Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12000329
label
1974/08/12 HR5094 Upgrading of Deputy United States Marshals (Vetoed) (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12000329
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1974/08/12 HR5094 Upgrading of Deputy United States Marshals (Vetoed) (2)
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Department of Justice. (7/1/1870 - )
Civil service
Legislation
Vetoes
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12000329
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-08-31
month
8
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-07-01
month
7
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b06863ffeb168f5e
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "8/12/74 HR5094 Upgrading of Deputy
United States Marshals (Vetoed) (2)" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case
Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
THE WHITE HOUSE
RUSH rec'd 9:50Am 8/8
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.: 497
Date: August 8, 1974
Time:
9:30 a.m.
FOR ACTION: Geoff Shepard
CC (for information): Warren K. Hendriks
Fred Buzhardt
Jerry Jones
Bill Timmons
Dave Gergen
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Thursday, August 8, 1974
Time: 2:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 5094 - Upgrading of Deputy United
States Marshals
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
XX For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Please return to Kathy Tindle - West Wing
concur in veto
DCs/8
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren K. Hendriks
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
Digitized from Box 1 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
234
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 7 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 5094 - Upgrading of Deputy
United States Marshals
Sponsor - Rep. Udall (D) Arizona and 13 others
Last Day for Action
August 12, 1974 - Monday
Purpose
Upgrades nonsupervisory deputy United States marshal positions
by one, two and three grades.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Department of Justice
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Civil Service Commission
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Discussion
H.R. 5094 is substantially similar to the deputy marshal
upgrading bill passed in the 92nd Congress, H.R. 13895, which
you pocket vetoed October 27, 1972. It has the effect of
exempting deputy U.S. marshals from the job evaluation standards
and controls of the General Schedule pay system, although--
unlike the vetoed bill--nominal coverage under that system
would be retained. In another respect, however, the bill is
even more objectionable than the vetoed bill because of its
discriminatory "grade conversion" provisions described below.
Under existing law, salaries for deputy United States marshals
are fixed under the General Schedule (GS) classification and
pay system which governs the pay of some 1.2 million Federal
2
white collar employees, including other law enforcement
employees in the Justice Department and elsewhere
throughout the Government.
Prior to June 15, 1973, deputy marshals were classified
at grade levels GS-6 through GS-9, with GS-8 as the typical
journeyman level. They were promoted at one-grade intervals.
Special deputy positions existed at GS-4 and GS-5 to provide
employment opportunities for Vietnam veterans with inadequate
or insufficient law enforcement training or experience to
qualify at the entry level.
On June 15, 1973, the Civil Service Commission issued new
standards for the deputy marshal occupation as a result of
a full-scale study. The new standards recognize the expanded
duties and responsibilities imposed on the Marshal Service
and accord deputy marshals classification and pay treatment
which is consistent with that of other Federal employees.
Under this system, the deputy marshal occupation is classified
at grade levels GS-5 through GS-9 and structured to provide
a two-grade interval progression for promotion, i.e., GS-5,
GS-7, and GS-9, with GS-9 as the full journeyman level. GS-4
was retained as the special rate for trainees and veterans,
and GS-5 as the entry level for more qualified candidates.
As a result of the new standards, large scale upgradings have
occurred. For example, Justice states that prior to the
application of the June 15, 1973 standard, 429 deputy marshals
were in grade GS-9 whereas now 949 are in that grade.
Positions not upgraded were carefully evaluated and found to
be properly classified at existing levels.
H.R. 5094 would legislate changes in the pay structure for
some 1,300 nonsupervisory deputy marshals, based on a
reconstruction of the grades and steps they were in prior to
CSC's 1973 reclassification, as follows:
-- The classification structure administratively defined
by the CSC would be fixed in statute and revised so that GS-5
would be used as a trainee level only, and GS-11, rather than
GS-9, would become the full journeyman level. The GS-4 sub-
entry level would be eliminated.
3
--- Deputies in GS-4, GS-5, GS-7, and GS-9 would be
advanced to GS-5, GS-7, GS-9 and GS-11, respectively. These
persons would be converted to the same step rates of the
higher grades as those they now have in their present grades.
--- "Grade conversion" provisions in the bill would require
that persons who occupied positions at GS-6 and GS-8 would be
advanced to three different grades, GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11,
solely on the basis of their previous step rate. Those in
step 7 or below of their reconstructed grades would advance
to the next grade; those in higher steps would advance three
grades.
During congressional consideration of H.R. 5094, the Justice
Department, CSC and OMB strongly opposed enactment, and
threatened veto as unwarranted and discriminatory.
Arguments for Approval
1. It is argued that CSC's 1973 action in reclassifying
deputy marshal positions is insufficient in view of the
expanded duties and responsibilities imposed in recent years
on marshals, as a result of their increasing role in crime
control, urban strife, air piracy and other law enforcement
activities. The House Committee states that the revision
failed to upgrade deputy marshals to the pay status they
deserve.
2. In the House debate, a comparison was drawn between the
starting salary of $10,000 for D.C. Police privates, and
$6,882, then the sub-entry GS-4 rate for deputy marshal
trainees. The GS-5 trainee rate which would be provided in
the enrolled bill is currently $8,055 and the GS-7 rate is
$9,969.
3. Despite veto of the predecessor bill, and the strong
opposition of the executive branch, there is strong
congressional support for H.R. 5094, as evidenced by the
House vote of 319-84 and passage in the Senate by voice vote.
4. The upgrading of deputy marshals which has already occurred
as a result of CSC's new classification standards reduces the
number of upgradings under the enrolled bill, so that its
budget impact would be minimal.
4
Arguments for Disapproval.
1. H.R. 5094 is contrary to the most fundamental principles
of position classification and pay administration. Prefer-
ential upgrading for deputy marshals, regardless of duties
or of the relationship of such work to other Federal
occupations, subverts the principle of equal pay for equal
work which is the basis for the Federal pay system.
2. The proposed pay increases for marshals would blatantly
discriminate against the other 1.2 million Federal employees
under the General Schedule system, and most particularly
against those other law enforcement employees, such as
border patrol and correctional officers, whose pay grades
have been carefully aligned with those of deputy marshals.
3. Legislative job classification for deputy marshals will
become a direct precedent for other occupational groups--
firefighters, building guards, special police groups, et al--
to demand equal special pay treatment in Congress. While
the immediate impact of this legislation will be on law
enforcement groups within the Department of Justice, pressure
for statutory upgrading can be expected from all professional
and occupational categories, with substantial potential
budgetary cost if successful.
4. CSC states that continued congressional upgrading will
eventually dismantle the whole position classification system,
and the result will be "a hodgepodge of irrational misalign-
ments," based entirely on the amount of pressure each group
can bring to bear.
5. The special employment program for Vietnam veterans in the
Marshal Service would have to be reduced, because the bill
eliminates the existing sub-entry level GS-4 position used to
employ veterans who lack sufficient education and experience
to qualify for GS-5.
6. The grade conversion features of the bill would create
irrational pay disparities within the Marshal Service itself.
The bill mandates highly irregular rules for the initial
promotion to grade and to step within grade, with the result
that persons now performing identical work will be placed in
different grades, and those within the same grade will receive
unjustified differentials in pay. Additional upgradings may
well be required to remedy the pay distortions the bill
legislates.
5
7. Deputy marshals cannot fairly be compared with city
policemen, however important, valuable or dangerous their
work may be. The fact that D.C. Metropolitan Police receive
higher pay than marshals, cited as justification for H.R. 5094,
is not valid grounds for the upgrading this bill provides.
CSC emphasizes the fact that GS-11 is simply not warranted
as the journeyman level for deputy marshal work, especially
when compared with the demands of investigative positions
classified at the same grade.
Recommendations
Justice recommends against approval of H.R. 5094, and expresses
particular concern for " the chain reaction effect that
undoubtedly will follow if H.R. 5094 becomes law." The
Department also states:
"
we believe that legislation of this type is
totally unwarranted and unnecessary and that
enactment of H.R. 5094 would irreparably harm
the Federal compensation system."
CSC strongly opposes the bill and urges disapproval, citing
the very serious potential dangers of this sort of legisla-
tion". The Commission also states:
"We are convinced that a large number of occupational
pressure groups are watching the progress of H.R. 5094
with great interest. If it is approved we expect them
to move immediately in the same direction. The
eventual result could be the scrapping of the classi-
fication system, and the piecemeal establishment by
Congress of every grade and every step for every
separate occupation in the Federal service."
OMB concurs with Justice and CSC and strongly recommends
disapproval. Both agencies have prepared draft veto messages
and we have also prepared a draft for your consideration,
drawing on the CSC draft.
We are giving consideration as to whether or not it would be
desirable to include in the veto message reference to certain
other objectionable personnel bills which are pending in the
6
Congress, and will be in touch with your staff on this
matter.
α
Director
Enclosures
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
AUG 2 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Ash:
In compliance with your request, I have examined a facsimile
of the enrolled bill, H.R. 5094, a bill "To amend title 5, United
States Code, to provide for the reclassification of positions of
deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes."
Positions of deputy United States marshal now are graded
under the general position classification and pay plan established
by the Congress in chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide sound and equitable grade and pay relationships among
white collar positions throughout the Government. Under this plan,
the Civil Service Commission prepares Government-wide standards
which define the different grades in terms of the duties, respon-
sibilities and qualification requirements of the positions, and
the Department of Justice fixes the grades and pay of its positions
in accordance with these standards. Significantly, this plan permits
the Department of Justice to base decisions to promote employees on
two fundamental considerations: (1) is there work of the higher
grade to be performed?, and (2) are the employees qualified to perform
the higher level of work? These are management prerogatives essential
to the effective and economical administration of a large and diversified
work force.
H.R. 5094 would, on the other hand, fix the grades and pay of
deputy marshal positions arbitrarily by statute rather than permit
their evaluation under the carefully structured position classifica-
tion system applicable to the positions of most other white collar
Federal employees. Moreover, it would legislate a promotion system
based on seniority which would require the Attorney General to promote
each deputy marshal year after year until he reached the top non-
supervisory grade of GS-11 whether or not there was GS-11 level work
to be done by that employee.
2.
Not to be overlooked, of course, is the chain reaction effect
that undoubtedly will follow if H. R. 5094 becomes law. How
long will the same union which represents many deputy marshals
wait to seek similar legislation for border patrol agents and
correctional officers, whose grades traditionally have been
carefully aligned with those of deputy marshals? Already the
Immigration and Naturalization Service has asked the Acting
Assistant Attorney General for Administration to seek Civil Service
Commission revision of the position classification standard for
border patrol agent positions giving as one basis for this the
recent upgrading of deputy marshal positions under the June 15,
1973 standard cited in H. R. 5094.
Another objectionable feature of H. R. 5094 is the
cost which would be both exorbitant and inflationary. First
year costs are estimated to be $2 million; costs in succeeding
years would have to be determined on an individual basis, but
obviously would be substantial.
In summary, we consider that deputy marshals have been
treated fairly under the existing system. For example, it should
be noted that prior to application of the June 15, 1973 standard,
429 deputy marshals were in grade GS-9, whereas now 949 are in
that grade. For the reasons stated above, we believe that
legislation of this type is totally unwarranted and unnecessary
and that enactment of H. R. 5094 would irreparably harm the Federal
compensation system. Similar legislation, H. R. 13895 of the 92nd
Congress, was disapproved by President Nixon last year because
of the highly preferential treatment if would have accorded
deputy marshals.
The Department of Justice recommends against Executive
approval of this bill.
A proposed veto message is enclosed.
Sincerely,
W. Vincent Rakestraw
Assistant Attorney General
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I have before me H.R. 5094, a bill "To amend Title 5, United
States Code, to provide for the reclassification of positions of
deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes." This bill
would remove deputy marshals from the General Schedule system and
raise their pay by as much as 24 percent. While I fully recognize
the complexity and importance of the work that is performed by our
deputy United States marshals, I have had to decide not to approve
this bill.
The General Schedule classification and pay system provides for
the equitable compensation of more than 1.2 million Federal employees,
including deputy United States marshals and employees in other law
enforcement occupations with responsibilities similar to those of
deputy United States marshals. A bill such as H.R. 5094, which
would classify positions by statute rather than by an evaluation of
the work performed, defeats the basic principle of equal pay for
equal work, and is unfair to all the other General Schedule employees
whose positions would continue to be classified in accordance with
accepted classification principles.
The Civil Service Commission, working with the Department of
Justice, recently revised the classification standard for the deputy
marshal occupation in recognition of the increasing responsibilities
of the work they perform. I understand that, as a result of this,
2.
all positions are now classified in accordance with the new Civil
Service Commission standards, and a substantial number of deputy
marshals have been appropriately upgraded.
This Administration is vitally concerned that we do everything
we can to win the battle against inflation by holding the line on
wage increases that are excessive. The increases afforded deputy
United States marshals as a result of the revised Civil Service
Commission standard provided an equitable level of pay for
these vital employees in relation to other Federal employees
UNITED
STATE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMINITY
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
CHAIRMAN
August 2, 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Dear Mr. Ash:
This is in response to your request for the Commission's views and
recommendation on enrolled bill H.R. 5094, an enrolled bill "To
amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the reclassifica-
tion of positions of deputy United States marshal, and for other
purposes."
This measure legislates grades for deputy U.S. marshals, placing
them in grades on the basis of the grade and step they were in prior
to June 1973, regardless of their duties or the relationship of dep-
uty marshal work to the work of other Federal occupations. The bill
effectively establishes GS-11 as the full performance grade for
deputy marshal work, and eliminates the possibility of a GS-4 entry
level. The Civil Service Commission strongly opposes this highly
preferential measure and urges that it be disapproved. The bill:
- is contrary to the most fundamental principles of posi-
tion classification and pay administration;
- would subvert the statutory principle of equal pay for
equal work, creating inequities between deputy U.S.
marshals and the other 1.2 million Federal employees
under the General Schedule (especially those in other
law enforcement occupations);
- would place deputy marshals performing identical work in
different grades;
- would establish completely irrational pay differentials
between deputy marshals in the same grade; and
- would stop the present practice of employing veterans
under special programs starting at the GS-4 level when
those veterans do not meet the qualification require-
ments for the GS-5 level.
2
This enrolled bill is very similar to a previous bill, H.R. 13895,
which was passed by the 92nd Congress but disapproved by the Presi-
dent. Among the arguments for H.R. 13895 was the contention that
the Civil Service Commission standards for this occupation were not
up to date, and did not provide appropriate grades for deputy marshal
work. Since that time, the Civil Service Commission has completed an
occupational study of the deputy marshal occupation. The study found
that the occupation needed substantial restructuring, including a
change from a one to a two-grade interval progression for promotions,
and an increase in the typical journeyman level from the GS-8 to the
GS-9 level. Those changes in the occupation were carried out through
the approval, in June 1973, of new qualification and classification
standards for the occupation.
One of the specific findings of the occupational study was that the
GS-11 level is simply not warranted for the typical journeyman posi-
tion in the Marshals Service. The study included, for example, a
comparison of deputy marshal and investigative positions. The Com-
mission's standard for investigative positions shows that GS-11 in-
vestigators are responsible for the independent handling of an entire
case. The characteristics and specific examples given in the standards
for investigative positions indicate that the full performance level of
deputy marshals does not match the GS-11 level. Deputy marshals are
almost exclusively limited to one aspect of the cases described at this
level, i.e. location and apprehension of the subject. Seizure of prop-
erty is also limited in scope. There is no need to establish any case
concerning the property. The deputy identifies, seizes, and protects
the property. The rest of the case relating to the property is the
concern of others. To place these positions at the GS-11 level would
therefore be in conflict with the principle of equal pay for equal work.
That principle would be even more blatantly violated by the grade con-
version provisions of H.R. 5094. Those provisions would place deputies
performing identical work in different grades by assigning grades based
on the previous within-grade (pay) step held by each deputy. Since
large scale upgradings have occurred by application of the new standard
since June, the bill has now been amended to prevent a "double-jump."
If a marshal has been upgraded under the new standard, the bill re-
quires the Department of Justice to determine where he was prior to
this upgrading, and move him from that point to the grade and step
specified by the peculiar advancement formula provided by the bill.
The formula ignores the fact that grade level alone reflects the level
of work, while the pay step reflects longevity. The bill would in
some instances force the Department of Justice to upgrade deputy mar-
shals to a particular grade based on their previous step. As an ex-
ample, two marshals doing identical work have been advanced to GS-9
3
under the new standard. The bill passes. The Department of Justice
determines that last June one was in step 7 of GS-8 while the other
(because of longer service) was in step 8 of the same grade. The bill
advances the more senior to GS-11 (for which he is clearly not quali-
fied) with an increase of $68 a year. The more junior remains in
GS-9 but with an increase of $1624 a year. One gets an unwarranted
two-grade promotion; the other gets an unwarranted four-step salary
increase; the more junior now earns $1150 a year more than his co-
worker with longer service; and they are still doing identical jobs.
Under the new standard, we now have about 800 marshals in GS-9, all
working at the same level--doing essentially the same job. H.R. 5094
would leave half of them in GS-9 but move the other half to GS-11.
The 400 left in the correct grade will surely file appeals. The bill
makes no pretense at equity; it openly establishes inequity.
Clearly, the establishment of the principle that a whole occupation
can be inequitably upgraded by preferential legislation--if its lobby
is vocal enough--is simply the thin edge of the wedge leading to the
dismantling of our whole position classification system. Obviously,
all employees would like to be in higher grades. If the deputy mar-
shals succeed in getting preferential treatment, we would expect the
policeman to try the same tactic; if they are successful, then the
firefighters, then the correctional officers, then the translators,
then the IRS officers, and so forth, until eventually the whole clas-
sification structure is a hodgepodge of irrational misalignments.
Then the marshals, having seen their preferential position eroded by
the success of other groups, would be ready to start the process over
again with a special bill to raise them to GS-12.
We are convinced that a large number of occupational pressure groups
are watching the progress of H.R. 5094 with great interest. If it is
approved, we expect them to move immediately in the same direction.
The eventual result could be the scrapping of the classification sys-
tem, and the piecemeal establishment by Congress of every grade and
every step for every separate occupation in the Federal Service.
The bill would also reduce the hiring of veterans by the U.S. Marshal
Service. The Service has encouraged the hiring of veterans through
the Veterans Readjustment Act by filling positions below the normal
trainee level. This practice has permitted the hiring and training of
veterans who could not meet all of the normal entry requirements.
H.R. 5094 would stop this and similar programs by failing to provide
for the possible filling of positions below the GS-5 level.
4
In view of these problems, and the very serious potential dangers of
this sort of legislation, the Civil Service Commission urges that the
President disapprove H.R. 5094. A proposed veto message is enclosed.
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
Jayne acting B S pain
Chairman
Enclosure
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning to Congress without my approval H. R. 5094, an enactment
"To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the reclassification
of positions of deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes".
This enactment would violate fundamental principles of fairness,
creating serious pay inequities between deputy United States marshals
and other Federal law enforcement personnel. Even more illogically, it
would create severe disruption of existing grade and pay relationships
among the deputy marshals themselves - extending so far in some cases
as to place more junior marshals in pay rates as much as $1,150 above
more senior coworkers who now, properly, are at a relatively higher rate.
Some deputies doing identical work would be placed in different pay grades,
and deputies doing different work would be placed in the same pay grade.
The enactment would run directly counter to the principle of equal
pay for equal work. I find no basis for granting this small group
such highly preferential treatment. Our policy must be, and is, to
provide equitable salaries for all Federal employees. The proposed
legislation violates that policy.
The action I am taking today in no way reflects on my appreciation of
these employees. Their work is obviously important, but approval of
this legislation would give this one small group an unwarranted advantage
over other groups of equally dedicated employees.
Accordingly, I am constrained to disapprove enactment of H.R. 5094.
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning without my approval, H.R. 5094, a bill
which would raise the pay of deputy United States marshals
by as much as 24 percent through comprehensive, across-the-
board upgrading.
This bill is similar to H.R. 13895 which I disapproved
on October 27, 1972.
I am disapproving H.R. 5094 because it violates funda-
mental principles of fairness. It would place deputy marshal
positions in salary ranges that would value such work at
higher levels than the General Schedule provides for other
work of comparable difficulty, despite the fact that the
Civil Service Commission has already taken action to remedy
any inequities which may have existed.
Even worse, it would create severe disruption of
existing grade and pay relationships among the deputy marshals
themselves--extending so far in some cases as to call for
paying junior marshals as much as $1,150 above more senior
coworkers. Some deputies doing identical work would be placed
in different pay grades, and deputies doing different work
would be placed in the same pay grade. The bill could also
markedly reduce the present special hiring program for vet-
erans who wish to become deputy marshals and thus run counter
to our efforts to enhance employment for Vietnam veterans.
H.R. 5094 runs directly counter to the principle of
equal pay for equal work. Our policy must be, and is, to
provide equitable salaries for all Federal employees. I
find no basis for granting one small group highly preferential
treatment.
2
Approval of the proposed statutory pay plan, in addition
to being inherently unfair, would also serve as a precedent
for other occupational groups to seek favored treatment in
the Congress. The result could be a welter of costly,
irrational pay systems, which would undermine the classifi-
cation principles which are at the heart of the Government's
merit system.
My action in disapproving this bill in no way reflects
on the very high regard I have for the outstanding men and
women who carry out the important work of deputy marshals.
Approval of this bill, however, would give these employees a
wholly unwarranted advantage over many other groups of equally
devoted Federal employees who also perform valuable service.
I am also disturbed with this bill in that it represents
another in a series of congressional actions to pass a myriad
of unwarranted legislation often requiring unbudgeted increases
in Federal expenditures. The result invariably is that cumu-
lative and subsequently uncontrollable increases occur in
many areas including unwarranted liberalizations in Federal
personnel benefits.
Over the past two years, legislation passed by the Congress
has increased the unfunded liability costs of the Federal
employees retirement system by $2 billion. These actions
will increase outlays in the next fiscal year by $300 million.
Other benefit bills still pending before Congress would create
an additional unfunded liability of about $20 billion and
would further increase 1976 budget outlays by $850 million.
These bills would be directly counter to our present efforts
3
to reduce the level of Federal spending and to submit a
balanced budget for fiscal year 1976. They would fuel
inflation precisely when all sectors of the economy must
exercise strict restraint.
It is most important to our Nation to have adequately
paid and motivated Federal employees. Nevertheless,
Congress cannot justifiably continue to pass legislation
which is not fiscally responsible. If we are to deal suc-
cessfully with inflation, the Federal Government as the
Nation's largest single employer must take the lead. If
we expect restraint in the private sector on wage and price
demands we must exercise even greater restraint in the
Government.
I urge the Congress to join me in the fight against
inflation which is our Nation's number one domestic problem.
I would hope that Congress will exercise responsibility in
considering further legislation benefiting Federal
employees.
Accordingly, I feel compelled to disapprove enactment
of H.R. 5094.
THE WHITE HOUSE
August , 1974
THE WHITE HOUSE
RUSH
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.: 497
Date: August 8, 1974
Time:
9:30 a. m.
FOR ACTION: Geoff Shepard
cc (for information): Warren K. Hendriks
Fred Buzhardt
Jerry Jones
Bill Timmons
Dave Gergen
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Thursday, August 8, 1974
Time: 2:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 5094 - Upgrading of Deputy United
States Marshals
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
XX For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
No objection to neto.
W.C.
Please return to Kathy Tindle - West Wing
RALD R. FORD LIBRARY
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren K. Hendriks
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
106
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 7 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 5094 - Upgrading of Deputy
United States Marshals
Sponsor - Rep. Udall (D) Arizona and 13 others
Last Day for Action
August 12, 1974 - Monday
Purpose
Upgrades nonsupervisory deputy United States marshal positions
by one, two and three grades.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Department of Justice
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Civil Service Commission
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Discussion
H.R. 5094 is substantially similar to the deputy marshal
upgrading bill passed in the 92nd Congress, H.R. 13895, which
you pocket vetoed October 27, 1972. It has the effect of
exempting deputy U.S. marshals from the job evaluation standards
and controls of the General Schedule pay system, although--
unlike the vetoed bill--nominal coverage under that system
would be retained. In another respect, however, the bill is
even more objectionable than the vetoed bill because of its
discriminatory "grade conversion" provisions described below.
Under existing law, salaries for deputy United States marshals
are fixed under the General Schedule (GS) classification and
pay system which governs the pay of some 1.2 million Federal
2
white collar employees, including other law enforcement
employees in the Justice Department and elsewhere
throughout the Government.
