Order Code 97-1011 GOV
Updated December 1, 2003January 6, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Salaries of Members of Congress: A List of
Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-20032004
Paul E. Dwyer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its
own pay. Prior to 1969, Congress did so by enacting stand-alone legislation. From
1789 through 1968, Congress raised its pay 22 times using this procedure.
Congressional salaries initially were $1,500. By 1968, they had risen to $30,000.
Stand-alone legislation may still be used to raise Member pay, as it was most recently
in 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991, but two other methods are now also available, an
automatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process.
In January 2004, Members are scheduled to receive a 2.2received a 1.5% annual adjustment,
increasing their salary to $158,100. It is possible that Members will receive a 1.5%
increase instead, if Congress does not approve
salary to $157,000. They were scheduled to receive a 2.2% adjustment, but the Senate
did not agree to the conference report on an omnibus
spending bill by the end of 2003containing language
which has the effect of allowing the 2.2% increase. If the Senate agrees to the report,
and the bill is signed into law, Members will receive the 2.2% increase retroactive to the
first pay period in January 2004. This report will be updated to reflect the most recent
congressional actions.
Background
There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay. Stand-alone legislation has
frequently and primarily been used to raise Member pay throughout most of U.S. history,
1789 to the present. However, two other methods are also available.
The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant to
recommendations from the President, based on those made by a quadrennial salary
commission. In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative,
and Judicial Salaries to recommend salary increases for top-level federal officials (P.L.
90-206). Three times (in 1969, 1977, and 1987) Congress received pay increases made
under this procedure; on three occasions it did not. Effective with passage of the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194), the commission ceased to exist. Its authority was
assumed by the Citizens’ Commission on Public Service and Compensation. Although
the first commission under the 1989 Act was to have convened in 1993, it did not meet.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
The third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annual
adjustments. Prior to 1990, the pay of Members, and other top-level federal officials, was
tied to the annual comparability increases provided to General Schedule (GS) federal
employees. This procedure was established in 1975 (P.L. 94-82). Such increases were
recommended by the President, subject to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or
modification. Congress accepted five such increases for itself — in 1975, 1979 (partial),
1984, 1985, and 1987 — and declined 10 since this method was authorized (1976, 1977,
1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989).
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment
is determined for Members and other senior officials, based on a formula using changes
in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index. Under
this revised method, annual adjustments were accepted eightnine times (those scheduled for
January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004and 2003) and denied five times
times (those scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999).
The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless (1) Congress statutorily
prohibits the adjustment; (2) Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or (3) the annual
base pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than the scheduled
increase for Members, in which case Members would be paid the lower rate.1
Pending January 2004 Member Pay Increase
According to the formula, Members arewere scheduled to receive an automatic annual
pay adjustment of 2.2% in January 2004,2 but instead received a 1.5% increase..2
Action to Modify or Deny the Scheduled Member Pay Increase. Two
votes were taken this year that related to the January 2004 Member pay increase. The first
was a House vote on September 4, 2003, that although not a direct vote to modify or deny
the increase, was reported in some press accounts as a vote to accept a Member pay
increase.
The House vote was held during consideration of the rule on H.R. 2989, the FY2004
transportation and treasury appropriation bill. H.R. 2989, as brought to the floor, did not
contain Member pay language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to accept or
reject a Member pay increase. However, action taken by the House on vote #463 (240173) is considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect of
not allowing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bill.3 They
1
Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added.
2
The annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index
(private industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change
reflected in the fourth quarter (ending Dec. 31) of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The
2.2% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index between the
quarters ending Dec. 2001 and Dec. 2002, which was 2.7%, and subtracting 0.5%.
3
On Sept. 4, 2003, the House agreed (240-173, vote #463) to order the previous question on a
rule (H.Res. 351) providing for consideration of H.R. 2989, the FY2004 transportation and
treasury appropriations bill. By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent an
amendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An
amendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress(continued...)
CRS-3
argue that if nongermane amendments had been allowed, one could have been offered to
modify or deny the scheduled 2.2% Member pay increase. This action, some believe,
means that most Members voted for the raise.
It is important to note that a few Members expressed interest in introducing other
nongermane amendments on entirely different issues. As a consequence, other Members
believe that it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have voted
to accept a pay increase if they had been given an opportunity.
Some press accounts also stated that Members voted themselves a 4.1% increase.
H.R. 2938, as reported and passed, contained language (Title VI, section 740(a))
providing for a 4.1% increase for GS federal employees. The increase was not applicable
to Members of Congress and other top-level federal officials.
