(a) [Repealed.]

(b) From the date of enactment of this Subsection (b) and until the end of Fiscal Year 2003, the annual salary of Senators of I Mina’Bente Siete Na Liheslaturan Guåhan [the Legislature] shall be based on eighty percent (80%) of the amount as computed according to Subsection (a) of this Section, for a reduction of twenty percent (20%).

(c) In the event that the annual operating budget for the government of Guam expires and no new annual operating budget has been enacted into law in accordance with the Organic Act, or rolled over from the previous year, then the salaries of the Senators of I Liheslaturan Guåhan shall be suspended and will resume prospectively only when a new annual operating budget for the government of Guam is enacted into law. This subsection (c) shall be subject to the following provisions:

(1) Such suspension of salaries shall not take place if the failure to enact an annual budget is due to an emergency resulting from a natural or other disaster, or hostile action.

(2) The government of Guam’s share of retirement, Social Security, and health and other insurance payments shall be the individual responsibility of the Senators of I Liheslaturan Guåhan for the suspension period.

SOURCE: GC § 1000.5. Amended by P.L. 11-067, P.L. 12-197, P.L. 13-
120, P.L. 19-034:36 and P.L. 21-058. Amended by P.L. 27-005:IV:8 (Feb.
28, 2003). Repealed and reenacted by P.L. 31-071:3 (May 24, 2011). Subsection (a) amended by P.L. 32-136:3 (Mar. 5, 2014) and repealed by
P.L. 32-208:3 (Nov. 21, 2014).

2014 NOTE: P.L. 21-058 (Sept. 27, 1991) added a new Article 4 to Title
4, Chapter 6 of the GCA, creating the Elected Officials’ Compensation
Commission within the Civil Service Commission, which was to meet “”every five (5) years to reassess the salaries and benefits paid to all elected officials”” who were defined as “”the governor, lieutenant governer,members of the Legislature, judges of the Superior Court, and justices of the Supreme Court, if such a court be created, and mayors and vice mayors.”” P.L. 21-058:1. Within a year of its first meeting, the commission was to submit a report and recommendations of proposed salaries and benefits for elected officials, to the Governor, Speaker, Presiding Judge, and President of the Mayor’s Council.

P.L. 23-006 (Apr. 22, 1995) recognized that the Elected Officials’ Compensation Commission had authority to determine compensation for elected officials.

The commission was de facto dissolved when P.L. 28-068:IV:41 (Sept. 30,
2005) (FY2006 Annual Appropriations Act) repealed all the statutory provisions relating to the Elected Officials’ Compensation Commission (Article 4, Chapter 6 of Title 4, Guam Code Ann.).
2014 COMMENT: P.L. 32-136:3 amended subsection (a) as follows: (a) Compensation of each member of I Liheslaturan
Guåhan [the Guam Legislature] shall be paid in twenty-six
(26) equal installments at the rate per annum of Sixty
Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Dollars ($60,840); the compensation of the Speaker of I Liheslaturan Guåhan shall be paid in twenty-six (26) equal installments at the rate per annum of Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($67,600). Such compensation shall be paid out of funds to be appropriated to I Liheslaturan Guåhan [the Guam Legislature].

Subsection (a) was repealed by P.L. 32-208:3, which repealed Section 3 of P.L. 32-136. “”[T]he repeal of amendatory act repeals the original act or section, unless legislative intent is clearly to the contrary.”” Sutherland Statutory Construction, 7th ed. § 23:32 (2009) (footnote omitted). See Union Bank of California v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 484, 489 (Ct. App. 2004) (“”[t]he repeal of an Act repealing a former Act does not revive the former Act, or give it any force and effect. This result can be accomplished only by the reenactment of the former Act.””) (quoting People v. Hunt, 41 Cal. 435, 439 (1871)); People v. Wilmerding, 32 N.E.
1099 (N.Y. 1893); Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of County Comm’rs of
Wyandotte County, 256 Kan. 426, 439, 885 P.2d 1233, 1241 (Kan. 1994) (“”The repeal of a statute does not revive a statute previously repealed””); see also Shiv-Ram, Inc. v. McCaleb, 892 So. 2d 299 (Ala. 2003).