Prior to June 15, 1973, deputy marshals were classified
at grade levels GS-6 through GS-9, with GS-8 as the typical
journeyman level. They were promoted at one-grade intervals.
Special deputy positions existed at GS-4 and GS-5 to provide
employment opportunities for Vietnam veterans with inadequate
or insufficient law enforcement training or experience to
qualify at the entry level.
On June 15, 1973, the Civil Service Commission issued new
standards for the deputy marshal occupation as a result of
a full-scale study. The new standards recognize the expanded
duties and responsibilities imposed on the Marshal Service
and accord deputy marshals classification and pay treatment
which is consistent with that of other Federal employees.
Under this system, the deputy marshal occupation is classified
at grade levels GS-5 through GS-9 and structured to provide
a two-grade interval progression for promotion, i.e., GS-5,
GS-7, and GS-9, with GS-9 as the full journeyman level. GS-4
was retained as the special rate for trainees and veterans,
and GS-5 as the entry level for more qualified candidates.
As a result of the new standards, large scale upgradings have
occurred. For example, Justice states that prior to the
application of the June 15, 1973 standard, 429 deputy marshals
were in grade GS-9 whereas now 949 are in that grade.
Positions not upgraded were carefully evaluated and found to
be properly classified at existing levels.
H.R. 5094 would legislate changes in the pay structure for
some 1,300 nonsupervisory deputy marshals, based on a
reconstruction of the grades and steps they were in prior to
CSC's 1973 reclassification, as follows:
-- The classification structure administratively defined
by the CSC would be fixed in statute and revised so that GS-5
would be used as a trainee level only, and GS-11, rather than
GS-9, would become the full journeyman level. The GS-4 sub-
entry level would be eliminated.
3
-- Deputies in GS-4, GS-5, GS-7, and GS-9 would be
advanced to GS-5, GS-7, GS-9 and GS-11, respectively. These
persons would be converted to the same step rates of the
higher grades as those they now have in their present grades.
--- "Grade conversion" provisions in the bill would require
that persons who occupied positions at GS-6 and GS-8 would be
advanced to three different grades, GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11,
solely on the basis of their previous step rate. Those in
step 7 or below of their reconstructed grades would advance
to the next grade; those in higher steps would advance three
grades.
During congressional consideration of H.R. 5094, the Justice
Department, CSC and OMB strongly opposed enactment, and
threatened veto as unwarranted and discriminatory.
Arguments for Approval
1. It is argued that CSC's 1973 action in reclassifying
deputy marshal positions is insufficient in view of the
expanded duties and responsibilities imposed in recent years
on marshals, as a result of their increasing role in crime
control, urban strife, air piracy and other law enforcement
activities. The House Committee states that the revision
failed to upgrade deputy marshals to the pay status they
deserve.
2. In the House debate, a comparison was drawn between the
starting salary of $10,000 for D.C. Police privates, and
$6,882, then the sub-entry GS-4 rate for deputy marshal
trainees. The GS-5 trainee rate which would be provided in
the enrolled bill is currently $8,055 and the GS-7 rate is
$9,969.
3. Despite veto of the predecessor bill, and the strong
opposition of the executive branch, there is strong
congressional support for H.R. 5094, as evidenced by the
House vote of 319-84 and passage in the Senate by voice vote.
4. The upgrading of deputy marshals which has already occurred
as a result of CSC's new classification standards reduces the
number of upgradings under the enrolled bill, so that its
budget impact would be minimal.
4
Arguments for Disapproval.
1. H.R. 5094 is contrary to the most fundamental principles
of position classification and pay administration. Prefer-
ential upgrading for deputy marshals, regardless of duties
or of the relationship of such work to other Federal
occupations, subverts the principle of equal pay for equal
work which is the basis for the Federal pay system.
2. The proposed pay increases for marshals would blatantly
discriminate against the other 1.2 million Federal employees
under the General Schedule system, and most particularly
against those other law enforcement employees, such as
border patrol and correctional officers, whose pay grades
have been carefully aligned with those of deputy marshals.
3. Legislative job classification for deputy marshals will
become a direct precedent for other occupational groups--
firefighters, building guards, special police groups, et al--
to demand equal special pay treatment in Congress. While
the immediate impact of this legislation will be on law
enforcement groups within the Department of Justice, pressure
for statutory upgrading can be expected from all professional
and occupational categories, with substantial potential
budgetary cost if successful.
4: CSC states that continued congressional upgrading will
eventually dismantle the whole position classification system,
and the result will be "a hodgepodge of irrational misalign-
ments," based entirely on the amount of pressure each group
can bring to bear.
5. The special employment program for Vietnam veterans in the
Marshal Service would have to be reduced, because the bill
eliminates the existing sub-entry level GS-4 position used to
employ veterans who lack sufficient education and experience
to qualify for GS-5.
6. The grade conversion features of the bill would create
irrational pay disparities within the Marshal Service itself.
The bill mandates highly irregular rules for the initial
promotion to grade and to step within grade, with the result
that persons now performing identical work will be placed in
different grades, and those within the same grade will receive
unjustified differentials in pay. Additional upgradings may
well be required to remedy the pay distortions the bill
legislates.
5
7. Deputy marshals cannot fairly be compared with city
policemen, however important, valuable or dangerous their
work may be. The fact that D.C. Metropolitan Police receive
higher pay than marshals, cited as justification for H.R. 5094,
is not valid grounds for the upgrading this bill provides.
CSC emphasizes the fact that GS-11 is simply not warranted
as the journeyman level for deputy marshal work, especially
when compared with the demands of investigative positions
classified at the same grade.
Recommendations
Justice recommends against approval of H.R. 5094, and expresses
particular concern for " the chain reaction effect that
undoubtedly will follow if H.R. 5094 becomes law. " The
Department also states:
"
we believe that legislation of this type is
totally unwarranted and unnecessary and that
enactment of H.R. 5094 would irreparably harm
the Federal compensation system.'
CSC strongly opposes the bill and urges disapproval, citing
the very serious potential dangers of this sort of legisla-
tion". The Commission also states:
"We are convinced that a large number of occupational
pressure groups are watching the progress of H.R. 5094
with great interest. If it is approved we expect them
to move immediately in the same direction. The
eventual result could be the scrapping of the classi-
fication system, and the piecemeal establishment by
Congress of every grade and every step for every
separate occupation in the Federal service."
OMB concurs with Justice and CSC and strongly recommends
disapproval. Both agencies have prepared draft veto messages
and we have also prepared a draft for your consideration,
drawing on the CSC draft.
We are giving consideration as to whether or not it would be
desirable to include in the veto message reference to certain
other objectionable personnel bills which are pending in the
6
Congress, and will be in touch with your staff on this
matter.
for
α.
as
Director
Enclosures
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGISL ATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
AUG 2 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Ash:
In compliance with your request, I have examined a facsimile
of the enrolled bill, H.R. 5094, a bill "To amend title 5, United
States Code, to provide for the reclassification of positions of
deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes."
Positions of deputy United States marshal now are graded
under the general position classification and pay plan established
by the Congress in chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide sound and equitable grade and pay relationships among
white collar positions throughout the Government. Under this plan,
the Civil Service Commission prepares Government-wide standards
which define the different grades in terms of the duties, respon-
sibilities and qualification requirements of the positions, and
the Department of Justice fixes the grades and pay of its positions
in accordance with these standards. Significantly, this plan permits
the Department of Justice to base decisions to promote employees on
two fundamental considerations: (1) is there work of the higher
grade to be performed?, and (2) are the employees qualified to perform
the higher level of work? These are management prerogatives essential
to the effective and economical administration of a large and diversified
work force.
H.R. 5094 would, on the other hand, fix the grades and pay of
deputy marshal positions arbitrarily by statute rather than permit
their evaluation under the carefully structured position classifica-
tion system applicable to the positions of most other white collar
Federal employees. Moreover, it would legislate a promotion system
based on seniority which would require the Attorney General to promote
each deputy marshal year after year until he reached the top non-
supervisory grade of GS-11 whether or not there was GS-11 level work
to be done by that employee.
2.
Not to be overlooked, of course, is the chain reaction effect
that undoubtedly will follow if H. R. 5094 becomes law. How
long will the same union which represents many deputy marshals
wait to seek similar legislation for border patrol agents and
correctional officers, whose grades traditionally have been
carefully aligned with those of deputy marshals? Already the
Immigration and Naturalization Service has asked the Acting
Assistant Attorney General for Administration to seek Civil Service
Commission revision of the position classification standard for
border patrol agent positions giving as one basis for this the
recent upgrading of deputy marshal positions under the June 15,
1973 standard cited in H. R. 5094.
Another objectionable feature of H. R. 5094 is the
cost which would be both exorbitant and inflationary. First
year costs are estimated to be $2 million; costs in succeeding
years would have to be determined on an individual basis, but
obviously would be substantial.
In summary, we consider that deputy marshals have been
treated fairly under the existing system. For example, it should
be noted that prior to application of the June 15, 1973 standard,
429 deputy marshals were in grade GS-9, whereas now 949 are in
that grade. For the reasons stated above, we believe that
legislation of this type is totally unwarranted and unnecessary
and that enactment of H. R. 5094 would irreparably harm the Federal
compensation system. Similar legislation, H. R. 13895 of the 92nd
Congress, was disapproved by President Nixon last year because
of the highly preferential treatment if would have accorded
deputy marshals.
The Department of Justice recommends against Executive
approval of this bill.
A proposed veto message is enclosed.
Sincerely,
W. Vincent Rakestraw
Assistant Attorney General
2.
all positions are now classified in accordance with the new Civil
Service Commission standards, and a substantial number of deputy
marshals have been appropriately upgraded.
This Administration is vitally concerned that we do everything
we can to win the battle against inflation by holding the line on
wage increases that are excessive. The increases afforded deputy
United States marshals as a result of the revised Civil Service
Commission standard provided an equitable level of pay for
these vital employees in relation to other Federal employees.
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I have before me H.R. 5094, a bill "To amend Title 5, United
States Code, to provide for the reclassification of positions of
deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes." This bill
would remove deputy marshals from the General Schedule system and
raise their pay by as much as 24 percent. While I fully recognize
the complexity and importance of the work that is performed by our
deputy United States marshals, I have had to decide not to approve
this bill.
The General Schedule classification and pay system provides for
the equitable compensation of more than 1.2 million Federal employees,
including deputy United States marshals and employees in other law
enforcement occupations with responsibilities similar to those of
deputy United States marshals. A bill such as H.R. 5094, which
would classify positions by statute rather than by an evaluation of
the work performed, defeats the basic principle of equal pay for
equal work, and is unfair to all the other General Schedule employees
whose positions would continue to be classified in accordance with
accepted classification principles.
The Civil Service Commission, working with the Department of
Justice, recently revised the classification standard for the deputy
marshal occupation in recognition of the increasing responsibilities
of the work they perform. I understand that, as a result of this,
UNITED
SEALE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMINITY
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
CHAIRMAN
August 2, 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Dear Mr. Ash:
This is in response to your request for the Commission's views and
recommendation on enrolled bill H.R. 5094, an enrolled bill "To
amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the reclassifica-
tion of positions of deputy United States marshal, and for other
purposes."
This measure legislates grades for deputy U.S. marshals, placing
them in grades on the basis of the grade and step they were in prior
to June 1973, regardless of their duties or the relationship of dep-
uty marshal work to the work of other Federal occupations. The bill
effectively establishes GS-11 as the full performance grade for
deputy marshal work, and eliminates the possibility of a GS-4 entry
level. The Civil Service Commission strongly opposes this highly
preferential measure and urges that it be disapproved. The bill:
- is contrary to the most fundamental principles of posi-
tion classification and pay administration;
- would subvert the statutory principle of equal pay for
equal work, creating inequities between deputy U.S.
marshals and the other 1.2 million Federal employees
under the General Schedule (especially those in other
law enforcement occupations);
- would place deputy marshals performing identical work in
different grades;
- would establish completely irrational pay differentials
between deputy marshals in the same grade; and
- would stop the present practice of employing veterans
under special programs starting at the GS-4 level when
those veterans do not meet the qualification require-
ments for the GS-5 level.
2
This enrolled bill is very similar to a previous bill, H.R. 13895,
which was passed by the 92nd Congress but disapproved by the Presi-
dent. Among the arguments for H.R. 13895 was the contention that
the Civil Service Commission standards for this occupation were not
up to date, and did not provide appropriate grades for deputy marshal
work. Since that time, the Civil Service Commission has completed an
occupational study of the deputy marshal occupation. The study found
that the occupation needed substantial restructuring, including a
change from a one to a two-grade interval progression for promotions,
and an increase in the typical journeyman level from the GS-8 to the
GS-9 level. Those changes in the occupation were carried out through
the approval, in June 1973, of new qualification and classification
standards for the occupation.
One of the specific findings of the occupational study was that the
GS-11 level is simply not warranted for the typical journeyman posi-
tion in the Marshals Service. The study included, for example, a
comparison of deputy marshal and investigative positions. The Com-
mission's standard for investigative positions shows that GS-11 in-
vestigators are responsible for the independent handling of an entire
case. The characteristics and specific examples given in the standards
for investigative positions indicate that the full performance level of
deputy marshals does not match the GS-11 level. Deputy marshals are
almost exclusively limited to one aspect of the cases described at this
level, i.e. location and apprehension of the subject. Seizure of prop-
erty is also limited in scope. There is no need to establish any case
concerning the property. The deputy identifies, seizes, and protects
the property. The rest of the case relating to the property is the
concern of others. To place these positions at the GS-11 level would
therefore be in conflict with the principle of equal pay for equal work.
That principle would be even more blatantly violated by the grade con-
version provisions of H.R. 5094. Those provisions would place deputies
performing identical work in different grades by assigning grades based
on the previous within-grade (pay) step held by each deputy. Since
large scale upgradings have occurred by application of the new standard
since June, the bill has now been amended to prevent a "double-jump."
If a marshal has been upgraded under the new standard, the bill re-
quires the Department of Justice to determine where he was prior to
this upgrading, and move him from that point to the grade and step
specified by the peculiar advancement formula provided by the bill.
The formula ignores the fact that grade level alone reflects the level
of work, while the pay step reflects longevity. The bill would in
some instances force the Department of Justice to upgrade deputy mar-
shals to a particular grade based on their previous step. As an ex-
ample, two marshals doing identical work have been advanced to GS-9
3
under the new standard. The bill passes. The Department of Justice
determines that last June one was in step 7 of GS-8 while the other
(because of longer service) was in step 8 of the same grade. The bill
advances the more senior to GS-11 (for which he is clearly not quali-
fied) with an increase of $68 a year. The more junior remains in
GS-9 but with an increase of $1624 a year. One gets an unwarranted
two-grade promotion; the other gets an unwarranted four-step salary
increase; the more junior now earns $1150 a year more than his co-
worker with longer service; and they are still doing identical jobs.
Under the new standard, we now have about 800 marshals in GS-9, all
working at the same level--doing essentially the same job. H.R. 5094
would leave half of them in GS-9 but move the other half to GS-11.
The 400 left in the correct grade will surely file appeals. The bill
makes no pretense at equity; it openly establishes inequity.
Clearly, the establishment of the principle that a whole occupation
can be inequitably upgraded by preferential legislation--if its lobby
is vocal enough--is simply the thin edge of the wedge leading to the
dismantling of our whole position classification system. Obviously,
all employees would like to be in higher grades. If the deputy mar-
shals succeed in getting preferential treatment, we would expect the
policeman to try the same tactic; if they are successful, then the
firefighters, then the correctional officers, then the translators,
then the IRS officers, and so forth, until eventually the whole clas-
sification structure is a hodgepodge of irrational misalignments.
Then the marshals, having seen their preferential position eroded by
the success of other groups, would be ready to start the process over
again with a special bill to raise them to GS-12.
We are convinced that a large number of occupational pressure groups
are watching the progress of H.R. 5094 with great interest. If it is
approved, we expect them to move immediately in the same direction.
The eventual result could be the scrapping of the classification sys-
tem, and the piecemeal establishment by Congress of every grade and
every step for every separate occupation in the Federal Service.
The bill would also reduce the hiring of veterans by the U.S. Marshal
Service. The Service has encouraged the hiring of veterans through
the Veterans Readjustment Act by filling positions below the normal
trainee level. This practice has permitted the hiring and training of
veterans who could not meet all of the normal entry requirements.
H.R. 5094 would stop this and similar programs by failing to provide
for the possible filling of positions below the GS-5 level.
4
In view of these problems, and the very serious potential dangers of
this sort of legislation, the Civil Service Commission urges that the
President disapprove H.R. 5094. A proposed veto message is enclosed.
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
Jayne acting B S pain
Chairman
Enclosure
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning to Congress without my approval H. R. 5094, an enactment
"To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the reclassification
of positions of deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes".
This enactment would violate fundamental principles of fairness,
creating serious pay inequities between deputy United States marshals
and other Federal law enforcement personnel. Even more illogically, it
would create severe disruption of existing grade and pay relationships
among the deputy marshals themselves - extending so far in some cases
as to place more junior marshals in pay rates as much as $1,150 above
more senior coworkers who now, properly, are at a relatively higher rate.
Some deputies doing identical work would be placed in different pay grades,
and deputies doing different work would be placed in the same pay grade.
The enactment would run directly counter to the principle of equal
pay for equal work. I find no basis for granting this small group
such highly preferential treatment. Our policy must be, and is, to
provide equitable salaries for all Federal employees. The proposed
legislation violates that policy.
The action I am taking today in no way reflects on my appreciation of
these employees. Their work is obviously important, but approval of
this legislation would give this one small group an unwarranted advantage
over other groups of equally dedicated employees.
Accordingly, I am constrained to disapprove enactment of H.R. 5094.
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning without my approval, H.R. 5094, a bill
which would raise the pay of deputy United States marshals
by as much as 24 percent through comprehensive, across-the-
board upgrading.
This bill is similar to H.R. 13895 which I disapproved
on October 27, 1972.
I am disapproving H.R. 5094 because it violates funda-
mental principles of fairness. It would place deputy marshal
positions in salary ranges that would value such work at
higher levels than the General Schedule provides for other
work of comparable difficulty, despite the fact that the
Civil Service Commission has already taken action to remedy
any inequities which may have existed.
Even worse, it would create severe disruption of
existing grade and pay relationships among the deputy marshals
themselves--extending so far in some cases as to call for
paying junior marshals as much as $1,150 above more senior
coworkers. Some deputies doing identical work would be placed
in different pay grades, and deputies doing different work
would be placed in the same pay grade. The bill could also
markedly reduce the present special hiring program for vet-
erans who wish to become deputy marshals and thus run counter
to our efforts to enhance employment for Vietnam veterans.
H.R. 5094 runs directly counter to the principle of
equal pay for equal work. Our policy must be, and is, to
provide equitable salaries for all Federal employees. I
find no basis for granting one small group highly preferential
treatment.
2
Approval of the proposed statutory pay plan, in addition
to being inherently unfair, would also serve as a precedent
for other occupational groups to seek favored treatment in
the Congress. The result could be a welter of costly,
irrational pay systems, which would undermine the classifi-
cation principles which are at the heart of the Government's
merit system.
My action in disapproving this bill in no way reflects
on the very high regard I have for the outstanding men and
women who carry out the important work of deputy marshals.
Approval of this bill, however, would give these employees a
wholly unwarranted advantage over many other groups of equally
devoted Federal employees who also perform valuable service.
I am also disturbed with this bill in that it represents
another in a series of congressional actions to pass a myriad
of unwarranted legislation often requiring unbudgeted increases
in Federal expenditures. The result invariably is that cumu-
lative and subsequently uncontrollable increases occur in
many areas including unwarranted liberalizations in Federal
personnel benefits.
Over the past two years, legislation passed by the Congress
has increased the unfunded liability costs of the Federal
employees retirement system by $2 billion. These actions
will increase outlays in the next fiscal year by $300 million.
Other benefit bills still pending before Congress would create
an additional unfunded liability of about $20 billion and
would further increase 1976 budget outlays by $850 million.
These bills would be directly counter to our present efforts
3
to reduce the level of Federal spending and to submit a
balanced budget for fiscal year 1976. They would fuel
inflation precisely when all sectors of the economy must
exercise strict restraint.
It is most important to our Nation to have adequately
paid and motivated Federal employees. Nevertheless,
Congress cannot justifiably continue to pass legislation
which is not fiscally responsible. If we are to deal suc-
cessfully with inflation, the Federal Government as the
Nation's largest single employer must take the lead. If
we expect restraint in the private sector on wage and price
demands we must exercise even greater restraint in the
Government.
I urge the Congress to join me in the fight against
inflation which is our Nation's number one domestic problem.
I would hope that Congress will exercise responsibility in
considering further legislation benefiting Federal
employees.
Accordingly, I feel compelled to disapprove enactment
of H.R. 5094.
THE WHITE HOUSE
August / 1974
(Gergen)
August 12, 1974
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am today returning to the Congress without my approval
H.R. 5094, a measure that would require the reclassification and
upgrading of deputy United States marshals.
A bill substantially similar to this legislation was passed
by the Congress and then pocket vetoed by Presiden Nixon in
October, 1972. Since that time various departments of the
executive branch have consistently argued that such legislation
would be unwise and discriminatory.
That opposition has been based upon the view that by singling
out deputy United States marshals for significant salary increases,
the Government would be creating serious pay inequities with other
Federal law enforcement personnel, thus violating fundamental
principles of fairness. In addition, H.R. 5094 would severely
disrupt existing grade and pay relationships among the deputy
marshals themselves. In some cases, under this legislation,
junior marshals would be paid $1, 150 a year more than their
senior colleagues. Some deputies doing identical work would be
placed in different pay grades, while deputies performing different
jobs would be placed in the same pay grade.
-2-
I fully appreciate the fine service performed by our
deputy U.S. marshals, and I am aware that the Congress was
prompted by a desire to ensure that their pay matched the
increasing responsibilities they have assumed in recent years.
But I also believe that this legislation would run directly
counter to the
principle of equal pay for equal
work that underlies our civil service system. Our policy has
been and must continue to be one of fundamental fairness to
all Federal employees. For that reason, I am returning this
legislation without my approval.
# # #
FORD & LIBRARY 07V839
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am today returning to the Congress without my
approval H.R. 5094, a measure that would require the
reclassification and upgrading of deputy United States
marshals.
A bill substantially similar to this legislation was
passed by the Congress and then pocket vetoed by President
Nixon in October, 1972. Since that time various depart-
ments of the executive branch have consistently argued
that such legislation would be unwise and discriminatory.
That opposition has been based upon the view that
by singling out deputy United States marshals for signifi-
cant salary increases, the Government would be creating
serious pay inequities with other Federal law enforcement
personnel, thus violating fundamental principles of
fairness. In addition, H.R. 5094 would severely disrupt
existing grade and pay relationships among the deputy
marshals themselves. In some cases, under this legislation,
junior marshals would be paid $1,150 a year more than their
senior colleagues. Some deputies doing identical work
would be placed in different pay grades, while deputies
performing different jobs would be placed in the same pay
grade.
I fully appreciate the fine service performed by our
deputy U.S. marshals, and I am aware that the Congress was
prompted by a desire to ensure that their pay matched the
increasing responsibilities they have assumed in recent
years. But I also believe that this legislation would run
2
directly counter to the principle of equal pay for equal
work that underlies our civil service system. Our policy
has been and must continue to be one of fundamental fairness
to all Federal employees. For that reason, I am returning
this legislation without my approval.
/s/ GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 12, 1974.
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am today returning to the Congress without my
approval H.R. 5094, a measure that would require the
reclassification and upgrading of deputy United States
marshals.
A bill substantially similar to this legislation was
passed by the Congress and then pocket vetoed by President
Nixon in October, 1972. Since that time various depart-
ments of the executive branch have consistently argued
that such legislation would be unwise and discriminatory.
That opposition has been based upon the view that
by singling out deputy United States marshals for signifi-
cant salary increases, the Government would be creating
serious pay inequities with other Federal law enforcement
personnel, thus violating fundamental principles of
fairness. In addition, H.R. 5094 would severely disrupt
existing grade and pay relationships among the deputy
marshals themselves. In some cases, under this legislation,
junior marshals would be paid $1,150 a year more than their
senior colleagues. Some deputies doing identical work
would be placed in different pay grades, while deputies
performing different jobs would be placed in the same pay
grade.
I fully appreciate the fine service performed by our
deputy U.S. marshals, and I am aware that the Congress was
prompted by a desire to ensure that their pay matched the
increasing responsibilities they have assumed in recent
years. But I also believe that this legislation would run
2
directly counter to the principle of equal pay for equal
work that underlies our civil service system. Our policy
has been and must continue to be one of fundamental fairness
to all Federal employees. For that reason, I am returning
this legislation without my approval.
/s/ GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 12, 1974.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
August 12, 1974
Received from the White House a sealed
envelope said to contain H. R. 5094, An Act to
amend title 5, United States Code, to provide
for the reclassification of positions of deputy
United States marshal, and for other purposes,
and a veto message thereon.
CRD
LIBRARY
18.
Representatives
Time Received
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am today returning to the Congress without my
approval H.R. 5094, a measure that would require the
reclassification and upgrading of deputy United States
marshals.
A bill substantially similar to this legislation was
passed by the Congress and then pocket vetoed by President
Nixon in October, 1972. Since that time various depart-
ments of the executive branch have consistently argued
that such legislation would be unwise and discriminatory.
That opposition has been based upon the view that
by singling out deputy United States marshals for signifi-
cant salary increases, the Government would be creating
serious pay inequities with other Federal law enforcement
personnel, thus violating fundamental principles of
fairness. In addition, H.R. 5094 would severely disrupt
existing grade and pay relationships among the deputy
marshals themselves. In some cases, under this legislation,
junior marshals would be paid $1,150 a year more than their
senior colleagues. Some deputies doing identical work
would be placed in different pay grades, while deputies
performing different jobs would be placed in the same pay
grade.
I fully appreciate the fine service performed by our
deputy U.S. marshals, and I am aware that the Congress was
prompted by a desire to ensure that their pay matched the
increasing responsibilities they have assumed in recent
years. But I also believe that this legislation would run
FORD CIBRERY
2
directly counter to the principle of equal pay for equal
work that underlies our civil service system. Our policy
has been and must continue to be one of fundamental fairness
to all Federal employees. For that reason, I am returning
this legislation without my approval.
Herald R. Ind
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 12, 1974.
FORM LIBERRY orver
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 13, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am today returning to the Congress without my
approval H.R. 5094, a measure that would require the
reclassification and upgrading of deputy United States
marshals.
A bill substantially similar to this legislation was
passed by the Congress and then pocket vetoed by President
Nixon in October, 1972. Since that time various depart--
ments of the executive branch have consistently argued
that such legislation would be unwise and discriminatory.
That opposition has been based upon the view that
by singling out deputy United States marshals for signifi-
cant salary increases, the Government would be creating
serious pay inequities with other Federal law enforcement
personnel, thus violating fundamental principles of
fairness. In addition, H.R. 5094 would severely disrupt
existing grade and pay relationships among the deputy
marshals themselves. In some cases, under this legislation,
junior marshals would be paid $1,150 a year more than their
senior colleagues. Some deputies doing identical work
would be placed in different pay grades, while deputies
performing different jobs would be placed in the same pay
grade.
I fully appreciate the fine service performed by our
deputy U.S. marshals, and I am aware that the Congress was
prompted by a desire to ensure that their pay matched the
increasing responsibilities they have assumed in recent
years. But I also believe that this legislation would run
directly counter to the principle of equal pay for equal
work that underlies our civil service system. Our policy
has been and must continue to be one of fundamental fairness
to all Federal employees. For that reason, I am returning
this legislation without my approval.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
GEGALD FORD LIBRARY
August 12, 1974.
#
#
#
#
93D CONGRESS
}
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
1st Session
No. 93-235
RECLASSIFICATION OF DEPUTY UNITED STATES
MARSHALS
MAY 30, 1973.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HENDERSON, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5094]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was re-
ferred the bill (H.R. 5094) to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide for the reclassification of positions of deputy U.S. marshal,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended
do pass.
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts
a substitute text which appears in italic type in the reported bill.
The amendment is explained in the text of the report.
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 5094 is to reclassify the positions of deputy
U.S. marshal (other than supervisory or managerial positions) at
grades GS-5, GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11 of the General Schedule.
COMMITTEE ACTION
No hearings were held on this legislation during this session of the
Congress. However, a hearing on similar legislation (H.R. 13895),
which eventually was vetoed by the President, was held during the
92d Congress (committee hearing No. 92-45).
H.R. 5094, as amended, was approved by the Subcommittee on Man-
power and Civil Service by a voice vote on May 10, 1973.
*83-006
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
2
3
On May 17, 1973, the full committee ordered the bill reported by a
Unfortunately, these nonsupervisory deputy marshals are not re-
record vote of 18 to 1.
ceiving an equitable rate of pay in return for the work they are now
STATEMENT
performing.
During the second session of the 92d Congress a similar, but not
H.R. 5094 would raise the grade levels of all deputy U.S. marshal
identical, bill (H.R. 13895) was approved by the Congress but was
positions, other than supervisory and management positions, in order
vetoed by the President on October 27, 1972. In disapproving H.R.
to bring a measure of justice and equality to present incumbents and
13895 the President stated:
future recruits of this critically important occupational group. These
positions are presently classified at the General Schedule grade levels
There is no justification for this highly preferential treat-
of GS-4, GS-5, GS-6, GS-7, GS-8 and GS-9. The GS-4 and GS-5
ment, which discriminates against all other Government em-
levels are being utilized for entrance level trainees under the Vietnam
ployees who perform work of comparable difficulty and
veterans' readjustment program. H.R. 5094, as amended, would re-
responsibility and whose pay is now the same as that of
quire these positions to be classified at GS-5 (trainee), GS-7, GS-9,
deputy marshals.
and GS-11 of the General Schedule.
The committee has not conducted a study to determine the extent
The approximate number of deputy marshals and grade level as-
to which the duties of other Federal employees are comparable in
signments as of April 13, 1973, was:
degree of difficulty and responsibility to those of deputy U.S. mar-
Number
shals. The committee has determined, however, that the pay of deputy
Nonsupervisory:
65
marshals clearly is not commensurate with the difficulty of their duties
GS-4
85
GS-5
and responsibilities and the personal risks to which they constantly
256
GS-6
are exposed. This fact, to a lesser degree, is recognized by the Civil
300
GS-7
265
Service Commission.
GS-8
349
In its report of April 18, 1973, on H.R. 5094, the Civil Service Com-
GS-9
mission advised the committee that it has been conducting a full-scale
Total
1,320
study of the deputy U.S. marshal occupation. No doubt, the Com-
Since the last Civil Service Commission job classification standards
mission's decision to initiate a full-scale study of this matter was the
were issued for these positions in October of 1967, the duties and re-
result of congressional action on H.R. 13895. The Commission's report
sponsibilities of deputy marshals have significantly increased in scope
contains the following statement:
and degree of exposure to hazardous situations. Beginning in 1970,
The results of our comprehensive study will accord the
the deputy U.S. marshals became involved in airline antipiracy pro-
deputy U.S. marshals classification and pay treatment which
grams and were the first Federal law enforcement body to provide
is consistent with other Federal employees, and which accu-
protection for persons and property against hijacking. They have
rately reflects the range of duties and responsibilities that
executed their duties in this particular field in a highly creditable
exist in the Marshal Service at the present time.
and professional manner. Their efforts have resulted in the prevention
of at least 29 hijacking attempts; the effecting of a total of approxi-
It is apparent, therefore, that even the Civil Service Commission
mately 3,900 arrests (approximately 550 for possession of concealed
recognizes that the classification and pay treatment of deputy U.S.
weapons and over 1,000 for violation of Federal and State narcotic
marshals does not now accurately reflect the range of duties and re-
laws) ; and the seizure of approximately $18 million worth of nar-
sponsibilities of such employees.
While the Commission's study could result in some improvement in
cotics. In early 1971, deputy U.S. marshals were assigned the responsibility
the compensation of deputy U.S. marshals, the committee is not con-
of protecting witnesses who are required to testify in Federal proceed-
vinced that the Commission is prepared to elevate deputy marshals to
ings. In addition to witnesses, the marshals are responsible for pro-
the pay status they fully deserve. Furthermore, it has become obvious
tecting prosecutors, judges, and Deputy Attorneys General. Another
that the Congress can no longer wait for the Civil Service Commission
example of hazardous duties required of deputy U.S. marshals is their
to take the necessary action to improve the pay of deputy U.S.
duties in connection with illegal occupancy of public buildings and
marshals.
similar offenses, such as recently occurred at Wounded Knee, S. Dak.
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
The duties of a deputy U.S. marshal frequently involve personal
FIRST SECTION
risk, exposure to severe working conditions, physical exertion, ir-
regular and long work hours, and extended periods of time away from
Subsection (a) of the first section of the bill sets forth the policy
home. In addition to the adverse physical aspects of their day to day
of the Congress that all Federal personnel who have law enforcement
assignments, deputy marshals must utilize mature judgment and in-
responsibilities, such as deputy U.S. marshals, shall be adequately paid
sight to deal with potentially explosive situations, and must be
in amounts commensurate with the degree of danger and stress in-
capable of taking necessary measures to deter the development of such
cident to such responsibilities.
situations.
4
5
Subsection (b) amends section 5109 of title 5, United States Code,
COSTS
relating to positions classified by statute, by adding a new subsection
(c) at the end thereof. The new subsection (c) provides that each posi-
The first year cost of implementing the proposed grade structure
tion of deputy U.S. marshal, other than a supervisory or managerial
and adjustment of step rates as provided for in this bill is estimated
position, shall be classified, in accordance with regulation issued by the
by the committee to be approximately $2,069,818, based on 1,320 em-
Civil Service Commission, at grades GS-5, GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11 of
ployees in the following categories:
the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332), except that GS-5 shall be used
GS-4 to 5
$98, 864
GS-5 to 7
only for a trainee.
251,437
GS-6 to 7 or GS-9.
362,708
Under this amendment the positions of deputy U.S. marshal will
GS-7 to 9
784,221
continue to be subject to the classification provisions of chapter 51 and
GS-8 to 9 or GS-11
284,890
the General Schedule pay provisions of subchapter III of chapter 53
GS-9 to 11
287,698
of title 5, United States Code, but the specific grades at which such
Total
2,069,818
positions may be classified will be governed by the provisions of the
new section 5109 (c).
The estimate by the Department of Justice as shown in the report
SECTION 2
of April 18, 1973, is $2.6 million for nonsupervisory deputy marshals.
The estimated 5-year cost (based on an estimated 5.5 percent annual
Section 2 of the bill provides for the initial conversion of all deputy
increase in Federal salaries) is as follows:
U.S. marshals who are covered by the new subsection (c) of section
1st year
$2,069,818
5109 of title 5, as added by the first section of the bill, and who are on
2d year
2,183,658
the rolls on the effective date of this section.
3d year
2,303,759
4th year
2,430,466
Under the conversion provisions of section 2, a deputy U.S. marshal
5th year
2,564,142
who is in grade GS-4, GS-5, GS-6, GS-7, GS-8, or GS-9 of the Gen-
eral Schedule immediately before the effective date of section 2 will
Total
11, 551, 843
be elevated to a higher grade of the General Schedule in accordance
with the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (8) of subsection (a)
AGENCY REPORTS
of section 2. Paragraphs (1) through (8) prescribe the specific grade
and step of the grade to which each deputy marshal shall be advanced.
Following are agency reports on H.R. 5094 and a similar bill, H.R.
344:
Subsection (b) of section 2 provides that an increase in pay that
results from an initial adjustment of pay under the conversion pro-
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
visions of subsection (a) of section 2 shall not be deemed to be an
Washington, D.C., pril 18, 1973.
equivalent increase in pay within the meaning of section 5335 of title
Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI,
5 for purposes of step increases. This means that the employee will
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of
not be required to commence a new waiting period for his next step
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
increase as a result of his advancement to a higher grade and rate of
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the
pay under the conversion provisions of subsection (a).
views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 5094, a bill to amend
Subsection (b) further provides that the service performed by an
title 5, United States Code, to provide for the reclassification of posi-
employee immediately before the effective date of the conversion of the
tions of deputy U.S. marshal, and for other purposes.
employee under subsection (a) of section 2 shall be counted toward
Positions of deputy U.S. marshal are now subject to the General
only one step-increase under the time-in-step provisions of 5 U.S.C.
