However, there are differences in retirement, such as larger benefits, for 

federal justices and judges compared to other executive-level positions. 

Regarding any possible restructuring of these pay plans, certain principles

should be considered to attract and retain the executive leadership 

necessary to address 21st century challenges. The pay plans should be 

• sensitive to hiring and retention trends; 

• reflective of responsibilities, knowledge and skills, and contributions; 

• transparent; 

• market-sensitive; 

• flexible to economic change; 

• sustainable; and 

• competitive. 

Going forward, there are several illustrative issues that deserve further 

reconsideration—maintaining a reasonable relationship in total 

compensation across executive-level positions; recognizing equity issues in 

the basic pay rates within the same position, such as inspectors general; 

considering performance-based bonuses with appropriate safeguards for 

positions that do not receive them including selected EX positions, ALJs,

BCA positions, and federal justices and judges; and recognizing anomalies 

between comparable pay plans, such as SES and SL/ST, in terms of basic pay 

caps, as well as aggregate pay (basic pay plus cash awards/bonuses). 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-708.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Lisa Shames at 

(202) 512-6806 or shamesl@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Observations 6

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 9 

Appendix II Briefing Slides 12 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43 

Figure 

Figure 1: Percentage Differences in Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted 

Basic Pay Rates for the Selected Pay Plans from 1970 to 

2006 4

Page i GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Abbreviations 

ALJ administrative law judge

BCA Board of Contract Appeals 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CPDF Central Personnel Data File 

CPI Consumer Price Index 

EX Executive Schedule 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GS General Schedule 

IG inspector general 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

PA Presidential appointment 

PAS Presidential appointment subject to Senate confirmation 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SL senior-level

ST scientific or professional 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 21, 2006 

The Honorable Jon C. Porter 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce 

and Agency Organization 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In order to respond to an array of governance and fiscal challenges in the 

21st century, the federal government must have the institutional capacity

to plan more strategically, react more expeditiously, and focus on 

achieving results. Critical to the success of this transformation are the 

federal government’s people—its human capital. We have commended the 

progress that has been made in addressing human capital challenges in the

last few years. Still, significant opportunities exist to improve strategic 

human capital management to respond to current and emerging 21st 

century challenges. For example, the government has not transformed, in 

many cases, how it classifies, compensates, develops, and motivates its 

employees to achieve maximum results within available resources and 

existing authorities.1

Further, leading organizations understand that they need senior leaders 

who are drivers of continuous improvement and stimulate and support 

efforts to facilitate change and achieve related transformation efforts. We 

have reported that the federal government as a whole may face challenges

in offering competitive compensation to its senior leaders.2 In 2003, about 

70 percent of Senior Executive Service (SES) members received the same

basic pay due to compression—when their pay reached a statutory cap. 

The SES performance-based pay system, implemented in 2004, provided

an interim solution to this issue of pay compression creating a single, 

open-range pay band and allowing agencies to increase the basic pay cap

 1

GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, 

GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005). 

2

GAO, Human Capital: Symposium on Designing and Managing Market-Based and More

Performance-Oriented Pay Systems, GAO-05-832SP (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2005). 

Page 1 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
for their senior executives upon certification of their performance 

management systems by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with 

concurrence from the Office of Management and Budget. 

The second National Commission on the Public Service has reported that 

the salaries for top-level government officials—such as political 

appointees, SES members, and federal justices and judges—have not been 

keeping pace with inflation or maintaining reasonable relationships to the 

market. In 2003, the Commission recommended that top-level officials in

the executive, legislative, and judicial branches receive significant 

increases in their salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to relevant 

professional positions, such as leaders in not-for-profit and educational 

organizations or state and local governments.3

At your request, our objectives were to (1) provide trend data for basic pay 

rates of selected federal executive and judicial pay plans from 1970 to 

2006, (2) identify elements of total compensation for the selected pay 

plans in 2006, and (3) identify principles for any possible restructuring of 

these pay plans. These pay plans cover the following: career SES, 

administrative law judges (ALJ), senior-level (SL), Executive Schedule

(EX) levels I to V, scientific or professional (ST), and members of Boards 

of Contract Appeals (BCA), as well as the federal justices and judges from 

courts under Article III of the Constitution of the United States—the Chief 

Justice, associate justices, circuit judges, district judges, and judges of the

United States Court of International Trade. For the first objective, as a 

point of comparison, we also included the basic pay rates for the General 

Schedule (GS) grade 15, step 10, position. We provided the basic pay rates

for every 10 years starting with 1970. We selected 1970 as a baseline 

because salary increases went into effect in 1969 for EX positions, federal 

justices and judges, and other top-level government officials as 

recommended by the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial 

Salaries. For additional information on our objectives, scope, and 

methodology, see appendix I. On March 8, 2006, we briefed your staff on 

our review. The purpose of this report is to transmit the briefing slides 

(see app. II) and the additional analyses that you requested at that time as 

a result of the briefing. We performed our work from February through 

 3

The National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America: 

Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: January

2003). 

Page 2 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

The basic pay rates for all of the selected federal pay plans increased in 

nominal dollars from 1970 to 2006. However, when adjusted for inflation to

2006 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) price deflator, the 

pay rates for those under the EX pay plan and the federal justices and 

judges decreased and the pay rates for the SES, SL/ST, and ALJ positions 

increased, as shown in figure 1.4

 For example, in 1970, EX-level I positions 

(e.g., cabinet secretaries) were paid $250,204 (in 2006 dollars) compared to

$183,500 in 2006—a decrease of about 27 percent. In other words, the pay 

for EX-level I positions actually declined in value by about 27 percent from

1970 to 2006, despite an increase in nominal dollars of about 206 percent. 

On the other hand, the inflation-adjusted pay rates for SES, ALJs, SL/ST, 

and BCA positions increased from 1970 to 2006. In 1970, ALJs were paid 

$148,058 (in 2006 dollars) compared to $152,000 in 2006—an increase of 

about 3 percent during this time period. In addition, the inflation-adjusted

pay rates for the district and circuit judges and judges of the U.S. Court of 

International Trade stayed about the same—decreasing by about 1 percent 

during this time period. In comparison, when adjusted for inflation to 2006

dollars using the CPI, the pay rates for all of the selected pay plans 

decreased. For example, pay actually declined in value for cabinet 

secretaries and ALJs by 41 percent and 17 percent, respectively. 

Results in Brief 

 4

We adjusted the basic pay rates from the selected pay plans to calendar year 2006 dollars

using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s GDP price deflator and the Bureau of Labor

Statistics’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). From 1970 to 2006, the CPI has increased at an

average annual rate of 4.7 percent, whereas the GDP price deflator has increased at an 

annual average rate of 4.0 percent. See appendix I for more information on these indexes. 

Page 3 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Figure 1: Percentage Differences in Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Basic Pay Rates for the Selected Pay Plans from 1970 to

2006 

Executive Schedule—level I (e.g., cabinet

secretaries) $60,000 $250,204 $309,049 $183,500 206 (27) (41)

Executive Schedule—level II (e.g., deputy

secretaries, Senators, and Members of the

House of Representatives) 42,500 177,228 218,910 165,200 289 (7) (25)

Executive Schedule—level III (e.g.,

undersecretaries and deputies of most

agencies) 40,000 166,802 206,033 152,000 280 (9) (26)

Executive Schedule—level IV (e.g.,

selected inspectors general, chief financial

and information officers) 38,000 158,462 195,731 143,000 276 (10) (27)

Executive Schedule—level V (e.g.,

commissioners, associate directors) 36,000 150,122 185,429 133,900 272 (11) (28)

Senior Executive Service—for agencies

with performance management systems

that are not certified 35,505 148,058 182,880 152,000 328 3 (17) 

Senior Executive Service—for agencies

with certified performance management

systems 35,505 148,058 182,880 165,200 365 12 (10)

Senior-level/scientific or professional 35,505 148,058 182,880 152,000 328 3 (17)

Administrative law judges 35,505 148,058 182,880 152,000 328 3 (17)

Members of Boards of Contract Appeals 29,752 124,068 153,247 152,000 411 23 (1)

General Schedule grade 15, step 10 29,752 124,068 153,247 139,774 370 13 (9)

Chief Justice 62,500 260,629 321,926 212,100 239 (19) (34)

Associate justices 60,000 250,204 309,049 203,000 238 (19) (34)

Circuit judges 42,500 177,228 218,910 175,100 312 (1) (20)

District judges 40,000 166,802 206,033 165,200 313 (1) (20)

Judges of the U.S. Court of

International Trade 40,000 166,802 206,033 165,200 313 (1) (20)

Executive-level

positions within the

selected pay plans Nominal

Inflationadjusted

(GDP)

Inflationadjusted

(CPI) Nominal

Inflationadjusted

(GDP)

Inflationadjusted

(CPI)

Nominal/

Inflation-adjusted

(GDP and CPI)

Source: GAO.

1970—Pay rates

(in dollars)

2006—Pay rates

(in dollars)

Percentage differences from

1970 to 2006

Notes: We provided the maximum basic pay rates for SES, SL/ST, ALJ, and BCA positions and 

included locality pay for the Washington, D.C./Baltimore area in the basic pay rates for the SL/ST,

ALJ, BCA, and GS-15, step 10, positions in 2006. While we only included basic pay rates, SES, 

SL/ST, and GS-15, step 10, positions are eligible for cash awards/bonuses. 

Page 4 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Total compensation includes elements such as cash (e.g., locality pay, cash 

awards/bonuses), noncash benefits (e.g., annual and sick leave, health 

insurance), and deferred benefits (e.g., retirement, life insurance). 

Importantly, our analysis of the elements of total compensation centered

on those elements that are authorized by statute for each pay plan. The

specific application of each element will differ based on an individual’s 

choice (e.g., to use child care facilities or purchase life insurance), each 

agency’s program decision (e.g., to participate in the student loan 

repayment program), and differences across pay plans. For the executivelevel positions, the elements of total compensation vary within and across 

the selected pay plans in 2006. For example, SES and SL/ST positions may 

receive cash awards/bonuses, while selected EX positions that are 

appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation, ALJs, BCA 

positions, and federal justices and judges, at present, do not receive cash 

awards/bonuses due to the nature of the positions. Also, EX positions that 

are appointed by the President (with or without Senate confirmation) may 

not receive any outside earned income from teaching, writing, speaking, or 

other activities, while other EX positions may receive outside earned 

income, subject to certain limitations. Federal justices and judges may 

receive income from teaching subject to certain limitations. 

All of the positions within the selected pay plans may receive noncash or 

deferred benefits, such as health and life insurance, retirement, and access 

to child care facilities. However, there are differences in retirement, such 

as larger benefits, for federal justices and judges compared to other 

executive-level positions. While we did not determine the balance of total

compensation between pay and benefits within and across the executivelevel pay plans, federal civilian employees received, in broad terms, most 

of their compensation—about 67 percent—in salary and wages and about

33 percent in the form of benefits or deferred compensation.5

 For workers 

in private industries, we recently reported that their wages made up 71 

percent of total compensation, while benefits accounted for 29 percent.6

Regarding any possible restructuring of executive-level pay plans, certain

principles should be considered to attract and retain the quality and

 5

GAO, Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Improve the Transparency and Reassess the 

Reasonableness, Appropriateness, Affordability, and Sustainability of Its Military

Compensation System, GAO-05-798 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2005). 

6

GAO, Employee Compensation: Employer Spending on Benefits Has Grown Faster Than

Wages, Due Largely to Rising Costs for Health Insurance and Retirement Benefits, 

GAO-06-285 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2006). 