The second vote related to Member pay took place in the Senate on October 23,
2003, when the majority of Senators voted to table an amendment to H.R. 2989
prohibiting the pending Member pay increase of 2.2% (vote #406, 60-34). The
amendment was offered by Senator Russell Feingold to the Senate version of H.R. 2989,
the FY2004 transportation and treasury appropriation bill, which passed the same day
with the 4.1% GS pay increase.
Possible Impact of An Increase in Federal Employee Pay on the
Pending Member
Pay Increase. By approving a 4.1% GS federal employee pay
increase, the House and Senate actions, if signed into law, increase, both houses
sought to ensure that Members of
Congress willwould receive their scheduled 2.2% increase.
That is because the base pay
allocation of the 4.1% increase would most likely be greater
than 2.2%, probably about
3.1%. By law, Members may not receive an increase greater
than the annual rate of
increase in the base pay of GS employees.
However, if the 4.1% GS pay increase provision ishas not been signed into law. As a
result, the , the
President’s pending pay plan for GS employees would become effectivebecame effective the first pay
period in January 2004.
The President’s plan provides for a 2.2% increase, with 1.5%
allocated for base pay and
0.5% for locality pay.4 As a result, Member pay would increase by increased by
1.5%, and not 2.2%.
It is possible that theThe 4.1% GS pay increase provision might not be signed into law
before the beginning of January 2004. This is because the language of H.R. 2989,
containing the pay provision, was incorporated in an omnibus appropriations bill, H.R.
2673, and its conference report is pending House and Senate approval. The House is
tentatively scheduled to consider the report on December 8, and the Senate the following
day. However, there appears to be a chance the Senate will not vote on the report in
3
(...continued), which is pending Senate action, was originally
contained in H.R. 2989, which was incorporated into the omnibus appropriations bill,
3
(...continued)
treasury appropriations bill. By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent an
amendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An
amendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the
bill prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 351 was an open rule that allowed any germane
amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been germane. By
agreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to consider an amendment to permit
a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed to a motion to order the previous
question, a Member could have offered an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote in
some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 351, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay
raise was not in order.
4
See summary of the President’s pay plan issued on Aug. 27, 2003, on the website of the Office
of Personnel Management at [http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/update.asp].
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-4
December, but rather in early 2004. If the report is not agreed to by both houses and
signed into law before January 2004, Members will receive a 1.5% increase. If the
omnibus bill is eventually signed into law in 2004
CRS-4
H.R. 2673. The conference report on H.R. 2673 was agreed to by the House on December
8; the report is scheduled for Senate consideration on January 20, 2004. If the Senate
agrees to the report and H.R. 2673 is signed into law, Members will receive a 2.2% pay
increase retroactive to January 1, 2004.5
Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-20032004. For
each salary rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are indicated. From
1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which
Members were entitled. This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorized
pursuant to the annual comparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on several
occasions Congress did not appropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salary
increases mandated by P.L. 94-82. Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are the
payable rates, the salaries actually paid to Members of Congress.
Table 1. Salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-2003
2004
5
Payable Salarya
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
$1,500b
March 4, 1789
1 Stat. 70-71
(September 22, 1789)
$1,500b
March 4, 1795
1 Stat. 70-71
(September 22, 1789)
$1,500b
March 3, 1796
1 Stat. 448
(March 10, 1796)
$1,500
December 4, 1815
3 Stat. 257
(March 19, 1816)
$1,500b
March 3, 1817
3 Stat. 345
(February 6, 1817)
$2,000b
March 3, 1817
3 Stat. 404
(January 22, 1818)
$3,000
December 3, 1855
11 Stat. 48
(August 16, 1856)
$3,000c
December 23, 1857
11 Stat. 367
(December 23, 1857)
$5,000
December 4, 1865
14 Stat. 323
(July 28, 1866)
$7,500
March 4, 1871
17 Stat. 486
(March 3, 1873)
$5,000
January 20, 1874
18 Stat. 4
(January 20, 1874)
$7,500
March 4, 1907
34 Stat. 993
(February 26, 1907)
5
There was an earlier threat to the pending 4.1% pay increase contained in the FY2004
transportation and treasury appropriation bill, H.R. 2989. The President threatened to veto H.R.
2989 because the Senate version of the bill contained language to prohibit the enforcement of the
ban on travel to Cuba to which the President objected. This scenario assumed conferees on H.R.
2989 would retain the Senate’s travel ban amendment. The language was subsequently deleted
during conference on H.R. 2989, removing the veto threat. The amendment, offered by Senator
Byron Dorgan, was adopted by voice vote on October 23, 2003 by voice vote. Earlier in debate,
the Senate failed to table the amendment (vote #405, 36-59)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress.