Schedule position classification and pay plan established by the Con-
5335. For example, a deputy U.S. marshal who has served 2 years
gress in chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, for the majority of
and 11 months in step 8 of GS-6 will be further advanced only to
Government positions. The plan is designed to provide sound and
step 2 of GS-9 on the basis of such prior service after his initial con-
equitable grade and pay relationships among General Schedule posi-
version to step 1 of GS-9, and a new waiting period will start at the
tions throughout the Federal service. Under this plan, the Depart-
time of such advancement to step 2.
ment of Justice grades and fixes the pay of the preponderance of its
Subsection (c) of section 2 provides that no rate of basic pay which
positions-including those of deputy marshals-in accordance with
is in effect immediately before the effective date of section 2 shall be
Governmentwide standards issued by the Civil Service Commission
reduced by reason of the enactment of this bill.
which define the different grades in terms of the duties, responsibilities,
and qualification requirements of the positions. At present, most
SECTION 3
deputy marshals enter the U.S. Marshals Service at grade GS-6, al-
though some enter at GS-4 or GS-5 under the Veterans readjust-
Section 3 of the bill provides that the provisions of the bill shall
ment program. While the full working level is GS-8, a limited number
become effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay period
of nonsupervisory deputy marshals may advance to the senior work-
which commences on or after the date of enactment.
6
7
ing level of GS-9. The number of nonsupervisory deputies in each of
Of greater concern, section 2(2) would fix the rates of basic pay
these grades as of April 14, 1973, was: GS-4: 65; GS-5: 85; GS-6:
of some deputy marshals at rates in GS-9 and GS-11, despite the fact
256; GS-7: 300; GS-8: 265; and GS-9: 349. In addition, there were
that section 2 (1) required their positions to be classified to GS-7 and
30 nonsupervisory deputies in GS-10, 15 in GS-11, and 4 in GS-12.
GS-9, respectively. While employees in rates 1 through 7 of GS-6
Under H.R. 5094, all positions of deputy U.S. marshal would be
would be advanced to GS-7, rates 4 through 10, respectively, employ-
classified at not less than GS-5, or at GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11, and with-
ees in rates 8 through 10 of GS-6 would be advanced to GS-9, rates 1
in those grades, at varying step rates depending upon the deputy
through 3. Similarly, employees in rates 1 through 7 of GS-8 would
marshal's performance of duties, his length of service and his ability
be advanced to GS-9, rates 4 through 10, respectively, and employees
to accept the responsibilities of a deputy U.S. marshal. Under section
in rates 8 through 10 of GS-8 would be advanced to GS-11, rates 1
2 of the bill, deputy U.S. marshals and their positions would be re-
through 3, respectively. It is not clear how this requirement can be
classified one or two grades higher than the grade applicable before
executed.
the effective date so that the lowest grade for a deputy U.S. marshal
It is unclear whether H.R. 5094 is intended to apply only to non-
would be a GS-5 and the highest grade would be a GS-11.
supervisory positions, but we have assumed such a limitation in form-
While H.R. 5094 provides that the positions be classified in accord-
ing our comments. In addition, while the bill makes no provision for
ance with regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission, the fact
deputy marshals in grade GS-10, we assume that an employee in that
that it requires positions to be classified to four specific grades denies
grade would have to be reassigned to one of the four grades provided
the Commission the authority to determine through job evaluation
in the bill. Finally, the effect of the bill on supervisory positions is
processes the worth of deputy marshal positions relative to other
totally unclear since many of these positions are filled by persons in
positions subject to the Government-wide General Schedule system.
the grades provided in this bill, particularly grade GS-11.
There are more than 170 white-collar occupations represented in the
The cost of carrying out the provisions of H.R. 5094 is estimated to
Department of Justice workforce, and sound and equitable relation-
be in excess of $2.6 million for nonsupervisory deputy marshals alone.
ships among them are a prerequisite to an effective personnel manage-
Although the impact of the bill on supervisory positions cannot be
ment program. H.R. 5094, by requiring the raising of grades applic-
determined fully at this time, the cost of supervisory positions would
able to all deputy U.S. marshals without regard to the difficulty of
probably increase approximately $529,000. In the 92d Congress, Presi-
the work and the effect such a grade raise would have on similar posi-
dent Nixon vetoed H.R. 13895, a similar bill, because of the costs and
tions, would result, in my opinion, in malalignment of deputy mar-
the preferential treatment which the bill would have given deputy
shal positions with other positions, including other law enforcement
U.S. marshals. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Octo-
positions, in this and other departments. Not only would this have a
ber 30, 1972, p. 1579.
deleterious effect on the morale of other employees, but it would set a
In summary, while the Department is dedicated to bringing about
precedent for other similar inroads on the Government-wide position
improvements in all aspects of personnel management affecting deputy
classification system.
marshals, it believes firmly that they should be accomplished through
The provisions of section 2 of the bill, providing automatic grade
the administrative authorities and procedures established by existing
raises for all deputy marshals and deputy marshal positions, would
public policy, rather than by legislation such as H.R. 5094.
provide preferential treatment to deputy marshals over the treatment
The Department of Justice recommends against enactment of this
accorded other civil servants whose jobs are reclassified under ordi-
legislation.
nary civil service procedures. The deputy marshals would receive these
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
grade raises under the bill without regard to the difficulty, responsi-
objection to submission of this report and that enactment of this leg-
bility and qualification requirements of the work performed, thus di-
islation would not be in accord with the program of the President.
rectly contrary to the policy of the civil service laws (5 U.S.C. 5101).
Sincerely,
In addition, in providing grade raises, section 2 provides larger sal-
MIKE McKevitt,
aries in some instances than would be provided under a normal promo-
Assistant Attorney General.
tion under existing civil service law, 5 U.S.C. 5334. For example, an
employee promoted under title 5, United States Code, from the 7th
rate of GS-6 ($10,288) to a GS-7 would have his pay fixed at the
6th rate of GS-7 ($11,105). However, under section 2 of H.R. 5094,
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
the employee's pay would be fixed at the 10th rate of GS-7 ($12.373).
Washington, D.C., April 18, 1973.
There is no apparent reason for this discrepancy between the bill
Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI,
and existing civil service law. Further, all increases in pay greater
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of
than those provided by existing law appear to be gratuities since they
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
would not be based upon increases in value of services received, as is
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your separate requests
the case with promotions under the General Schedule.
for the views of the Civil Service Commission on H.R. 344 and H.R.
5094, both bills to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for
8
9
the reclassification of positions of deputy U.S. marshal, and for other
ized experience) through an intermediate level at GS-7, to the full
journeyman at GS-9. Under the Justice Department's proposal, the
purposes. Both bills would classify positions of fully qualified deputy U.S.
two-grade interval pattern would equate the highest level deputy mar-
marshals at GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11. Within these ranges, the step
shal duties with investigative duties (where the two-grade interval
rate for each employee would be determined by the "appropriate au-
is typical) rather than with police or guard duties (where the one-
thority" depending upon the employee's (1) general performance of
grade progression is more typical). The GS-5 entry level would equate
his duties as a deputy U.S. marshal, (2) the number of years of his
the Marshal Service with kindred Federal occupations, such as crimi-
service as a deputy U.S. marshal, and (3) his ability to accept re-
nal investigator and immigration inspector, all of which have a GS-5
sponsibilities as a deputy U.S. marshal. Both bills contain provisions
entry level with 8 years of general experience (or college) but no spe-
to convert the present incumbents from the grades they have been
cialized experience required. It would also enable the Department of
assigned by the classification process to those which would be created
Justice to recruit more college graduates into the Marshal Service.
by statutory enactment. In addition, H.R. 5094 provides that GS-5
The results of our comprehensive study will accord the deputy
shall be an entry level for trainees. H.R. 344 contains one most unusual
U.S. marshals classification and pay treatment which is consistent
feature: it provides that the GS grades for deputy U.S. marshals
with other Federal employees, and which accurately reflects the range
shall be truncated so as to extend only from the present third step to
of duties and responsibilities that exist in the Marshal Service at the
the present seventh step.
present time. Passage of either H.R. 344 or H.R. 5094 would raise
The Civil Service Commission is strongly opposed to enactment of
deputy marshal by statute to levels that have not been determined to
either of these bills. It is our considered opinion that this or similar
be warranted by the duties and responsibilities in comparison with
legislation is contrary to the most fundamental principles of position
the grade levels in title 5, United States Code, with other occupations
in the Federal service.
classification and pay administration, would subvert the statutory
principle of equal pay for equal work, would create severe inequities
The statutory principle of "equal pay for substantially equal work"
between deputy U.S. marshals and the other 1.2 million General
would be even more grossly subverted by the conversion rules which
Schedule employees (most particularly others in the law enforcement
are provided by the two bills. H.R. 5094 would place many employees in
occupations), could deny deputy U.S. marshals their entitlement to
different grades on the basis of their current step. For example, those
regular within-grade increases, and would entirely undo the Com-
now in step 7 of GS-6 would advance to GS-7, but those now in step
mission's current efforts to issue updated standards which reflect the
8 of GS-6 would advance to GS-9. Thus, two employees whose work is
actual job content of the present-day deputy marshal within the frame-
presently identical could find themselves two full grades apart if one
happened to have a few weeks more service than the other. H.R. 344, on
work of the overall General Schedule structure.
The General Schedule classification and pay system now provides
the other hand, provides that those now in GS-7 and GS-8 (and whose
present duties have therefore been determined to be measurably dif-
for the equitable compensation of more than 1.2 million Federal em-
ferent) would both be advanced to GS-9.
ployees including deputy U.S. marshals and members of the many
Both bills would also provide the unprecedented means of within-
other occupations within the protective and law enforcement fields.
grade salary advancement cited above in the second paragraph. Under
This system provides for the assignment of employees to appropriate
these provisions, a deputy U.S. marshal would no longer be able to
grades on the basis of the difficulty and responsibility of their work,
depend upon regular periodic step raises based upon an acceptable
and the qualifications which they need to perform this work. This
level of competence, nor would he be able to appeal the withholding
assignment is based upon the position classification standards which
of such increase. His placement at, or advancement to, a particular
are prepared and issued by the Civil Service Commission, after care-
step rate would be determined by an unspecified "appropriate author-
ful and continuous study of each Federal occupation.
ity," outside the provisions of the civil service regulations which cur-
As a result of concern about developments in the job content of
rently safeguard within-grade salary increases. H.R. 344 would restrict
deputy U.S. marshals, we have recently been conducting a full-scale
the deputy marshal's salary growth even more, by truncating the range
study of this occupation. This study included factfinding at both head-
from 10 steps to only 5.
quarters and field locations, and has encompassed a review of all
The severe inequities which either of these bills would create be-
Marshal Service functions such as courtroom security, serving of
tween the Marshal Service and other Federal employees would be very
process, making arrests, and witness security. The occupational study
real ones, and would undoubtedly lead to demands from groups of
was conducted at offices ranging from very small (Providence) to
other employees, particularly those in the law enforcement and pro-
moderately large (Miami), and included interviews with union rep-
tective occupations, for similarly preferential treatment. If successful,
resentatives from the Washington, D.C, office (a very large office).
such efforts could lead to an increasing series of departures from proper
This study will result in a new standard for deputy U.S. marshal,
classification principles, with resultant fragmenting of the very fabric
which we expect to publish by June 30, 1973.
of the Federal classification system.
The starting point of our study was a proposal by the Department of
In summary, we firmly believe that legislation of this type is totally
Justice which would provide a two-grade interval progression for the
unwarranted and unnecessary, and that passage of either H.R. 344 or
nonsupervisory positions from an entry level at GS-5 (with no special-
10
11
H.R. 5094 would have a most pernicious effect upon the integrity of the
Federal compensation structure. Similar legislation, H.R. 13895 of the
ported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic, existing
92d Congress, was disapproved by President Nixon last year because
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
of the highly preferential treatment it would have afforded deputy
SECTION 5109 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
marshals.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no ob-
§ 5109. Positions classified by statute
jection to the submission of this report, and that enactment of H.R.
5094 would not be in accord with the program of the President.
(a) The position held by an employee of the Department of Agri-
By direction of the Commission:
culture while he, under section 450d of title 7, is designated and vested
Sincerely yours,
with a delegated regulatory function or part thereof shall be classified
ROBERT HAMPTON, Chairman.
in accordance with this chapter, but not lower than GS-14.
(b) The position held by the employee appointed under section
1104(a) (2) of this title to have such functions and duties with respect
to retirement, life insurance, and health benefits programs as the Civil
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Service Commission may prescribe is classified at GS-18, and is in
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT OF BUDGET,
addition to the number of positions authorized by section 5108 (a) of
Washington, D.C., April 18, 1973.
this title.
Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI,
(c) Each position of deputy United States marshal (other than a
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of
supervisory or managerial position) shall be classified, in accordance
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
with regulations by the Civil Service Commission, at GS-5, GS-7,
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to the Committee's request
GS-9, or GS-11, except that GS-5 shall be used only for a trainee.
for the views of this office on H.R. 5094, to amend title 5, United States
Code, to provide for the reclassification of positions of deputy U.S.
marshal, and for other purposes.
The purpose of H.R. 5094 is to upgrade the position of deputy U.S.
marshal by prescribing statutory grade levels which are one, two and
even three grades above present classification levels for such work.
This would be effected without regard to the difficulty of the work
performed or to relationships with other similar positions.
In reports which the Civil Service Commission and the Department
of Justice are submitting, they state their reasons for strongly oppos-
ing enactment of H.R. 5094. Both agencies state that the bill would
destroy the essential relationship between pay and job classification,
thereby discriminating against all other employees under the General
Schedule system, and most particularly against other law enforcement
personnel. The agencies also note that H.R. 13895, similar legislation
of the 92d Congress, was disapproved by the President in October of
1972, and that enactment of special pay legislation for one group would
lead ultimately to demands by others for equally preferential
treatment.
We concur in the views expressed by the Civil Service Commission
and the Department of Justice and, accordingly, strongly recommend
against enactment of H.R. 5094. Enactment of H.R. 5094 would not be
in accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
13
more time in grade than the first. Yet this bill would move the first
one to GS-9 and the second to GS-11. To show the further inequity
of this change, the man in step 7 of grade 8 would be increased from
$12,634 to step 10 of grade 9-at a salary of $15,097, an increase of
$2,463. The man in step 8 of grade 8 would be advanced to step 1
MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 5094
of grade 11, or from a salary of $12,985 to $13,996, an increase of
It is our hope that Members will give more than perfunctory atten-
only $1,011-which is $1,452 less than the employee who was in the
tion to these minority views. We sincerely believe this bill, H.R. 5094,
step immediately below him. This same inequity would apply also to
should not be approved by the House. Respect for the basic legiti-
steps 9 and 10 of grade 8.
This pattern of advancement which this bill establishes is com-
macy of the Federal merit system would, in itself, justify opposition
to this measure.
pletely chaotic and lacks any semblance of logic, consistency, or
fairness.
The deficiencies of this type of legislation were accurately described
by the President in his veto message of October 27, 1972, on a prac-
The average increase per employee under the bill will be as follows:
tically identical bill. In his veto message the President said,
From GS-4 to GS-5.
$938. 00
From GS-5 to GS-7
2,096.00
This would raise the pay of some 1,500 deputy marshals by
From GS-6 to GS-7 and GS-9
1,736.00
as much as 38 percent, through wholesale across-the-board
From GS-7 to GS-9
2,409.00
From GS-8 to GS-9 and GS-11
1,986.00
upgrading. There is no justification for this highly preferen-
From GS-9 to GS-11
2,742.00
tial treatment, which discriminates against all other Govern-
ment employees who perform work of comparable difficulty
These increases, in almost all cases, exceed the economic guidelines
and responsibility and whose pay is now the same as that of
which the Federal Government has imposed upon both the private
deputy marshals.
sector and (heretofore) upon its own employees. The deputy marshals
received the regular 5.14 percent statutory raise last January and will
Nothing has occurred since that veto to justify the enactment of
remain eligible for within-grade increases. They have been getting,
H.R. 5094.
and will remain eligible for, promotional increases as they are ad-
Probably the major flaw of this legislation is its contravention of
vanced to higher grades. The increases in this bill are in addition to
the statutory principle of position classification. The authority, and
all those, and average out to over 20 percent by themselves.
responsibility, for the classification of position lies with the Federal
In summary, the bill would subvert the classification principles upon
agencies and the Civil Service Commission. The Congress has estab-
which the Federal merit system is based would legislatively establish
lished guidelines for position classification, but it has wisely left to the
grade levels for one particular occupation which are known to be in-
agencies and the Civil Service Commission the duty of determining
correct when compared with other similar occupations; would create
the proper classes and grades for placing positions. The classification
internal grade inequities among present members of the Marshal
of positions by specific statute is a dangerous precedent and should be
Service, which could lead to widespread classification appeals; would
avoided. Existing law on position classification can adequately deal
create chaotic pay disparities; and would be in direct contravention of
with the problems which H.R. 5094 proposes to resolve.
the economic guidelines which are supposed to apply indiscriminately
The matter of reclassifying the position of deputy U.S. marshal has
to all salaried Americans.
not gone unattended. The Civil Service Commission has just com-
H. R. GROSS,
pleted a comprehensive and exhaustive study of the deputy marshal
Member of Congress.
profession, in which they have reviewed the changes which have oc-
EDWARD J. DERWINSKI,
curred in the duties of deputy marshals over the past few years. A
Member of Congress.
new standard has been tentatively proposed which is to be published
by June 30, 1973, and which will significantly restructure the profes-
sion in the Federal service.
H.R. 5094 is simply not consistent with the Commission's findings
and would wreck the grade alinement of this occupation in relation
to other similar occupations, such as the general and criminal in-
vestigative occupations, which alone cover roughly 20,000 positions.
In addition, H.R. 5094 would create internal inequities with re-
spect to grade. As an example, if two deputy marshals are classified
in GS-8, it is because they are doing the same level of work. If one
is in step 7 and the other is in step 8, it is because the second has
(12)
Calendar No. 981
93D CONGRESS
}
SENATE
REPORT
2d Session
No. 93-1022
RECLASSIFICATION OF DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALS
JULY 18, 1974.-Ordered to be pritned
Mr. McGEE, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5094]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to which was
referred the bill (H.R. 5094), having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill
as amended do pass.
.
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 5094 is to reclassify the positions of nonsuper-
visory deputy U.S. marshals at grades GS-5, GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11
of the General Schedule.
AMENDMENT
.
The Committee amendment takes cognizance of new classification
standards approved by the Civil Service Commission on June 15,
1973, which reclassified many of the positions covered by this bill,
though it established grade GS-9 as the full performance level for
deputy U.S. marshals, instead of GS-11, as is the case in the bill. The
amendment has the effect of applying the reclassification provided for
in the bill to individuals who were upgraded by application of the
standards approved June 15, 1973,as if the former standards in effect
before June 15, 1973, were still effective; the purpose being to insure
that no deputy U.S. marshal shall benefit from pyramiding of reclas-
sification actions.
STATEMENT
H.R. 5094 would fix the grade level of all nonsupervisory deputy
U.S. marshal positions, though some incumbents would draw no im-
mediate benefit because their entitlement under the bill already has
38-010
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
2
been achieved by the action taken by the Civil Service Commission in
approving new classification standards governing pay for the occupa-
tion on June 15, 1973.
3
At present, most candidates for deputy U.S. marshal positions enter
the service at grade GS-5, where as prior to June 15, 1973, they en-
Under this provision the positions of deputy U.S. marshals will
tered at GS-4 in many cases. Now, they generally progress to full
continue to be subject to the classification provisions of chapter 51
performance level at grade GS-9 in two steps, from GS-5 to GS-7
and the General Schedule pay provisions of subchapter III of
and from GS-7 to GS-9. Formerly, progress was one grade at a time
chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, but the specific grades at
to full performance level at grade GS-8. The bill would provide an
which such positions may be classified will be governed by the pro-
additional advancement, to grade GS-11, which would henceforth be
visions of the new section 5109 (c).
the full performance level for nonsupervisory deputy marshals. GS-11
Section 2 of the bill provides for the initial conversion of all deputy
pay rates now range from $14,671 to $19,072.
U.S. marshals covered by the new subsection (c) of section 5109 of
The duties of deputy U.S. marshals have been expanded in recent
title 5, whether on the rolls on the effective date or whether appointed
years to encompass added responsibility, as was the case beginning in
subsequent to the classification standards approved on June 15, 1973.
1970 when they became involved in air piracy prevention, and again
Under the conversion provisions of section 2, a deputy U.S. marshal
in 1971 when they were assigned responsibility for protecting wit-
who is in grade GS-4, GS-5, GS-6, GS-8, or GS-9 of the General
nesses in Federal proceedings. Another example of the type of haz-
Schedule immediately before the effective date of section 2 will be
ardous duty performed by deputy U.S. marshals is that of protecting
elevated to a higher grade of the General Schedule in accordance
public buildings and facilities against illegal occupancy, as occurred
with the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (8) of subsection (a)
last year at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Deputy marshals also were
of section 2, except that, under the Committee amendment, those
assigned to the Virgin Islands following eight politically motivated
who were reclassified as the result of new classification standards
murders.
approved June 15, 1973, shall be converted to that step and grade
In the past five years. according to testimony before the Committee,
which they would have received had the Act applied to them on
there have been seven fatalities in the U.S. Marshal Service.
the date immediately preceding the reclassification action, and those
In light of the expanded duties, which far exceed the image of
appointed to a position classified under the standards approved
the deputy marshal as a simple process server and bodyguard, the
June 15, 1973, shall be converted to that step and grade which would
Committee feels that a full performance level at grade GS-11, with
have applied had their appointments been made under the standards
appropriate progression to that level, is warranted for deputy
in effect prior to June 15, 1973.
marshals.
Paragraphs (1) through (8) set forth the specific grade and step
Similar, but not identical, legislation was passed by Congress during
of the grade to which each deputy marshal shall be advanced, accord-
the second session of the 92d Congress, but was vetoed by the President.
ing to his grade on the effective date or on the date preceding his re-
classification under the standards approved June 15, 1973.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Subsection (b) of section 2 provides that any increase in pay result-
ing from an initial adjustment under the conversion provisions of sub-
Hearings were held by the full Committee on September 26, 1973.
section (a) of section 2 shall not be deemed to be an equivalent increase
H.R. 5094 was amended and, as amended, approved by the Committee
within the meaning of section 5335 of title 5 for purposes of step in-
on a voice vote June 18, 1974.
creases, meaning that the employee will not be required to begin a
new waiting period for his next step increase as the result of a re-
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
classification accomplished under the conversion provision of sub-
Subsection (a) of the first section of the bill sets forth the policy
section (a).
of Congress that all Federal personnel with law enforcement respon-
Further, subsection (b) provides that service performed by an em-
sibilities be adequately paid in amounts commensurate with the degree
ployee immediately before the effective date of the conversion of the
of stress and danger incident to their responsibilities, and that deputy
employee under subsection (a) of section 2 shall count toward only
U.S. marshals shall be paid at rates not less than the rates of other law
one step-inerease under the time-in-step provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5335.
enforcement personnel with similar responsibilities.
Subsection (c) of section 2 provides that no rate of basic pay in
Subsection (b) of the first section of the bill amends section 5109
effect immediately before the effective date of section 2 shall be reduced
of title 5, United States Code, which relates to positions classified by
by reason of the enactment of this bill.
statute. It adds a new subsection (c) at the end thereof to provide
Section 3 of the bill provides that the provisions of the bill shall
that each position of deputy U.S. marshal (other than a supervisory
become effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay period
or managerial position) shall be classified, in accordance with regu-
which begins on or after the date of enactment of the bill.
lations issued by the Civil Service Commission, at GS-5, GS-7, GS-9,
or GS-11, except that GS-5 shall be used only for trainees.
COSTS
The Civil Service Commission estimates the annual cost of H.R.
S.R. 1022
5094 at $1.9 million annually. Assuming annual pay increases of 5.5
percent, the cost would rise to $2.3 million on an annual basis by the
fifth year. Exact costs are difficult to determine, as that would require
S.R. 1022
4
5
a position-by-position determination of the effect of the bill upon
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE Commission,
individual deputy marshals, which has not been done.
ashington, D.C., September 24, 1973.
Hon. GALE W. McGEE,
AGENCY VIEWS
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. Senate,
The Administration has taken a position in opposition to H.R. 5094
Washington, D.C.
and the similar Senate bill S. 1123, which is expressed in the following
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the
views from the Office of Management and Budget and the Civil Serv-
views of the Civil Service Commission on S. 1123, "To amend title 5,
ice Commission.
United States Code, to provide for the reclassification of positions of
deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes."
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
The bill would classify deputy U.S. marshals at GS-5, GS-7, GS-9,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
or GS-11, with the GS-5 level being the trainee level. Within these
Washington, D.C., November 5, 1973.
ranges, the step rate for each employee would be determined by the
Hon. GALE W. McGEE,
"appropriate authority" depending upon the employee's (1) general
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. Senate,
performance of duties as a deputy United States marshal, (2) the
Washington, D.C.
number of years of service as a deputy United States marshal, and
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to the Committee's request
(3) ability to accept responsibilities as a deputy United States mar-
for the views of this Office on S. 1123, "To amend title 5, United States
shal. The bill contains provisions to convert the present incumbents
Code, to provide for the reclassification of positions of deputy United
from the grades they have been assigned by the classification process
States marshal, and for other purposes."
to those which would be created by statutory enactment.
S. 1123 and H.R. 5094, which is also pending before your Committee,
The Civil Service Commission is strongly opposed to enactment of
would upgrade the position of deputy United States marshal by pre-
both S. 1123 and the House-passed H.R. 5094. Both bills—
scribing statutory grade levels which are one, two and even three
-Are contrary to the most fundamental principles of position
grades above present classification levels for such work. This would be
classification and pay administration.
effected without regard to the difficulty of the work performed or to
-Would subvert the statutory principle of equal pay for equal
relationships with other similar positions; and would be imposed de-
work, creating severe inequities between deputy U.S. marshals
spite the fact that many deputy marshal positions were reclassified in
and the other 1.2 million General Schedule employees (especially
July 1973, as a result of new job and qualification standards issued by
those in other law-enforcement occupations).
the Civil Service Commission.
-Would place deputy marshals performing identical work in differ-
In reports and testimony, the Civil Service Commission and the
ent grades.
Department of Justice stated their reasons for strongly opposing enact-
-Would stop the present practice of employing veterans under
ment of special pay legislation for this group of employees. Both agen-
special hiring programs such as the Veterans Readjustment Act.
cies stated that the bills would destroy the essential relationship
The Civil Service Commission recently completed an occupational
between pay'and job classification, thereby discriminating against all
study of the deputy marshal occupation. The study found that the
other employees under the General Schedule system, and most particu-
occupation needed substantial restructuring, including a change from
larly against other law enforcement personnel. The agencies also note
a one to a two-grade interval progression for promotions, and an in-
that H.R. 13895, similar legislation of the 92d Congress, was disap-
crease in the typical journeyman level from the GS-8 to the GS-9
proved by the President in October of 1972 and that enactment of
level. Those changes in the occupation were carried out through the
special pay legislation for one group would lead ultimately to demands
approval, in June of this year, of new qualification and classification
by others for equally preferential treatment.
standards for the occupation.
We concur in the views expressed by the Civil Service Commission
One of the specific findings of the occupational study was that
and the Department of Justice and, accordingly, strongly recommend
the GS-11 level is simply not warranted for the typical journeyman
against enactment of S. 1123 or H.R. 5094. Enactment of S. 1123 or
position in the Marshals Service. The study included, for example, a
H.R. 5094 would not be in accord with the program of the President.
comparison of deputy marshal and investigative positions. The Com-
Sincerely,
mission's standard for investigative positions shows that GS-11 inves-
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
tigators are responsible for the independent handling of an entire case.
Assistant Director for
The characteristics and specific examples given in the standards for
Legislative Reference.
investigative positions indicate that the full performance level of
S.R. 1022
S.R. 1022
7
ported are shown as follows (existing law in which no change is pro-
6
posed is shown in roman; existing law proposed to be omitted is en-
closed in black brackets; new matter is shown in italic) :
deputy marshals does not match the GS-11 level. Deputy marshals are
almost exclusively limited to one aspect of the cases described at this
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
level, i.e. location and apprehension of the subject. Seizure of property
is also limited in scope. There is no need to establish any case concern-
ing the property. The deputy identifies, seizes, and protects the prop-
CHAPTER 51.-CLASSIFICATION
erty. The rest of the case relating to the property is the concern of
others. To place these positions at the GS-11 level would therefore be
in conflict with the policy of equal pay for equal work.
SEC. 5109. POSITIONS CLASSIFIED BY STATUTE
That policy would be even more blatantly violated by the grade con-
version provisions of S. 1123 and H.R. 5094. Those provisions would
(a) The position held by an employee of the Department of Agri-
place deputies performing identical work in different grades by as-
culture while he, under section 450d of title 7, is designated and vested
signing grades based on the previous within-grade (pay) step held
with a delegated regulatory function or part thereof shall be classified
by each deputy. The Service also includes a substantial number of
in accordance with this chapter, but not lower than GS-14.
nonsupervisory deputies at the GS-11 level. These deputies are per-
(b) The position held by the employee appointed under section
forming higher level duties than the typical journeyman, and are cor-
1104 (a) (2) of this title to have such functions and duties with respect
rectly aligned with grades in other occupations. Under S. 1123 and
to retirement, life insurance, and health benefits programs as the Civil
H.R. 5094, they would be placed in the same grade as the journeyman
Service Commission may prescribe is classified at GS-18, and is in
deputy.
addition to the number of positions authorized by section 5108(a) of
this title.
The bills can be expected to reduce the hiring of veterans by the
Marshals Service. The service has encouraged the hiring of veterans
(c) Each position of deputy United States marshal (other than a
through the Veterans Readjustment Act by filling positions below the
supervisory or managerial position) shall be classified, in accordance
normal trainee level. This practice has permitted the hiring and train-
with regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission, at GS-5,
ing of veterans who could not meet all of the normal entry require-
GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11, except that GS-5 shall be used only for a
trainee.
ments. S. 1123 and H.R. 5094 would stop this and similar programs by
saying that "in no event" would positions be filled below the GS-5
level.
The bills have one other serious impact which is potentially more
damaging than all the rest. By granting preferential treatment to this
occupation, they encourage the myriad groups wishing similar pref-
erential treatment. Such a fragmented approach to personnel manage-
ment could eventually drive the classification and pay systems of the
Federal service into unmanageable chaos.
In summary. we consider S. 1123 and H.R. 5094 to be totally
unwarranted and potentially destructive pieces of legislation which
provides no benefit to the management of law enforcement positions
not already more appropriately available through the Commission's
recently issued standards. Similar legislation, H.R. 13895 of the 92nd
Congress, was disapproved by President Nixon last year because of
the highly preferential treatment it would .have afforded deputy
marshals.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objec-
tion to the submission of this report, and that enactment of S. 1123
or H.R. 5094 would not be in accord with the program of the President.
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. HAMPTON, Chairman.
CHANGES IN EXISTING Law
In compliance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as re-
S.R. 1022
S.R. 1022
817
FORD
8/12
H. R. 5094
Ainety-third Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty-first day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four
An Act
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the reclassification of
positions of deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) it is the
policy of the Congress that personnel discharging law enforcement
responsibilities be adequately paid, in amounts commensurate with
the degree of danger and stress incident to these responsibilities; and
that, to this end, deputy United States marshals shall be paid at rates
not less than the rates at which other law enforcement personnel are
paid.
(b) Section 5109 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(c) Each position of deputy United States marshal (other than a
supervisory or managerial position) shall be classified, in accordance
with regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission, at GS-5,
GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11, except that GS-5 shall be used only for a
trainee.".
SEC. 2. (a) Effective on the effective date of this section, a non-
supervisory deputy United States Marshal on the rolls on such date
to which the amendments made by the first section of this Act apply,
shall be converted as follows, except that each nonsupervisory deputy
marshal (1) who was reclassified as the result of new classification
standards approved June 15, 1973, shall be converted to that step and
grade which he would have received had this Act applied to him on
the date immediately preceding the reclassification action, or (2)
who was appointed to a position classified under the classification
standards approved June 15, 1973, shall be converted to that step and
grade which he would have received had his position been classified
under the classification standards which were in effect before June 15,
1973:
(1) a deputy United States marshal in GS-4 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step of
GS-5 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-4 which
he had attained immediately before such effective date;
(2) a deputy United States marshal in GS-5 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step
of GS-7 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-5
which he had attained immediately before such effective date;
(3) a deputy United States marshal in step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7,
respectively, of GS-6 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10, respectively,
of GS-7;
(4) a deputy United States marshal in step 8, 9, or 10,
respectively, of GS-6 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 1, 2, or 3, respectively, of GS-9;
(5) a deputy United States marshal in GS-7 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step of
GS-9 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-7 which
he had attained immediately before such effective date;
(6) a deputy United States marshal in step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7,
respectively of GS-8 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10, respectively,
of GS-9;
LUBRARY
FORD
H. R. 5094-2
(7) a deputy United States marshal in step 8, 9, or 10, respec-
tively, of GS-8 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 1,2, or 3, respectively, of GS-11;
and
(8) a deputy United States marshal in GS-9 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step of
GS-11 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-9 which
he had attained immediately before such effective date.
(b) An increase in pay by reason of an initial adjustment of pay
under subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed an equivalent
increase in pay within the meaning of section 5335 of title 5, United
States Code, for purposes of step-increases. Service by an employee
performed immediately before the effective date of the conversion of
the employee under subsection (a) of this section shall be counted
toward not to exceed one step-increase under the time-in-step pro-
visions of section 5335 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) No rate of basic pay in effect immediately before the effective
date of this section shall be reduced by reason of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 3. The preceding provisions of this Act shall become effective
at the beginning of the first applicable pay period which commences
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
LIBRARY
H.R. 5094
FORD
Ainety-third Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty-first day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four
An Act
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the reclassification of
positions of deputy United States marshal, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) it is the
policy of the Congress that personnel discharging law enforcement
responsibilities be adequately paid, in amounts commensurate with
the degree of danger and stress incident to these responsibilities; and
that, to this end, deputy United States marshals shall be paid at rates
not less than the rates at which other law enforcement personnel are
paid.
(b) Section 5109 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(c) Each position of deputy United States marshal (other than a
supervisory or managerial position) shall be classified, in accordance
with regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission, at GS-5,
GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11, except that GS-5 shall be used only for a
trainee.".
SEC. 2. (a) Effective on the effective date of this section, a non-
supervisory deputy United States Marshal on the rolls on such date
to which the amendments made by the first section of this Act apply,
shall be converted as follows, except that each nonsupervisory deputy
marshal (1) who was reclassified as the result of new classification
standards approved June 15, 1973, shall be converted to that step and
grade which he would have received had this Act applied to him on
the date immediately preceding the reclassification action, or (2)
who was appointed to a position classified under the classification
standards approved June 15, 1973, shall be converted to that step and
grade which he would have received had his position been classified
under the classification standards which were in effect before June 15,
1973:
(1) a deputy United States marshal in GS-4 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step of
GS-5 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-4 which
he had attained immediately before such effective date;
(2) a deputy United States marshal in GS-5 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step
of GS-7 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-5
which he had attained immediately before such effective date;
(3) a deputy United States marshal in step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7,
respectively, of GS-6 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10, respectively,
of GS-7;
(4) a deputy United States marshal in step 8, 9, or 10,
respectively, of GS-6 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 1, 2, or 3, respectively, of GS-9;
(5) a deputy United States marshal in GS-7 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step of
GS-9 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-7 which
he had attained immediately before such effective date;
(6) a deputy United States marshal in step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7,
respectively of GS-8 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10, respectively,
of GS-9;
LIBRARY
H. R. 5094-2
(7) a deputy United States marshal in step 8, 9, or 10, respec-
tively, of GS-8 immediately before the effective date of this
section shall be advanced to step 1, 2, or 3, respectively, of GS-11;
and
(8) a deputy United States marshal in GS-9 immediately before
the effective date of this section shall be advanced to that step of
GS-11 which corresponds numerically to that step of GS-9 which
he had attained immediately before such effective date.
(b) An increase in pay by reason of an initial adjustment of pay
under subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed an equivalent
increase in pay within the meaning of section 5335 of title 5, United
States Code, for purposes of step-increases. Service by an employee
performed immediately before the effective date of the conversion of
the employee under subsection (a) of this section shall be counted
toward not to exceed one step-increase under the time-in-step pro-
visions of section 5335 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) No rate of basic pay in effect immediately before the effective
date of this section shall be reduced by reason of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 3. The preceding provisions of this Act shall become effective
at the beginning of the first applicable pay period which commences
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
July 31, 1974
Dear Mr. Director:
The following bills were received at the White
House on July 31st:
H.R. 5094
H.R. 14592
Please Ist the President have reports and
recommendations as to the approval of these*
bills as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Linder
Chief Executive Clerk
FORD & LIBRARY
The Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C.