Hearings Support Presidential Salary Increase

The House held hearings on the salary of the President of the United States last month, and heard that 30 years is a long time to go without a pay raise. Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA), chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology invited a particularly notable line-up of bipar-tisan witnesses to testify on presidential pay, including former White House chiefs of staff Alexander Haig, Kenneth M. Duberstein, Samuel K. Skinner, John H. Sununu, and Thomas R. "Mack" McLarty.

"I can tell you as a former chief executive, or chief operating officer of one of our Fortune 500 multi-national companies," said Haig, "that government pay is very, very poor no matter what the office." Haig recommended that the salary of the President be $500,000, with a periodic salary review "to be sure that the dynamics of our economy are keeping pace with his just fundamental requirements."

McLarty observed that, "It is an honor to serve one's country and we do not and should not expect any of us to profit or become rich from government service." But, he added, "I think it's fair to say that opportunity costs are high and they are in-creasing. And I am worried that we are attracting fewer citizens who have proven successful careers in private life to serve our country." McLarty also expressed his concern about the fixed presidential salary compressing the wages for others who serve in the public sector. "Common sense," McLarty said, "tells us that presidential salaries should not be fixed for 30 years. Fairness suggests that we end the pay compression for other public servants and the economic reality is that government competes with the private sector for talent and experience and we should recognize that."

In March 1999, the Judicial Conference, in agreeing to seek an annual pay adjustment for government leaders, also called for an easing of the pay compression for officials in all three branches of government by supporting an increase in the Presi-dent's salary. The problem of salary compression means that some senior government officials are paid nearly as much and in some cases more than judges. Under the Constitution any increase in the President's pay would not take effect until the next administration in 2001. If the Pre-sident's salary is not adjusted before January 20, 2001, it will remain fixed at least until the next presidential oath of office in January 2005.

Skinner told the House subcommittee that although a pay raise mechanism is in place, it is not used because it is tied to congressional salaries. Pay compression results. "This compression problem has also created a very major problem," said Skinner, "where we're attracting candidates but we're not attracting really qualified candidates . . . . All these other people should not be tied to [congressional] salaries. . . ."

Subcommittee member Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) expressed similar concerns. "On the judiciary level, I've been a little annoyed with the idea of my good friends in the legal profession who entertain 7-figure salaries on a regular basis, and they're very difficult to persuade to sit on the bench, whether it be a district court or appeals court, or Supreme Court for that matter," said Kanjorski. "And it seems now almost the only people who will decide to sit on the Supreme Court already have amassed sufficient money that they are relatively independent with several million dollars in net assets. And that's unfortunate because some people won't have that opportunity, and therefore have to make terrible choices."

House Says No To New Courthouse Funding

New courthouse construction wasn't funded in this year's House appropriations bill, but six repair and alteration courthouse projects may go forward. Money for these R & A projects was included in the President's budget, although for the third year in a row, the White House refused to include money in the budget for new courthouses needed by the Judiciary. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government included money for the six repair and alteration projects when it marked up its fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill last month.

Subcommittee leaders failed to include courthouse money, indicating there was insufficient money to fund them. They did say if additional monies became available during the appropri-ations process they would reconsider their position. The sub-committee included language in its mark-up of the FY 2000 appropriations bill to allow the General Services Administration (GSA) to retain courthouse money appropriated in FY97. It is likely the full House Appropriations committee will mark up the bill in June. However, if the bill is not signed into law in FY99, the money will lapse.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee already has authorized the new courthouse projects. But without funds, 17 courthouse projects—some of which are ready to begin the construction phase— are left in limbo. "All of the projects have been delayed at least a year," said Judge Norman H. Stahl 1^st Cir.), chair of the Judicial Con-ference Committee on Security and Facilities. "Further delay means we risk losing intended sites in a very competitive real estate market, and inevitably we will see higher acquisition and construction costs as time elapses. Most unfortunately, courts with critical space and security needs will not have these problems resolved in a timely manner."

All of the courthouse projects were developed under guidelines endorsed by Congress in previous years. At Congress' request, the Judiciary prioritized its courthouse construction projects in terms of greatest need. The Judiciary also has worked with the GSA to revise the U.S. Courts Design Guide and to stretch construction dollars. Despite this, the White House ignored Judiciary representatives' requests for funding in the FY2000 budget, a request that was supported by the GSA.

Federal courthouses in the following cities may receive funding in FY 2000 for needed repair and alteration projects:

Phoenix, Arizona
Anchorage, Alaska
Montgomery, Alabama

Las Vegas, Nevada
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dallas, Texas

In February, Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham wrote to leaders of the Senate and House budget, appropriations, and authorizing committees to urge courthouse funding. In February and March, Stahl and committee member Judge Jane Roth (3^rd Cir.) met with congressional committee leaders to discuss the much needed funding. In March, Roth also testified in support of courthouse construction before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.

Meanwhile, judges and AO staff continue to keep members of Congress with courthouse projects in their states or districts aware of the delays—and of delay ramifications. As a consequence, 14 senators and representatives wrote leaders of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to seek their assistance in getting authorization for the FY2000 courthouse projects. Individual members of Congress also contacted members of the House and Senate appropriations committees and Senate authorizing committees in support of the courthouse program.

Back to Contents