CRS-5
Payable Salarya
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
$7,500
March 4, 1907
34 Stat. 993
(February 26, 1907)
$10,000
March 4, 1925
43 Stat. 1301
(March 4, 1925)
$9,000
July 1, 1932
47 Stat. 401
(June 30, 1932)
$8,500
April 1, 1933
48 Stat. 14
(March 20, 1933)
$9,000d
February 1, 1934
48 Stat. 521
(March 28, 1934)
$9,500
July 1, 1934
48 Stat. 521
(March 28, 1934)
$10,000
April 4, 1935
49 Stat. 24
(February 13, 1935)
$12,500
January 3, 1947
60 Stat. 850
(August 2, 1946)
$22,500
March 1, 1955
69 Stat. 11
(March 2, 1955)
$30,000
January 3, 1965
78 Stat. 415
(August 14, 1964)
$42,500
March 1, 1969
81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967)
$44,600
October 1, 1975
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$57,500
March 1, 1977
81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967)
$60,662.50
October 1, 1979
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$69,800
December 18, 1982 for
Representatives; July 1, 1983
for Senators
96 Stat. 1914
(December 21, 1982)
97 Stat. 338
(July 30, 1983)
$72,600
January 1, 1984
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$75,100
January 1, 1985
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$77,400
January 1, 1987
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$89,500
February 4, 1987
81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967)
$96,600e
(Representatives)
February 1, 1990
103 Stat. 1767-1768
(November 30, 1989)
$98,400e
(Senators)
February 1, 1990
103 Stat. 1767-1768
(November 30, 1989)
$125,100
(Representatives)
January 1, 1991
103 Stat. 1768-1769
(November 30, 1989)
CRS-6
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Payable Salarya
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
$101,900
(Senators)
January 1, 1991
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$125,100
(Senators)
August 14, 1991
105 Stat. 450
(August 14, 1991)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-6
Payable Salarya
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
$129,500
(Reps. and Sens.)
January 1, 1992
103 Stat.1769
(November 30, 1989)
$133,600
(Reps. and Sens.)
January 1, 1993
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$136,700
(Reps. and Sens.)
January 1, 1998
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$141,300
(Reps. and Sens.)
January 1, 2000
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$145,100
(Reps. and Sens.)
January 1, 2001
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$150,000
(Reps. and Sens.)
January 1, 2002
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$154,700
(Reps. and Sens.)
January 1, 2003
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
a. $157,000
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 2004
(Reps. And Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
From 1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members were
entitled. This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annual
comparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on several occasions Congress did not
appropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salary increases mandated by P.L. 94-82.
Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are the payable rates, the salaries actually paid to
Members of Congress.
b. Per diem rates have been converted to per annum rates based on a hypothetically possible 250-day
session. From 1789 to 1856, Senators and Representatives received a per diem pay rate while
Congress was in session, except for the period December 1815 — March 1817, when they received
$1,500 a year. First established at $6 a day in 1789 ($7 for Senators from March 4, 1795 — March
3, 1796), the per diem was raised to $8 in 1818 and remained there until 1856, when Members of
Congress were placed on annual salaries.
c. In 1857, Congress provided for pay at the rate of $250 per month while in session, or a maximum of
$3,000 per annum.
d. The ActThe act authorized the restoration of pay as of February 1, 1934, and the restoration of pay as of July
1, 1,
1934.
e. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1767-1768) increased pay for Representatives and Senators
at different rates. The pay of Representatives was increased to reflect the previously denied 1989 and
1990 pay adjustments (4.1% and 3.6%), compounded at 7.9%, effective February 1, 1990. The Actact
further provided for a 25% increase in Representatives’ pay, effective January 1, 1991. As a result,
the pay of Representatives increased from $89,500 to $96,600 on February 1, 1990, and increased
to $125,100 on January 1, 1991.
The pay of Senators was increased to reflect the previously denied 1988, 1989, and 1990
comparability pay adjustments (2%, 4.1%, and 3.6%), compounded at 9.9%, effective February 1,
1990. As a result, the pay of Senators increased from $89,500 to $98,400 on February 1, 1990. The
Ethics Act did not provide for any other pay increase for Senators, as it did in providing a 25%
increase for Representatives. The reason is that Senators elected to deny themselves the 25% increase
while retaining the ability to receive honoraria. Subsequently, the Senate voted to increase its pay rate
to that of Representatives and to prohibit receipt of honoraria by Senators, effective August 14, 1991.
As a result, Senate pay increased from $101,900 to $125,100 per annum.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress