PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 351.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jul 7, 2004
Pay Compression Relief Act of 2004 - (Sec. 2) Increases the maximum rates of basic pay for administrative law judges (ALJs), contract appeals board (CAB) members, and certain senior-level positions by linking those rates to level III of the Executive Schedule (currently level IV).
Establishes a minimum rate of pay for CAB members of not less than 94 percent of the rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule. Requires rates of basic pay for CAB members to be adjusted annually by an amount determined by the President after the initial adjustment required by this Act.
(Sec. 3) Increases the maximum rate of locality pay for ALJs and certain senior-level and Senior Executive Service positions to level II of the Executive Schedule (currently level III).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Increases the maximum rate of locality pay for CAB members to level III of the Executive Schedule (currently level IV).
Specifies that administrative appeals judges (AAJs) are eligible for locality pay.
(Sec. 5) Sets forth effective dates for purposes of computing increases in pay under this Act.
(Sec. 6) Requires the Office of Personnel Management to submit a report to the House Government Reform Committee and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee within six months of enactment of this Act that contains: (1) a list of Executive Schedule positions and the rates of basic pay for and total number of individuals occupying those positions; (2) a comparison of the rates of basic pay for ALJs, AAJs, and CAB members with those applicable to Executive Schedule positions and specified Federal judges; (3) a determination of whether rates of basic pay for ALJs, AAJs, and CAB members are incongruous with the compared positions; (4) a recommendation on the extent to which rates of basic pay for Executive Schedule positions should be adjusted; and (5) any other information or recommendations pertinent to Executive Schedule positions.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Jo Ann [R-VA-1] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 351.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 108-586.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 108-586.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization.
Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3737 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3737 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3737 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3737 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.