Page 5 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
quantity of executive leadership necessary to address 21st century 

challenges. Executive-level pay plans should be 

• sensitive to hiring and retention trends—actual trends, such as 

demographic, workforce, and economic trends and their effects on the 

federal government’s ability to hire and retain high-quality persons for 

these positions are considered; 

• reflective of responsibilities, knowledge and skills, and 

contributions—the positions vary both within and across executive-level

pay plans; 

• transparent—Congress, leadership, and the public can easily understand 

the value of the compensation and contributions; 

• market-sensitive—the compensation of the relevant markets (e.g., 

private or nonprofit sectors) is appropriately considered; 

• flexible to economic change—changes in the nation’s economy, such as

extraordinary economic circumstances or severe budgetary constraints, 

can be accommodated; 

• sustainable—over the longer term, given known cost trends and risks 

and future fiscal imbalances, executive-level pay plans are financially 

sustainable; and 

• competitive—reasonable total compensation and other elements 

necessary to attract and retain leadership can help ensure the optimum 

use of taxpayers’ dollars and make the most efficient allocation between 

cash and noncash benefits. 

While the types of experiences, responsibilities, and required knowledge 

and skills vary both within and across the executive-level positions, as 

well as the type of appointment and length of service, there are several 

illustrative issues that deserve further reconsideration. 

Observations 

• Maintaining a reasonable relationship across executive-level 

positions. As discussed earlier, we and others have reported on 

challenges in offering competitive compensation to executive and judicial

positions. A commission may be an option for exploring ways to maintain 

a reasonable relationship across these positions and to the relevant 

markets, such as nonprofit and educational organizations or state and 

local governments. For example, in 1967 and 1989, Congress established 

the authority to appoint commissions to provide salary recommendations 

Page 6 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
to the President every 4 years for top-level executive, judicial, and 

legislative officials. The commission established in 1989 has never been

appointed. 

• Recognizing equity issues. There are differences in the basic pay rates 

for inspectors general (IG) based on the level of appointment even though 

the powers and duties extended to IGs in either appointment are 

essentially the same. Most IGs for cabinet departments and major agencies 

are appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation (paid at EXlevel IV). However, IGs for some agencies, such as the National Science 

Foundation and the Securities and Exchange Commission, are appointed

by the agency head and paid at varying amounts including GS-15 or SES 

pay rates. 

• Considering performance-based bonuses. There are positions across 

the executive-level pay plans that are not eligible to receive bonuses (or 

awards) due to the nature of the positions. For example, SES and SL/ST 

positions may receive bonuses, while selected EX positions that are 

appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation (including 

selected IGs), ALJs, BCA positions, and federal justices and judges do not. 

Bonuses awarded within a system that incorporates appropriate 

safeguards may be an option for rewarding individuals in these positions 

for their contributions. Appropriate safeguards, including reasonable 

transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms can help ensure

fairness and prevent politicization and abuse. Bonuses must be 

performance-based with a mechanism for assessing individuals’ 

performance based on multiple sources of input and checks and balances 

to help ensure that the positions’ independence is not compromised. 

• Recognizing anomalies between comparable pay plans. There are 

anomalies between comparable pay plans, such as the SES and SL/ST pay 

plans. For example, as of January 2004, the aggregate pay cap (basic pay 

plus awards/bonuses) for SES and SL/ST positions is higher for individuals 

whose agencies have certified performance management systems. 

However, the higher basic pay cap only applies to SES members under 

certified performance management systems, not SL/ST positions. 

We provided drafts of this report to the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts for their information. As we agreed with your office, unless 

you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution 

of this report until 30 days after its date. At that time, we will provide 

copies of this report to other interested congressional parties, the Director 

of the Office of Personnel Management, and the Director of the 

Page 7 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. We will make copies of 

this report available to others on request. The report is also available at no 

charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me on (202) 512-5500 or Lisa Shames, Acting Director, at 

(202) 512-6806 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Other GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report are acknowledged in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

David M. Walker

Comptroller Gene

of the United States 

ral

Page 8 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 9 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Our objectives were to (1) provide trend data for basic pay rates of 

selected federal executive and judicial pay plans from 1970 to 2006, 

(2) identify elements of total compensation for the selected pay plans in 

2006, and (3) identify principles for any possible restructuring of these pay

plans. We selected governmentwide executive-level pay plans from the 

executive and judicial branches for our review. For the executive branch, 

we included the executive-level pay plans with the largest number of 

individuals according to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). These pay plans cover the following: 

career Senior Executive Service (SES), administrative law judges, seniorlevel, Executive Schedule (EX), scientific or professional, and members of 

Boards of Contract Appeals. For the EX pay plan, we also included 

legislative positions—the Comptroller General, the Librarian of Congress, 

the Public Printer of the United States from the U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Senators, and Members of the House of Representatives—whose 

pay rates are tied to the EX pay plan. For the judicial branch, we included 

the federal justices and judges from courts under Article III of the 

Constitution of the United States—the Chief Justice, associate justices, 

circuit judges, district judges, and judges of the United States Court of 

International Trade. For the first objective, as a point of comparison, we 

also included the basic pay rates for the General Schedule (GS) grade 15, 

step 10, employees. Employees in this position receive an annual general 

pay increase that is based on the Employment Cost Index and delivered

automatically and uniformly to all employees. 

To meet our objectives, we collected and analyzed pay rates for the 

selected pay plans beginning in 1970 and then every 10 years including the

current pay rates for 2006. We selected 1970 as a baseline because salary 

increases went into effect in 1969 for EX positions, federal justices and 

judges, and other top-level government officials as recommended by the 

Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries. We gathered

the basic pay rates and other related data, such as average pay and 

aggregate pay caps, and the elements of total compensation, from a variety

of sources including legal references and documents—United States Code, 

Code of Federal Regulations, and Executive Orders, as well as OPM data 

and information from the CPDF, annual pay tables, and other policy 

documents. Importantly, our analysis of the elements of total 

compensation centered on those elements that are authorized by statute 

for each pay plan. The specific application of each element will differ 

based on an individual’s choice (e.g., to use child care facilities or 

purchase life insurance), each agency’s program decision (e.g., to 

participate in the student loan repayment program), and differences across 

pay plans. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

In addition, we reviewed our prior work as well as that of other public 

sector organizations, such as the Congressional Research Service and 

National Commission on the Public Service. 

We used the CPDF data from September 2005 to identify the number of 

individuals in the selected pay plans in the executive branch. We also used

the CPDF data to identify the average rate of pay and the distribution of 

individuals by pay level within selected pay plans from September of 1990, 

2000, and 2005. Data on the federal justices and judges are not maintained 

in the CPDF. Based on previous GAO work, we found the CPDF data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.1

To account for inflation, we adjusted the basic pay rates from the selected 

pay plans to calendar year 2006 dollars using the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis’s (BEA) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) price deflator and the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’s (BLS) Consumer Price Index (CPI). Each 

index has its strengths and weaknesses in measuring inflation. The CPI 

measures the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers 

for a fixed market basket of consumer goods and services. BLS weights 

each item in the CPI to specify the importance of the expenditure item 

relative to the market basket of goods and services and to provide 

appropriate emphasis to the price changes associated with those items. 

These expenditure weights remain fixed until the next major revision of 

the CPI’s market basket of goods and services and they serve as a 

benchmark from which price comparisons are calculated.2

 However, since

the expenditure weights are fixed, the CPI does not reflect the extent to

which purchasers’ spending patterns change in response to relative price 

changes and, as such, it tends to overstate the effect of price changes on

purchasing power. 

By contrast, the GDP price deflator measures changes over time in the 

prices of broader expenditure categories than the CPI including personal 

consumption expenditures, gross private domestic investment, net exports

of goods and services, and government consumption expenditures and 

gross investment. In addition, unlike the CPI, BEA annually changes the 

 1

GAO, OPM’s Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable to Meet Most

Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998). 

2

BLS has made major revisions to the market basket about once a decade between 1940 

and 1997. Since 1998, BLS has updated the expenditure weights for the market basket every

2 years. 

Page 10 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

weights applied to the GDP price deflator’s expenditure categories over 

time, which helps reflect how relative price changes affect purchasers’ 

spending patterns. 

Historically, inflation as measured by the CPI has tended to outpace 

inflation as measured by the GDP price deflator. Over the period of time 

covered by this report (1970 to 2006), the CPI has increased at an average 

annual rate of 4.7 percent, whereas the GDP price deflator has increased at 

an average annual rate of 4.0 percent.

In addition, to account for economywide trends in wage and salary 

growth, we adjusted the basic pay rates from the selected pay plans to 

calendar year 2006 dollars using BEA’s National Income and Product 

Accounts wage index for private industries. We used this wage index

because it provided a continuous series of wage data for the entire time 

period covered by our analysis. Wage and salary data pertaining to a more 

narrowly defined sector of the nonfederal workforce (e.g., white-collar 

workers) was not available for the entire time period. We performed our 

work from February through May 2006 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 11 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 12 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Executive and Judicial 

Compensation

Request by the Subcommittee on the Federal 

Workforce and Agency Organization

House Government Reform Committee
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 13 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

2

Contents

• Scope (slides 3-5)

3⁄4 Selected federal executive and judicial pay plans

• Background (slides 6-10)

• Objectives 

3⁄4 Provide trend data for basic pay rates from 1970 to 2006 (slides 11-24)

3⁄4 Identify elements of total compensation in 2006 (slides 25-30)

3⁄4 Identify principles for any possible restructuring of executive-level pay plans

(slide 31)
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 14 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

3

Scope–Executive and

Judicial Pay Plans

• We included the six federal governmentwide executive-level pay plans with the largest number of individuals.

3⁄4 Career Senior Executive Service (SES)—6,299 individuals

3⁄4 Administrative law judges (ALJ)—1,486 individuals

3⁄4 Senior-level (SL)—528 individuals

3⁄4 Executive Schedule (EX)—414 individuals

Illustrative positions include the following:

• Level I—Cabinet secretaries, leaders of the Senate and House, Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget

• Level II—Deputy secretaries of cabinet departments, Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM), Senators and Members of the House, the Comptroller General, the Librarian of Congress, the

Public Printer of the United States from the U.S. Government Printing Office

• Level III—Undersecretaries and deputies of most agencies and departments

• Level IV—Assistant secretaries, general counsels of departments (e.g., Departments of Defense and

Health and Human Services), selected inspectors general (IG), chief financial officers, chief 

information officers

• Level V—Commissioners (e.g., Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior), associate directors 

(e.g., OPM), general counsels of smaller agencies (e.g., National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration)

3⁄4 Scientific or professional (ST)—361 individuals

3⁄4 Members of Boards of Contract Appeals (BCA)—47 individuals

• For the EX pay plan, we also included legislative positions—the Comptroller General, Librarian of Congress,

Public Printer, and Senators and Members of the House—whose pay rates are tied to the EX pay plan.

Source: OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) from September 2005. 

Notes: We focused on career SES only since the majority of individuals in the SES have career status. There are other executive-level pay plans that

are limited to single agencies, such as the immigration judges at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 15 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

4

Scope–Executive and Judicial

Pay Plans (con’t.)

• We included federal justices and judges from courts under Article 

III of the Constitution of the United States.

3⁄4 Chief Justice of the United States

3⁄4 Associate justices of the Supreme Court

3⁄4 Circuit judges from the U.S. Courts of Appeals

3⁄4 District judges

3⁄4 Judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade 
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 16 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

5

Scope–Executive and Judicial

Pay Plans (con’t.)

Considerations

• Executive-level positions vary both within and across pay plans in terms of responsibilities and required

knowledge and skills. In addition, length of service varies, such as between career SES, political

appointees within the EX pay plan, and federal justices and judges who are appointed for life. 

3⁄4 For example, EX positions can be appointed by the agency head, by the President (PA), or by the 

President subject to Senate confirmation (PAS). Governmentwide, the average tenure of political

appointees for the period of 1990 through 2001 was just under 3 years. 

• Regarding the appointment of IGs, most IGs for cabinet departments and major agencies are PAS 

positions (paid at EX-level IV); however, IGs for some agencies, such as the National Science 

Foundation and the Securities and Exchange Commission, are appointed by the agency head and paid

at varying amounts, including General Schedule (GS) grade 15 or SES pay rates. The powers and

duties extended to IGs in either appointment are essentially the same.

• Career SES members may accept Presidential appointments or other appointments to positions in the 

EX pay plan and retain their career SES status and certain SES benefits including their basic pay, 

eligibility for cash awards/bonuses and/or Presidential Rank Awards, annual and sick leave, and

retirement. These individuals also retain their eligibility to return to the SES upon completion of the

appointments.

3⁄4 PAS IGs who retain their career SES status have traditionally waived their eligibility for any

awards/bonuses from the agency head to help maintain the independence of the position.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 17 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

6

Background–Executive, Legislative, 

and Judicial Salaries

• In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and 

Judicial Salaries (known as the Quadrennial Commission) to study salaries of EX

positions (including Members of Congress), federal justices and judges, and other

top-level government officials every 4 years and report to the President on its

recommendations for salary increases. The Commission—composed of nine

individuals appointed from the private sector—was to recommend salary increases

for these positions in order to maintain a reasonable relationship between these

positions and with private sector salaries. 

3⁄4 The President accepted the recommended salary increases for these positions,

which went into effect in 1969. For example, the salary for EX-level I positions

increased from $35,000 in 1968 to $60,000 in 1969.

• In addition to the Quadrennial Commission, Congress enacted the Executive Salary

Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 1975, which was intended to give Members of

Congress, federal justices and judges, and other top-level executive branch officials

the same automatic cost of living adjustments that GS employees received, subject

to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or modification.

3⁄4 For example, from 1975 to 1989, Congress accepted 5 such increases for itself 

and declined 10, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 18 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

7

Background–Executive, Legislative, 

and Judicial Salaries (con’t.)

• In 1989, the National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker Commission) 

reported that executive, legislative, and judicial salaries were not keeping pace

with inflation. The purchasing power of salaries for EX positions (including

Members of Congress) and federal justices and judges had fallen by 35 percent 

between 1969, when the Quadrennial Commission's recommendations were

implemented, and 1988. 

• The National Commission on the Public Service’s recommendations included 

the following:

3⁄4 raising the salaries for these positions to the 1969 levels of purchasing 

power, 

3⁄4 changing the process for adjusting these salaries from only once every 4

years to one that is triggered on a more timely basis, and 

3⁄4 increasing the pay cap for SES members, if the requested increase to EX 

salaries was delayed.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 19 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

8

Background–Executive, Legislative, 

and Judicial Salaries (con’t.)

• Subsequently, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 

3⁄4 provided an increase to the salaries of EX positions, federal justices and judges, and the Vice 

President effective in 1991,

3⁄4 changed the method for automatic annual adjustments to these positions’ pay rates to one based

on the Employment Cost Index. Previously, these positions’ adjustments were the same rate as

the annual adjustments for GS employees, 

3⁄4 tied the salaries of district judges and EX-level II positions to that of Senators and Members of

the House and the salary of the Speaker of the House to that of the Vice President and the Chief 

Justice, and

3⁄4 abolished the Quadrennial Commission. The authority and responsibilities of the Quadrennial

Commission were assumed by the Citizens' Commission on Public Service and Compensation,

which was to be appointed during fiscal year 1993 and then every fourth fiscal year, but it has 

never been appointed, according to the Congressional Research Service. 

• While the Ethics Reform Act sets the rate of the judicial pay adjustment, a 1981 law (Pub. L. 97-92,

Section 140), provides that any salary increase for federal justices and judges must be specifically

authorized by Congress. Since 1981, the judges’ salaries have been adjusted at the same rate as

those for Members of Congress, according to the Congressional Research Service.

• Since 1991, Congress voted to not give themselves and other EX positions a pay increase in 5 out of

the 16 years (1994–1997 and 1999), according to the Congressional Research Service. Congress also

voted to not give an across-the-board pay adjustment to GS positions for 1994, but these positions did 

receive locality pay adjustments that year.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

9

Background–Executive, Legislative, 

and Judicial Salaries (con’t.)

• In 2003, the second National Commission on the Public Service reiterated 

the need to restore fairness in executive, legislative, and judicial salaries. 

The Commission reported that 

3⁄4 the salaries for cabinet secretaries (EX-level I) declined 44 percent from

1969 to 2001, when adjusted for inflation, and 

3⁄4 the pay caps imposed by Congress created a tight compression of 

salaries at the top of all three branches. For example, about 70 percent 

of SES members received the same pay due to compression in 2003.

• The National Commission on the Public Service recommended that 

Congress

3⁄4 grant increases to EX positions and federal judges to ensure a 

reasonable relationship to other professional opportunities, such as

leading academic centers and not-for-profit institutions, and 

3⁄4 break the statutory link between the salaries of Members of Congress

and those of federal judges and senior political appointees.

Page 20 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 21 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

10

Background–Executive, Legislative, 

and Judicial Salaries (con’t.)

• Supporting the Commission's 2003 recommendations, the Chief Justice of the 

United States’ 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary stated that 

3⁄4 the real pay of federal judges has declined by almost 24 percent since

1969, while the average American worker’s real pay has increased by over 

15 percent, and 

3⁄4 if Congress gave judges a raise of 30 percent today, federal judges would 

be making about the same as they would have in 1969 after adjusting for 

inflation. 

• While the pay of the Vice President and other executive-level positions can be 

adjusted annually, the salary of the President can only be adjusted through 

legislative action at the change of administration, according to the Constitution of 

the United States. 

3⁄4 The Vice President’s salary was $181,400 in 2000 and is $212,100 in 2006.

3⁄4 Effective 2001, the President’s salary was increased from $200,000 (the

amount it had been since 1969) to $400,000 (the 2006 amount).
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 22 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

11

Objective 1: Provide Trend Data for 

Basic Pay Rates

• Provided basic pay rates beginning in 1970 (just after the salary increases for executive-level positions 

recommended by the Quadrennial Commission went into effect in 1969) and then every 10 years including the

current pay rates for 2006 for selected positions.

3⁄4 Included the basic pay rates for the GS grade 15, step 10, position for comparison purposes.

3⁄4 Not all the pay plans existed in their present form in 1970, 1980, or 1990. For example, the Civil Service

Reform Act of 1978 created the SES pay plan and the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990

increased the pay rates for the ALJ pay plan to executive levels. We included the following pay rates for 

these positions in 1970, 1980, or 1990: 

• for SES positions, GS-16 to GS-18 pay rates in 1970, 

• for SL/ST positions, GS-16 to GS-18 pay rates in 1970, 1980, and 1990, 

• for ALJ positions, GS-15 to GS-18 pay rates in 1970, 1980, and 1990, and

• for BCA positions, GS-15 pay rates in 1970 and GS-16 to GS-18 pay rates in 1980 and 1990. 

3⁄4 Included locality pay (created with the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990) for the 

Washington, D.C./Baltimore area in the basic pay rates for the applicable executive-level positions:

• 2000–for SES, SL/ST, ALJ, BCA, and GS-15 positions. 

• 2006–for SL/ST, ALJ, BCA, and GS-15 positions (effective January 2004, SES positions no longer 

received locality pay).
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 23 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

12

Provide Trend Data for Basic Pay 

Rates (con’t.)

• As shown in the following slides, we presented the basic pay 

rates for the selected pay plans from 1970 to 2006 in the 

following ways:

3⁄4 in nominal dollars (slides 13, 17, 19),

3⁄4 adjusted for inflation in 2006 dollars (slide 14),

3⁄4 adjusted for wage growth in 2006 dollars (slides 15, 18), and 

3⁄4 the cumulative growth of basic pay rates in nominal dollars

compared to wages and prices (slides 16, 20).
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 24 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

13

Basic Pay Rates (in nominal dollars)–

Executive Pay Plans

*

Effective January 2004, a single, open-range pay band replaced the six SES pay levels and SES no longer received locality pay. 

**For the SES positions under certified performance management systems, the maximum basic pay is $165,200. For systems that are not certified,

the maximum basic pay is $152,000.

EX-level V $36,000 $53,600 $78,200 $114,500 $133,900

EX-level IV $38,000 $56,500 $83,600 $122,400 $143,000

EX-level III $40,000 $59,300 $89,000 $130,200 $152,000

EX-level II $42,500 $65,000 $96,600 $141,300 $165,200

EX-level I $60,000 $74,500 $107,300 $157,000 $183,500

1970 1980 1990 2000 2006

BCA $22,885 $29,752 $47,889 $53,600 $69,451 $78,200 $125,469 $130,200 $152,000 $152,000

ALJ $22,885 $35,505 $40,832 $53,600 $59,216 $78,200 $87,131 $130,200 $112,213 $152,000

SL/ST $26,547 $35,505 $47,889 $53,600 $69,451 $78,200 $101,566 $130,200 $129,024 $152,000

$152,000

or

$165,200**

SES $26,547 $35,505 $47,889 $52,750 $71,200 $83,600 $115,811 $130,200 $109,808*

$29,752 $29,752 $53,081 $53,081 $76,982 $76,982 $110,028 $110,028 $139,774 $139,774 GS-15, step

10

Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.

1970 1980 1990 2000 2006
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 25 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

14

Basic Pay Rates for Executive Pay Plans 

Adjusted for Inflation (in 2006 dollars)

Notes: Pay rates inflated to calendar year 2006 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s (BEA) Gross

Domestic Product price deflator. In 2006, for the SES positions under certified performance management systems,

the maximum basic pay is $165,200 (EX-level II). For the SES positions under systems that are not certified, the 

maximum basic pay is $152,000 (EX-level III).
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 26 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

15

Basic Pay Rates for Executive Pay Plans 

Adjusted for Wage Growth (in 2006 dollars)

Notes: Pay rates inflated to calendar year 2006 dollars using BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts wage

index for private industries. In 2006, for the SES positions under certified performance management systems, the 

maximum basic pay is $165,200 (EX-level II). For the SES positions under systems that are not certified, the maximum

basic pay is $152,000 (EX-level III).
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 27 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

16

Cumulative Growth of Basic Pay Rates for Executive 

Pay Plans Compared to Prices and Wages

Notes: Cumulative growth when normalized to 1970 values (1970=1). Price growth is based on BEA’s Gross Domestic

Product price deflator and wage growth is based on BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts wage index for 

private industries. Included maximum rates of basic pay for ALJs and SES (under certified performance management

systems for 2006). Did not include cash awards/bonuses for SES; all other positions are not eligible for cash

awards/bonuses.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 28 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

17

Basic Pay Rates (in nominal dollars)–

Judicial Pay Plans

$40,000 $61,500 $96,600 $141,300 $165,200

Judges of the U.S.

Court of International

Trade

District judges $40,000 $61,500 $96,600 $141,300 $165,200

Circuit judges $42,500 $65,000 $102,500 $149,900 $175,100

Associate justices $60,000 $81,300 $118,600 $173,600 $203,000

Chief Justice $62,500 $84,700 $124,000 $181,400 $212,100

1970 1980 1990 2000 2006

• Federal justices and judges do not receive cash awards/bonuses, locality pay adjustments,

or other additional pay. Therefore, these positions’ basic pay rates are not subject to an 

aggregate pay cap.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 29 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

18

Basic Pay Rates of Federal Justices and Judges 

Adjusted for Wage Growth (in 2006 dollars)

Note: Pay rates are inflated to calendar year 2006 dollars using BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts

wage index for private industries.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 30 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

19

Basic Pay Rates of EX-level II Positions and Federal 

Justices and Judges (in nominal dollars)
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 31 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

20

Cumulative Growth of Basic Pay Rates for Federal 

Justices and Judges Compared to Prices and Wages

Notes: Cumulative growth when normalized to 1970 values (1970=1). Price growth is based on BEA’s Gross Domestic Product

price deflator and wage growth is based on BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts wage index for private industries.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 32 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

21

Overall Considerations in

Basic Pay Rates

• Any comparisons in pay rates across decades must be made with caution for the 

following reasons.

3⁄4 The pay rates for the SES, ALJ, SL/ST, and BCA pay plans are linked to the 

EX pay plan. Any pay adjustment in the EX pay plan affects the pay

adjustments in these pay plans.

3⁄4 EX positions have not received annual pay adjustments in a consistent

manner either prior to or following the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.

3⁄4 The difference in pay between the EX levels has changed. For example, as 

shown in slide 15, when adjusted for real wages, the difference in pay (in 

2006 dollars) between EX-level I and EX-level II was about 41 percent in 

1970, while the difference was about 15 percent in 1980 and 11 percent in

1990, 2000, and 2006.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 33 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

22

Overall Considerations–

Aggregate Pay Cap

• All positions, except federal justices and judges, are subject to an aggregate pay 

cap (base pay plus cash awards/bonuses). 

• Since 1990 (as a result of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of

1990), aggregate pay is not to exceed EX-level I ($183,500 in 2006) for EX, ALJ,

BCA, and GS-15 positions. 

• Prior to 2004, EX-level I was the aggregate pay cap for all SES and SL/ST 

positions as well. Since 2004, aggregate pay for SES and SL/ST positions is not

to exceed 

3⁄4 EX-level I ($183,500 in 2006) for individuals under performance 

management systems that are not certified.

3⁄4 The total compensation payable to the Vice President ($212,100 in 2006) 

for individuals under certified systems.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 34 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

23

Overall Considerations–Distribution

of Individuals within Pay Ranges

• Individuals are paid different amounts within the pay ranges for the SES, SL/ST, and ALJ pay plans. We

provided the distribution of individuals by the levels within these pay ranges, to the extent possible. 

3⁄4 SES members were paid at 6 levels (ES 1 to ES 6) prior to 2004.

3⁄4 ALJs are paid at 3 levels (AL 1 to AL 3) with rates within level 3 (A to F) since 2000. AL 1 and 2

are reserved for supervisory ALJs.

3⁄4 The SL/ST pay plan does not have levels within the pay range. 

Source: OPM’s CPDF from September of 1990, 2000, and 2005. 

Notes: September 2005 data are the most recent data available. Numerous changes to the CPDF and federal personnel policies make

comparisons of data from the CPDF before 1984 not suitable for our purposes. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

SES 

(ES 6 is the highest pay)

2000: 6,297 total

• ES 6 – 7%

• ES 5 – 17%

• ES 4 – 38%

• ES 3 – 14%

• ES 2 – 12%

• ES 1 – 12%

1990: 6,626 total

• ES 6 – 5%

• ES 5 – 15%

• ES 4 – 55%

• ES 3 –15%

• ES 2 – 7 %

• ES 1 – 3%

ALJ

(AL 1 is the highest pay)

2005: 1,486 total

• AL 1 – 0.3%

• AL 2 – 3%

• AL 3/F – 72%

• AL 3/E – 2%

• AL 3/D – 7%

• AL 3/C – 2%

• AL 3/B – 6%

• AL 3/A – 5%

2000: 1,340 total

• AL 1 – 0.4%

• AL 2 – 2%

• AL 3/F – 61%

• AL 3/E – 18% 

• AL 3/D – 13% 

• AL 3/C – 4%

• AL 3/B – 0.1%

• AL 3/A – 0%
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 35 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

24

Overall Considerations–

Average Basic Pay

• We provided the average rate of basic pay for individuals in the SES, SL/ST,

and ALJ pay plans.*

ALJ $73,828 $118,057 $143,705

SL/ST $77,996 $118,764 $145,159

SES $78,819 $127,016 $147,476

1990 2000 2005

• As a point of comparison, state government ALJs, adjudicators, and hearing 

officers were paid on average $60,750, in 2004, according to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. 

3⁄4 The top three paying states in 2004 in terms of the annual mean wage were

California ($103,910), Alabama ($103,550), and Colorado ($93,810).

*Source: Mean pay data from OPM’s CPDF from September of 1990, 2000, and 2005. September 2005 data are the most recent data available.

Numerous changes to the CPDF and federal personnel policies make comparisons of data from the CPDF before 1984 not suitable for our 

purposes. 
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

25

Objective 2: Identify Elements of Total

Compensation in 2006 – Overall Observations

• Cash: 

3⁄4 Only SL/ST, ALJ, and BCA positions receive locality pay.

3⁄4 All positions may receive annual adjustments to basic pay. SES members may receive their

adjustments based on their individual performance and contribution to the organization’s

performance.

3⁄4 SES and SL/ST positions may receive Presidential Rank Awards and cash awards/bonuses. 

3⁄4 Positions appointed by the President may not receive any outside earned income from teaching, 

writing, speaking, or other activities. Other EX positions may receive outside earned income, 

subject to certain limitations. Federal justices and judges may receive income from teaching

subject to certain limitations. 

• Noncash benefits: 

3⁄4 All positions may receive benefits, such as health insurance, access to child care facilities, and

flexible spending or health savings accounts. All positions except those appointed by the 

President within the EX pay plan and federal justices and judges accrue annual and sick leave.

3⁄4 Select EX positions, such as cabinet secretaries and the Chief Justice and associate justices, may 

receive passenger carrier use from home to work.

• Deferred benefits: All positions may receive benefits, such as retirement and life insurance. However, 

there are differences in retirement, such as larger benefits, for Members of Congress and federal

justices and judges.

Page 36 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 37 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

26

Elements of Total Compensation

Yes-based on the 

Employment Cost

Index, but any pay 

increase must be 

specifically 

authorized by

Congress.

Yes-tied to the EX

increases. 

Yes-the minimum and maximum rates of

the pay range are adjusted based on the 

increases for the EX and the GS pay 

plans.

However, an adjustment to an individual's

pay is at the agency’s discretion. 

Specifically, an SES member’s pay may 

be adjusted based on his/her 

performance and contributions to the 

agency’s performance. An SL/ST

employee’s pay adjustment may or may 

not be tied to his/her performance.

Yes-based on the 

Employment Cost

Index. 

Annual 

adjustments to

basic pay

Yes

Yes

ALJ and BCA 

Cash

No

No-for SES.

Yes-for SL/ST.

Locality pay No

Basic pay Yes Yes Yes

Federal 

justices and

judges

EX* SES and SL/ST

*Career SES members may accept Presidential appointments or other appointments to positions in the EX pay plan and retain their career SES status and certain

SES benefits including their basic pay, eligibility for cash awards/bonuses and/or Presidential Rank Awards, annual and sick leave, and retirement. These

individuals also retain their eligibility to return to the SES upon completion of the appointments.
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 38 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

27

Elements of Total Compensation

(con’t.)

Yes No No

No-for PAS positions.

Yes-for other EX positions.

Cash awards/bonuses

(e.g., performancebased, on the spot,

suggestions, special act 

or service)

No No

Yes

- Distinguished (35% of 

base pay). 

- Meritorious (20% of base

pay).

No Presidential Rank 

Awards

Student loan repayment Yes Yes Yes No

Yes

No

ALJ and BCA 

Cash

Transit benefits Yes Yes Yes

Yes No

No-for the head of an

agency and PAS positions.

Yes-for other EX positions.

Recruitment, relocation, 

and retention incentives 

Federal 

justices and

judges

EX SES and SL/ST
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 39 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

28

Elements of Total Compensation

(con’t.)

Yes-federal justices

and judges may 

receive income for

teaching subject to 

advanced approval

and not to exceed

15% of EX-level II.

Yes Yes

No-PA and PAS positions may not

receive any income.

Yes-for other EX positions as long as the 

activity is not related to the employee’s 

official duties. However, employees may 

receive income for teaching at secondary

or higher education schools or programs 

funded by federal, state, or local 

government even if related to official

duties.

-Noncareer employees’ income is subject

to advanced approval and not to exceed

15% of EX-level II.

Teaching, writing, and 

speaking income

Yes Yes No

No-PA and PAS positions may not

receive any outside income.

Yes-for other EX positions; however,

income for noncareer employees is not to 

exceed 15% of EX-level II.

Outside earned 

income

(e.g., a federal 

employee who is a 

CPA prepares tax 

returns unrelated to

official duties outside 

of work)

ALJ and

BCA 

Cash

Federal justices 

and judges

SES and 

SL/ST EX
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 40 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

29

Elements of Total Compensation

(con’t.)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Access to federally 

sponsored child care

facilities

Yes-for the Chief

Justice and associate 

justices.

No-for other federal

justices and judges.

No No

Yes-for select EX positions, 

such as Level I positions;

Secretaries of the Air Force,

Army, and Navy; and the

Comptroller General.

No-for other EX positions.

Home to work (passenger 

carrier use)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Flexible spending

accounts/health savings 

accounts 

Health insurance Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No-for PA and PAS positions.

Yes-for other EX positions. Annual and sick leave

Merchandise awards/gifts Yes Yes Yes No

Time off awards No Yes No No

ALJ and BCA 

Noncash Benefits

Federal justices 

and judges

SES and 

SL/ST EX
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

Page 41 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

30

Elements of Total Compensation

(con’t.)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Long-term care 

insurance 

Yes-federal justices and

judges must elect survivor 

benefits and contribute from

their current and retirement

salaries.

Survivor benefits Yes Yes Yes

Life insurance Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes-they are permitted to

retire with full pay and 

benefits when the sum of 

the judge’s age and number

of years on the bench is 80.

Yes Yes

Yes

However, Members of Congress

(whose pay is tied to EX-level II) 

pay a higher percentage of 

salary, receive a larger benefit 

for each year of service, and

they become eligible for

annuities at an earlier age with 

fewer years of service than most

federal employees.

Retirement

Deferred Benefits

ALJ and BCA Federal justices and

judges

SES and 

SL/ST EX
Appendix II: Briefing Slides 

31

Objective 3: Identify Principles for Any Possible

Restructuring of Executive-Level Pay Plans

• In order to attract and retain the quality and quantity of executive leadership necessary to address 21st 

century challenges, executive-level pay plans should be

3⁄4 sensitive to hiring and retention trends—actual trends, such as demographic, workforce, and

economic trends and their effects on the federal government’s ability to hire and retain highquality persons for these positions are considered;

3⁄4 reflective of responsibilities, knowledge and skills, and contributions—the positions vary 

both within and across pay plans;

3⁄4 transparent—Congress, leadership, and the public can easily understand the value of the

compensation and contributions;

3⁄4 market-sensitive—the compensation of the relevant markets (e.g., private or nonprofit sectors) 

is appropriately considered; 

3⁄4 flexible to economic change—changes in the nation’s economy, such as extraordinary

economic circumstances or severe budgetary constraints, can be accommodated; 

3⁄4 sustainable—over the longer term, given known cost trends and risks and future fiscal

imbalances, pay plans are financially sustainable; and

3⁄4 competitive—reasonable total compensation and other elements necessary to attract and retain

leadership can help ensure the optimum use of taxpayers’ dollars and make the most efficient

allocation between cash and noncash benefits.

Sources: DOD Needs to Improve Its Military Compensation System (GAO-05-798), Symposium on Designing and Managing Market-Based and 

More Performance-Oriented Pay Systems (GAO-05-832SP), Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected Personnel Demonstration Projects

(GAO-04-83), The Congress Should Act to Establish Military Compensation Principles (FPCD-79-11).

Page 42 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 43 GAO-06-708 Executive and Judicial Pay

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact Lisa Shames, (202) 512-6806 or shamesl@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Janice Latimer, Timothy Carr, 

Rick Krashevski, Maria-Alaina Rambus, Michael Volpe, and Gregory 

Wilmoth were key contributors to this report. 

Acknowledgments 

(450488) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER