Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Changes from May 4, 2023 to August 29, 2023

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent
~~May 4~~August 29, 2023 , 2023
Actions and Historical Tables
Ida A. Brudnick
Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own
pay. In the Specialist on the Congress Specialist on the Congress
~~pay. In the~~ past, Congress periodically enacted specific legislation to alter its pay; the past, Congress periodically enacted specific legislation to alter its pay; the

last time this occurred last time this occurred affected pay in 1991. More recently, pay has been determined affected pay in 1991. More recently, pay has been determined
pursuant to laws establishing formulas for automatic adjustments.pursuant to laws establishing formulas for automatic adjustments.

The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established the current automatic annual adjustment formula, which is based on The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established the current automatic annual adjustment formula, which is based on
changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The adjustment is automatic changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The adjustment is automatic
unless denied statutorily, although the percentage may not exceed the percentage base pay increase for General unless denied statutorily, although the percentage may not exceed the percentage base pay increase for General
Schedule (GS) employees. Member pay has since been frozen in two ways: (1) directly, through legislation that Schedule (GS) employees. Member pay has since been frozen in two ways: (1) directly, through legislation that
freezes salaries for Members but not for other federal employees, and (2) indirectly, through broader pay freeze freezes salaries for Members but not for other federal employees, and (2) indirectly, through broader pay freeze
legislation that covers Members and other specified categories of federal employees. legislation that covers Members and other specified categories of federal employees.
Members of Congress last received a pay adjustment in January 2009. At that time, their salary was increased Members of Congress last received a pay adjustment in January 2009. At that time, their salary was increased
2.8%, to $174,000. 2.8%, to $174,000.
Subsequent adjustments were denied by P.L. 111-8 (enacted March 11, 2009), P.L. 111-165 (May 14, 2010), P.L. Subsequent adjustments were denied by P.L. 111-8 (enacted March 11, 2009), P.L. 111-165 (May 14, 2010), P.L.
111-322 (December 22, 2010), P.L. 112-175 (September 28, 2012), P.L. 112-240 (January 2, 2013), P.L. 113-46 111-322 (December 22, 2010), P.L. 112-175 (September 28, 2012), P.L. 112-240 (January 2, 2013), P.L. 113-46
(October 17, 2013), P.L. 113-235 (December 16, 2014), P.L. 114-113 (December 18, 2015), P.L. 114-254 (October 17, 2013), P.L. 113-235 (December 16, 2014), P.L. 114-113 (December 18, 2015), P.L. 114-254
(December 10, 2016), P.L. 115-141 (March 23, 2018), P.L. 115-244 (September 21, 2018), P.L. 116-94 (December (December 10, 2016), P.L. 115-141 (March 23, 2018), P.L. 115-244 (September 21, 2018), P.L. 116-94 (December
20, 2019), P.L. 116-260 (December 27, 2020), P.L. 117-103 (March 15, 2022), and P.L. 117-328 (December 29, 20, 2019), P.L. 116-260 (December 27, 2020), P.L. 117-103 (March 15, 2022), and P.L. 117-328 (December 29,
~~2022)~~2022). The maximum potential 2024 Member pay adjustment is 4.6%, or $8,000. The Senate version of the FY2024 legislative branch appropriations bill (S. 2302) would prohibit this adjustment. .
The Member pay freeze has generally been included in a larger bill—usually an appropriations bill—with no The Member pay freeze has generally been included in a larger bill—usually an appropriations bill—with no
separate votes held on that provision. separate votes held on that provision.
If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the
statutory limitation (2 U.S.C. §4501) regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained statutory limitation (2 U.S.C. §4501) regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained
unchanged, the 2023 salary would be $232,600. unchanged, the 2023 salary would be $232,600.
Applying the same methodology to the Member pay rate since 2009 of $174,000, if Member pay had not been Applying the same methodology to the Member pay rate since 2009 of $174,000, if Member pay had not been
statutorily frozen in the subsequent years, salaries would be $208,300 in 2023 (assuming the GS base limit statutorily frozen in the subsequent years, salaries would be $208,300 in 2023 (assuming the GS base limit
remained in place, and including rounding). remained in place, and including rounding).
When adjusted for inflation, Member salaries decreased approximately 29% from 2009—when Member pay was When adjusted for inflation, Member salaries decreased approximately 29% from 2009—when Member pay was
last adjusted—until 2023. last adjusted—until 2023.
Both the automatic annual adjustments and funding for Members’ salaries are provided pursuant to other laws (2 Both the automatic annual adjustments and funding for Members’ salaries are provided pursuant to other laws (2
U.S.C. §4501)—not the annual appropriations bills—and a provision prohibiting a scheduled adjustment could be U.S.C. §4501)—not the annual appropriations bills—and a provision prohibiting a scheduled adjustment could be
included in any bill, or introduced as a separate bill. included in any bill, or introduced as a separate bill.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Member Pay: Constitutional Background, Source of
Appropriations, and Current Rates
Article I, Section 6, of the U.S. Constitution, states that the compensation of Members of Article I, Section 6, of the U.S. Constitution, states that the compensation of Members of
Congress shall be “ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” Congress shall be “ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”
Additionally, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution states, “No law, varying the Additionally, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution states, “No law, varying the
compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an
election of Representatives shall have intervened.” This amendment was submitted to the states election of Representatives shall have intervened.” This amendment was submitted to the states
on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments, 10 of which were ratified and on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments, 10 of which were ratified and
became the Bill of Rights. It was not ratified until May 7, 1992. became the Bill of Rights. It was not ratified until May 7, 1992.
Since FY1983, Member salaries have been funded in a permanent appropriations account.1 Since FY1983, Member salaries have been funded in a permanent appropriations account.1
The most recent pay adjustment for Members of Congress was in January 2009. Since then, the The most recent pay adjustment for Members of Congress was in January 2009. Since then, the
compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Rico has been $174,000. The only exceptions include the Speaker of the House from Puerto Rico has been $174,000. The only exceptions include the Speaker of the House
($223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in ($223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in
the House and Senate ($193,400). the House and Senate ($193,400).
Selected CRS Products
This report provides historical tables on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789; This report provides historical tables on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789;
details on enacted legislation with language prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustment details on enacted legislation with language prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustment
since the most recent adjustment; the adjustments projected by the Ethics Reform Act as since the most recent adjustment; the adjustments projected by the Ethics Reform Act as
compared with actual adjustments in Member pay; and Member pay in constant and current compared with actual adjustments in Member pay; and Member pay in constant and current
dollars since 1992. dollars since 1992.
Additional CRS products also address pay and benefits for Members of Congress: Additional CRS products also address pay and benefits for Members of Congress:
• For information on actions taken each year since the establishment of the Ethics • For information on actions taken each year since the establishment of the Ethics
Reform Act adjustment procedure, see CRS Report 97-615, Reform Act adjustment procedure, see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Members
of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2023, by Ida A. Brudnick. , by Ida A. Brudnick.
• Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are • Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are
elected. Following their service, former Members of Congress may be eligible elected. Following their service, former Members of Congress may be eligible
for retirement benefits, which are discussed in CRS Report RL30631, for retirement benefits, which are discussed in CRS Report RL30631, Retirement
Benefits for Members of Congress. .
• For information on health insurance options available to Members, see CRS • For information on health insurance options available to Members, see CRS
Report R43194, Report R43194, Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated
Congressional Staff: In Brief. .
• For an overview of compensation, benefits, allowances, and selected limitations, • For an overview of compensation, benefits, allowances, and selected limitations,
see CRS Report RL30064, see CRS Report RL30064, Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief. .
Methods for Member Pay Adjustment
There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay. There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay.

1 P.L. 97-51; 95 Stat. 966; September 11, 1981. See also, for example: “Table 25-1. Federal Budget by Agency and 1 P.L. 97-51; 95 Stat. 966; September 11, 1981. See also, for example: “Table 25-1. Federal Budget by Agency and
Account” in Analytical Perspectives, Account” in Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, , ~~Fiscal Year 2024~~FY2024 (Washington, GPO: (Washington, GPO:
2023), pp. 2, 3. 2023), pp. 2, 3.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1 1

link to page link to page 2526 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Specific legislation was enacted to adjust Member pay prior to 1968. It has been used periodically Specific legislation was enacted to adjust Member pay prior to 1968. It has been used periodically
since, most recently affecting pay for 1991. since, most recently affecting pay for 1991.
The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant to recommendations from 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 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 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) 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. 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 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 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, Compensation. Although the first commission under the 1989 act was to have convened in 1993,
it did not meet. it did not meet.
The third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annual adjustments. Prior 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 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 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 was established in 1975 (P.L. 94-82). Such increases were recommended by the President, subject
to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or modification. Congress accepted 5 such increases for to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or modification. Congress accepted 5 such increases for
itself—in 1975, 1979 (partial), 1984, 1985, and 1987—and declined 10 (1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, itself—in 1975, 1979 (partial), 1984, 1985, and 1987—and declined 10 (1976, 1977, 1978, 1980,
1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989). 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989).
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment is The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment is
determined for Members and other senior officials. This procedure employs a formula based on determined for Members and other senior officials. This procedure employs a formula based on
changes in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). changes in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI).
The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless
1. Congress statutorily prohibits the adjustment; 1. Congress statutorily prohibits the adjustment;
2. Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or 2. Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or
3. The annual base pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than 3. The annual base pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than
the scheduled adjustment for Members, in which case Members would be paid the scheduled adjustment for Members, in which case Members would be paid
the lower rate.2 the lower rate.2
Under this revised method, annual adjustments were Under this revised method, annual adjustments were
• accepted 13 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, • accepted 13 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998,
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009); and and
• denied 20 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, • denied 20 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020,
2021, 2022, and 2023).3 2021, 2022, and 2023).3
Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during consideration of Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during consideration of
annual appropriations bills, these bills do not contain funds for the annual salaries or pay annual appropriations bills, these bills do not contain funds for the annual salaries or pay
adjustment for Members. Nor do they contain language authorizing an increase. The use of adjustment for Members. Nor do they contain language authorizing an increase. The use of
appropriations bills as vehicles for provisions prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustments appropriations bills as vehicles for provisions prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustments
for Members developed by custom. A provision prohibiting an adjustment to Member pay could for Members developed by custom. A provision prohibiting an adjustment to Member pay could
be offered to any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill.4 be offered to any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill.4

2 Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added. This limitation was included in P.L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410- 2 Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added. This limitation was included in P.L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410-
3411, October 13, 1994; 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(B). 3411, October 13, 1994; 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(B).
3 For additional information on these annual adjustments, including actions to modify or deny the scheduled increases, 3 For additional information on these annual adjustments, including actions to modify or deny the scheduled increases,
see CRS Report 97-615, see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2023, by Ida A. Brudnick. , by Ida A. Brudnick.
4 For a list of the laws that have previously prohibited Member pay adjustments, se 4 For a list of the laws that have previously prohibited Member pay adjustments, see Table 3, “Legislative Vehicles “Legislative Vehicles
Used for Pay Prohibitions, Enacted Dates, and Pay Language.” Used for Pay Prohibitions, Enacted Dates, and Pay Language.”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2 2

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Maximum Potential January 2024 Member Pay
Adjustment
The maximum potential 2024 member pay adjustment of 4.6%, or $8,000, was known when the The maximum potential 2024 member pay adjustment of 4.6%, or $8,000, was known when the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost Index Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost Index
(ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2021 to December 2022.5 (ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2021 to December 2022.5
The Senate-reported version of the FY2024 legislative branch appropriations bill (S. 2302) would prohibit this adjustment (Section 211). January 2023 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2023 Member pay adjustment was 4.5%, or $7,800.6 The 2023 The maximum potential January 2023 Member pay adjustment was 4.5%, or $7,800.6 The 2023
GS base pay adjustment was 4.1%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $7,100. GS base pay adjustment was 4.1%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $7,100.
The House-reported (H.R. 8237) and the Senate-introduced (S. 4720) versions of the FY2023 The House-reported (H.R. 8237) and the Senate-introduced (S. 4720) versions of the FY2023
legislative branch appropriations bill would continue the pay freeze for another year (Section legislative branch appropriations bill would continue the pay freeze for another year (Section
212). This provision was included in P.L. 117-328, the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. 212). This provision was included in P.L. 117-328, the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
January 2022 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2022 Member pay adjustment was 2.3%, or $4,000.7 The maximum potential January 2022 Member pay adjustment was 2.3%, or $4,000.7
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified
statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase
in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2022 GS base pay in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2022 GS base pay
adjustment was 2.2%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $3,800. adjustment was 2.2%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $3,800.
Both the FY2022 House-passed legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 4346, and the Senate Both the FY2022 House-passed legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 4346, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee majority print included a provision prohibiting any Member pay Appropriations Committee majority print included a provision prohibiting any Member pay
adjustment in 2022. adjustment in 2022.
P.L. 117-43, which provided continuing funding for legislative branch operations for FY2022, P.L. 117-43, which provided continuing funding for legislative branch operations for FY2022,
extended Section 7 of P.L. 116-260, which had prohibited the pay adjustment in 2021. This extended Section 7 of P.L. 116-260, which had prohibited the pay adjustment in 2021. This
~~language was further extended by P.L. 117-70 and then enacted for the remainder of the year by~~
~~P.L. 117-103.~~

5 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 5 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 4.6% potential adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 4.6% potential adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in
the index between the quarters ending December 2021 and December 2022, which was 5.1%, and subtracting 0.5%. the index between the quarters ending December 2021 and December 2022, which was 5.1%, and subtracting 0.5%.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2022, January 31, 2023, p. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2022, January 31, 2023, p.
15. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 15. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
6 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 6 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 4.5% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the index ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 4.5% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the index
between the quarters ending December 2020 and December 2021, which was 5.0%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. between the quarters ending December 2020 and December 2021, which was 5.0%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2021 (Washington: January 28, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2021 (Washington: January 28,
2022). Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2022). Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
7 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 7 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.3% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the index ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.3% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the index
between the quarters ending December 2019 and December 2020, which was 2.8%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. between the quarters ending December 2019 and December 2020, which was 2.8%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2020 (Washington: January 31, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2020 (Washington: January 31,
2020), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2020), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3 3

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

language was further extended by P.L. 117-70 and then enacted for the remainder of the year by P.L. 117-103. January 2021 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2021 Member pay adjustment was 2.5%, or $4,400.8 The maximum potential January 2021 Member pay adjustment was 2.5%, or $4,400.8
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified
statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase
in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2021 GS base pay in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2021 GS base pay
adjustment was 1.0%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $1,700. adjustment was 1.0%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $1,700.
Both the FY2021 House-reported legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 7611, and the Both the FY2021 House-reported legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 7611, and the
Senate Appropriations Committee majority print included a provision prohibiting any Member Senate Appropriations Committee majority print included a provision prohibiting any Member
pay adjustment in 2021. A provision prohibiting the pay adjustment was included in P.L. 116-260, pay adjustment in 2021. A provision prohibiting the pay adjustment was included in P.L. 116-260,
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.
January 2020 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2020 Member pay adjustment of 2.6%, or $4,500, was known The maximum potential January 2020 Member pay adjustment of 2.6%, or $4,500, was known
when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from
December 2017 to December 2018 on January 31, 2019.9 December 2017 to December 2018 on January 31, 2019.9
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified
statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase
in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase.
This adjustment was prohibited by Section 7 of P.L. 116-94, the Further Consolidated This adjustment was prohibited by Section 7 of P.L. 116-94, the Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020, which was enacted December 20, 2019. No separate votes were held Appropriations Act, 2020, which was enacted December 20, 2019. No separate votes were held
on this provision.10 on this provision.10

8 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 8 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.5% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.5% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2018 and December 2019, which was 3.0%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. between the quarters ending December 2018 and December 2019, which was 3.0%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2019 (Washington: January 31, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2019 (Washington: January 31,
2020), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2020), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
9 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 9 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2017 and December 2018, which was 3.1%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. between the quarters ending December 2017 and December 2018, which was 3.1%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2018 (Washington: January 31, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2018 (Washington: January 31,
2019), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2019), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
10 On June 3, the House Committee on Rules announced its intention to consider and report a resolution that would 10 On June 3, the House Committee on Rules announced its intention to consider and report a resolution that would
structure consideration in the House of H.R. 2740, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education structure consideration in the House of H.R. 2740, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations bill. The committee indicated that the resolution reported from the Rules Committee would add the text Appropriations bill. The committee indicated that the resolution reported from the Rules Committee would add the text
of four additional appropriations bills to the text of H.R. 2740. This proposal would include the text of H.R. 2779, the of four additional appropriations bills to the text of H.R. 2740. This proposal would include the text of H.R. 2779, the
legislative branch appropriations bill as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations (to be included as legislative branch appropriations bill as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations (to be included as
Division B of H.R. 2740). The Rules Committee made available the legislative text that included the five Division B of H.R. 2740). The Rules Committee made available the legislative text that included the five
appropriations bills and directed Members to draft their amendments to that text (House Rules Committee Print 116-appropriations bills and directed Members to draft their amendments to that text (House Rules Committee Print 116-
17). Following reported discussions related to the automatic Member pay adjustment, the resolution reported from the 17). Following reported discussions related to the automatic Member pay adjustment, the resolution reported from the
House Rules Committee further altered the version of H.R. 2740 that would be considered by the House, removing the House Rules Committee further altered the version of H.R. 2740 that would be considered by the House, removing the
text of the legislative branch appropriations bill. H.R. 2779, as reported, did not contain a provision prohibiting the text of the legislative branch appropriations bill. H.R. 2779, as reported, did not contain a provision prohibiting the
~~automatic Member pay adjustment. Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during~~
~~consideration of annual appropriations bills, these bills do not contain funds for the annual salaries or pay adjustment~~
~~for Members, nor do they contain language authorizing an increase. The use of appropriations bills as vehicles for~~
~~provisions prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustments for Members developed by custom. A provision~~
(continued...) (continued...)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

4 4

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

January 2019 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2019 Member pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was known The maximum potential January 2019 Member pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was known
when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from
December 2016 to December 2017 on January 31, 2018.11 December 2016 to December 2017 on January 31, 2018.11
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified
statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase
in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2019 GS base pay in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2019 GS base pay
adjustment was 1.4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400. adjustment was 1.4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400.
The House-passed (H.R. 5894) and Senate-reported versions (S. 3071) of the FY2019 legislative The House-passed (H.R. 5894) and Senate-reported versions (S. 3071) of the FY2019 legislative
branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay
provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this
provision. Division B of P.L. 115-244, enacted September 21, 2018, included the pay freeze provision. Division B of P.L. 115-244, enacted September 21, 2018, included the pay freeze
provision. provision.
January 2018 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2018 Member pay adjustment of 1.8%, or $3,100, was known The maximum potential January 2018 Member pay adjustment of 1.8%, or $3,100, was known
when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from
December 2015 to December 2016 on January 31, 2017.12 December 2015 to December 2016 on January 31, 2017.12
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified
statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase
in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2018 GS base pay in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2018 GS base pay
adjustment was 1.4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400. adjustment was 1.4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400.
The House-passed (H.R. 3162) and Senate-reported versions (S. 1648) of the FY2018 legislative The House-passed (H.R. 3162) and Senate-reported versions (S. 1648) of the FY2018 legislative
branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay
~~provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this~~
~~provision.~~
~~Neither bill was enacted prior to the start of FY2018, and legislative branch activities were~~
~~initially funded through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions (CRs) (P.L. 115-56,~~

automatic Member pay adjustment. Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during consideration of annual appropriations bills, these bills do not contain funds for the annual salaries or pay adjustment for Members, nor do they contain language authorizing an increase. The use of appropriations bills as vehicles for provisions prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustments for Members developed by custom. A provision prohibiting an adjustment to Member pay could be offered to any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill. H.R. 2740, prohibiting an adjustment to Member pay could be offered to any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill. H.R. 2740,
the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2020, was ultimately agreed to in the House on June 19, 2019, without the legislative Development Appropriations Act, 2020, was ultimately agreed to in the House on June 19, 2019, without the legislative
branch appropriations funding. S. 2581, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, contained a provision branch appropriations funding. S. 2581, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, contained a provision
prohibiting the Member pay adjustment. None of these bills (H.R. 2779, H.R. 2740, or S. 2581) were enacted, and the prohibiting the Member pay adjustment. None of these bills (H.R. 2779, H.R. 2740, or S. 2581) were enacted, and the
legislative branch operated pursuant to continuing resolutions from October 1 until the enactment of P.L. 116-94. legislative branch operated pursuant to continuing resolutions from October 1 until the enactment of P.L. 116-94.
11 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 11 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.3% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 2.3% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2016 and December 2017, which was 2.8%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. between the quarters ending December 2016 and December 2017, which was 2.8%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2017 (Washington: January 31, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2017 (Washington: January 31,
2018), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2018), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
12 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 12 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 1.8% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 1.8% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2015 and December 2016, which was 2.3%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. between the quarters ending December 2015 and December 2016, which was 2.3%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2016 (Washington: January 31, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2016 (Washington: January 31,
2017), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2017), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

5 5

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision. Neither bill was enacted prior to the start of FY2018, and legislative branch activities were initially funded through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions (CRs) (P.L. 115-56, through December 8, 2017; P.L. 115-90, through December 22, 2017; P.L. 115-96, through through December 8, 2017; P.L. 115-90, through December 22, 2017; P.L. 115-96, through
January 19, 2018; P.L. 115-120, through February 8, 2018; P.L. 115-123, through March 23, January 19, 2018; P.L. 115-120, through February 8, 2018; P.L. 115-123, through March 23,
2018). P.L. 115-56 contained a provision, extended in the subsequent CRs, continuing “section 2018). P.L. 115-56 contained a provision, extended in the subsequent CRs, continuing “section
175 of P.L. 114-223, as amended by division A of P.L. 114-254.” This provision prohibited a 175 of P.L. 114-223, as amended by division A of P.L. 114-254.” This provision prohibited a
Member pay adjustment in FY2017. Section 7 of the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act Member pay adjustment in FY2017. Section 7 of the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 115-141) prohibited the adjustment for the remainder of the year.13 (P.L. 115-141) prohibited the adjustment for the remainder of the year.13
January 2017 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2017 Member pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, was known The maximum potential January 2017 Member pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, was known
when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from
December 2014 to December 2015 on January 30, 2016.14 December 2014 to December 2015 on January 30, 2016.14
Both the House-passed (H.R. 5325) and Senate-reported (S. 2955) versions of the FY2017 Both the House-passed (H.R. 5325) and Senate-reported (S. 2955) versions of the FY2017
legislative branch appropriations bill—which would provide approximately $4.4 billion in legislative branch appropriations bill—which would provide approximately $4.4 billion in
funding for the activities of the House of Representatives, Senate, and legislative branch support funding for the activities of the House of Representatives, Senate, and legislative branch support
agencies15—contained a provision that would prohibit this adjustment. The Member pay agencies15—contained a provision that would prohibit this adjustment. The Member pay
provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this
provision. No further action was taken on H.R. 5325 or S. 2955, but the pay prohibition language provision. No further action was taken on H.R. 5325 or S. 2955, but the pay prohibition language
was included in the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. was included in the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L.
114-254). 114-254).
Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have
automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base
salaries for GS employees.16 salaries for GS employees.16
~~January 2016 Member Pay Adjustment Denied~~
~~The maximum potential January 2016 Member pay adjustment of 1.7%, or $3,000, was known~~
~~when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from~~
~~December 2013 to December 2014 on January 30, 2015.17~~

13 Although this provision refers to fiscal year, since 1992, Member pay adjustments have been effective in January. 13 Although this provision refers to fiscal year, since 1992, Member pay adjustments have been effective in January.
14 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 14 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 1.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 1.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2014 and December 2015, which was 2.1%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. between the quarters ending December 2014 and December 2015, which was 2.1%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2015 (Washington: January 29, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2015 (Washington: January 29,
2016), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2016), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
15 For additional information on funding provided by the legislative branch appropriations bill, see CRS Report 15 For additional information on funding provided by the legislative branch appropriations bill, see CRS Report
R44515, R44515, Legislative Branch: FY2017 Appropriations. .
16 On August 31, 2016, President Obama issued an “alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees,” which called 16 On August 31, 2016, President Obama issued an “alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees,” which called
for a 1.0% base pay adjustment for GS employees (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/08/for a 1.0% base pay adjustment for GS employees (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/08/
31/letter-president-pay-federal-civilian-employees-2017). This proposal became effective with the issuance of 31/letter-president-pay-federal-civilian-employees-2017). This proposal became effective with the issuance of
Executive Order 13756. As in prior years, schedule 6 of Executive Order 13756 lists the pay rate for Members of Executive Order 13756. As in prior years, schedule 6 of Executive Order 13756 lists the pay rate for Members of
Congress for the upcoming year. See discussion of Executive Order 13635 (issued December 27, 2012) below for Congress for the upcoming year. See discussion of Executive Order 13635 (issued December 27, 2012) below for
additional information on the inclusion of Member pay information in executive orders. additional information on the inclusion of Member pay information in executive orders.
~~17 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private~~
~~industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter~~
~~ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 1.7% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index~~
~~between the quarters ending December 2013 and December 2014, which was 2.2%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.~~
~~(continued...)~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

6

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

Congressional Research Service 6 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables January 2016 Member Pay Adjustment Denied The maximum potential January 2016 Member pay adjustment of 1.7%, or $3,000, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2013 to December 2014 on January 30, 2015.17 The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY2016 legislative branch appropriations The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY2016 legislative branch appropriations
bill (H.R. 2250) both contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment. bill (H.R. 2250) both contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment.
The pay adjustment prohibition was subsequently included in the Consolidated Appropriations The pay adjustment prohibition was subsequently included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113). Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113).
Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have
automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base
salaries for GS employees.18 salaries for GS employees.18
January 2015 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2015 pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, was known when the The maximum potential January 2015 pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, was known when the
BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2012 to BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2012 to
December 2013 on January 31, 2014.19 December 2013 on January 31, 2014.19
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied statutorily by Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied statutorily by
Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay
is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase.
The FY2015 legislative branch appropriations bill (H.R. 4487), as reported by the Committee on The FY2015 legislative branch appropriations bill (H.R. 4487), as reported by the Committee on
Appropriations and passed by the House on May 1, 2014, contained a provision prohibiting this Appropriations and passed by the House on May 1, 2014, contained a provision prohibiting this
adjustment.20 This provision was continued in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of adjustment.20 This provision was continued in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of
this bill, with no separate vote on the Member pay provision. No further action on this bill was this bill, with no separate vote on the Member pay provision. No further action on this bill was
taken, but the provision was subsequently included in Section 8 of Division Q of the FY2015 taken, but the provision was subsequently included in Section 8 of Division Q of the FY2015
~~Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which was enacted on December 16,~~
~~2014.~~
~~On August 29, 2014, President Obama issued an “alternative pay plan for federal civilian~~
~~employees,” which called for a 1.0% increase in base salaries for General Schedule employees.21~~
~~Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have~~
~~automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase.~~

17 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12-month percentage change reported for the quarter ending December 31, minus 0.5%. The 1.7% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2013 and December 2014, which was 2.2%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2014 (Washington: January 30, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2014 (Washington: January 30,
2015), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.” 2015), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
18 On August 28, 2015, President Obama issued an “alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees,” which called 18 On August 28, 2015, President Obama issued an “alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees,” which called
for a 1.0% base pay adjustment for GS employees (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/for a 1.0% base pay adjustment for GS employees (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/
28/letter-president-alternative-pay-plan-federal-civilian-employees). This proposal became effective with the issuance 28/letter-president-alternative-pay-plan-federal-civilian-employees). This proposal became effective with the issuance
of Executive Order 13715. As in prior years, schedule 6 of Executive Order 13715 lists the pay rate for Members of of Executive Order 13715. As in prior years, schedule 6 of Executive Order 13715 lists the pay rate for Members of
Congress for the upcoming year. See discussion of Executive Order 13635 (issued December 27, 2012) below for Congress for the upcoming year. See discussion of Executive Order 13635 (issued December 27, 2012) below for
additional information on the inclusion of Member pay information in executive orders. additional information on the inclusion of Member pay information in executive orders.
19 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 19 The potential Member 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 quarter ending industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending
December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage
increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2012 and December 2013, which was 2.1%, and increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2012 and December 2013, which was 2.1%, and
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2013 subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2013
(Washington: January 31, 2014), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple (Washington: January 31, 2014), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple
of $100.” of $100.”
20 As stated above, although discussion of Member pay is often associated with appropriations bills, the legislative 20 As stated above, although discussion of Member pay is often associated with appropriations bills, the legislative
branch bill does not contain language funding or increasing Member pay, and a provision prohibiting the automatic branch bill does not contain language funding or increasing Member pay, and a provision prohibiting the automatic
Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill. Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill.
~~21 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/29/letter-president-alternative-pay-plan-federal-~~
~~civilian-employees.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

7

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

Congressional Research Service 7 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which was enacted on December 16, 2014. On August 29, 2014, President Obama issued an “alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees,” which called for a 1.0% increase in base salaries for General Schedule employees.21 Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase. January 2014 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1.2%, or $2,100, was known when the BLS The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1.2%, or $2,100, was known when the BLS
released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2011 to released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2011 to
December 2012 on January 31, 2013.22 The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-46, December 2012 on January 31, 2013.22 The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-46,
enacted October 17, 2013), however, prohibited the scheduled 2014 pay adjustment for Members enacted October 17, 2013), however, prohibited the scheduled 2014 pay adjustment for Members
of Congress. of Congress.
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either
• denied statutorily by Congress, or • denied statutorily by Congress, or
• limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member • limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member
pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The scheduled pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The scheduled
January 2014 across-the-board increase in the base pay of GS employees under January 2014 across-the-board increase in the base pay of GS employees under
the annual adjustment formula was 1.3%. A scheduled GS annual pay increase the annual adjustment formula was 1.3%. A scheduled GS annual pay increase
may be altered only if the President issues an alternative plan or if a different may be altered only if the President issues an alternative plan or if a different
increase, or freeze, is enacted. The President issued an alternate pay plan for increase, or freeze, is enacted. The President issued an alternate pay plan for
civilian federal employees on August 30, 2013.23 This plan called for a January civilian federal employees on August 30, 2013.23 This plan called for a January
2014 across-the-board pay increase of 1.0% for federal civilian employees, the 2014 across-the-board pay increase of 1.0% for federal civilian employees, the
same percentage as proposed in the President’s FY2014 budget. Legislation was same percentage as proposed in the President’s FY2014 budget. Legislation was
not enacted to prohibit or alter the GS adjustment,24 and Executive Order 13655, not enacted to prohibit or alter the GS adjustment,24 and Executive Order 13655,
issued on December 23, 2013, implemented a 1.0% increase for GS employees.25 issued on December 23, 2013, implemented a 1.0% increase for GS employees.25
Had the Member pay adjustment not been prohibited by law, the GS base pay Had the Member pay adjustment not been prohibited by law, the GS base pay
adjustment would have automatically limited a salary adjustment for Members of adjustment would have automatically limited a salary adjustment for Members of
Congress to 1.0% ($1,700). Congress to 1.0% ($1,700).
~~January 2013 Member Pay Adjustment Delayed~~
~~and Then Denied~~
~~The maximum potential 2013 pay adjustment of 1.1%, or $1,900, was known when the BLS~~
~~released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2010 to~~
~~December 2011 on January 31, 2012.26 The adjustment takes effect automatically unless (1)~~

21 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/29/letter-president-alternative-pay-plan-federal-civilian-employees. 22 The potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 22 The potential Member 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 quarter ending industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending
December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.2% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.2% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage
increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2011 and December 2012, which was 1.7%, and increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2011 and December 2012, which was 1.7%, and
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2012 subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2012
(Washington: January 31, 2013), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple (Washington: January 31, 2013), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple
of $100.” of $100.”
23 Available at http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president-regarding-alternate-pay-civilian-23 Available at http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president-regarding-alternate-pay-civilian-
federal-employees. federal-employees.
24 See, however, language in two House Appropriations Committee reports (H.Rept. 113-90 and H.Rept. 113-91) 24 See, however, language in two House Appropriations Committee reports (H.Rept. 113-90 and H.Rept. 113-91)
stating: “The Committee does not include requested funding for a civilian pay increase. Should the President provide a stating: “The Committee does not include requested funding for a civilian pay increase. Should the President provide a
civilian pay raise for fiscal year 2014, it is assumed that the cost of such a pay raise will be absorbed within existing civilian pay raise for fiscal year 2014, it is assumed that the cost of such a pay raise will be absorbed within existing
appropriations for fiscal year 2014,” pp. 2-3 and pp. 3-4. appropriations for fiscal year 2014,” pp. 2-3 and pp. 3-4.
25 As in prior years, schedule 6 of the executive order listed the pay rate for Members of Congress for the upcoming 25 As in prior years, schedule 6 of the executive order listed the pay rate for Members of Congress for the upcoming
year. See discussion of Executive Order 13635 (issued December 27, 2012) below for additional information on the year. See discussion of Executive Order 13635 (issued December 27, 2012) below for additional information on the
inclusion of Member pay information in executive orders. inclusion of Member pay information in executive orders.
~~26 The annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private~~
~~(continued...)~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

8

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

Congressional Research Service 8 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables January 2013 Member Pay Adjustment Delayed and Then Denied The maximum potential 2013 pay adjustment of 1.1%, or $1,900, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2010 to December 2011 on January 31, 2012.26 The adjustment takes effect automatically unless (1) denied statutorily by Congress or (2) limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage denied statutorily by Congress or (2) limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage
increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase.
The President’s budget, submitted on February 13, 2012, proposed an average (i.e., base and The President’s budget, submitted on February 13, 2012, proposed an average (i.e., base and
locality) 0.5% adjustment for GS employees.27 locality) 0.5% adjustment for GS employees.27
Partial Year Pay Freeze Enacted
President Obama later stated in a letter to congressional leadership on August 21, 2012, that the President Obama later stated in a letter to congressional leadership on August 21, 2012, that the
current federal pay freeze should extend until FY2013 budget negotiations are finalized.28 Section current federal pay freeze should extend until FY2013 budget negotiations are finalized.28 Section
114 of H.J.Res. 117, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, which was introduced on 114 of H.J.Res. 117, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, which was introduced on
September 10, 2012, extended the freeze enacted by P.L. 111-322 through the duration of this September 10, 2012, extended the freeze enacted by P.L. 111-322 through the duration of this
continuing resolution. H.J.Res. 117 was passed by the House on September 13 and the Senate on continuing resolution. H.J.Res. 117 was passed by the House on September 13 and the Senate on
September 22. It was signed by the President on September 28, 2012 (P.L. 112-175). A delay in September 22. It was signed by the President on September 28, 2012 (P.L. 112-175). A delay in
the implementation of pay adjustments for GS employees automatically delays any scheduled the implementation of pay adjustments for GS employees automatically delays any scheduled
Member pay adjustment. Member pay adjustment.
Executive Order Issued and Subsequent Pay Freeze Enacted
On December 27, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13635, which listed the rates of On December 27, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13635, which listed the rates of
pay for various categories of officers and employees that would be effective after the expiration pay for various categories of officers and employees that would be effective after the expiration
of the freeze extended by P.L. 112-175. The executive order included a 0.5% increase for GS base of the freeze extended by P.L. 112-175. The executive order included a 0.5% increase for GS base
pay, which automatically lowered the maximum potential Member pay adjustment from 1.1% to pay, which automatically lowered the maximum potential Member pay adjustment from 1.1% to
0.5%. 0.5%.
As in prior years, schedule 6 of the 2012 executive order listed the pay rate for Members of As in prior years, schedule 6 of the 2012 executive order listed the pay rate for Members of
Congress for the upcoming year.29 This executive order indicated that an annual adjustment Congress for the upcoming year.29 This executive order indicated that an annual adjustment
~~would take effect after the expiration of the freeze included in P.L. 112-175. As stated above, the~~
~~annual adjustments take effect automatically if legislation is not enacted preventing them. The~~
~~executive order, however, by establishing the GS pay adjustment at a lower rate than the~~

26 The annual Member 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 quarter ending industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending
December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.1% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.1% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage
increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2010 and December 2011, which was 1.6%, and increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2010 and December 2011, which was 1.6%, and
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2011 subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2011
(Washington: January 31, 2012), p. 3. (Washington: January 31, 2012), p. 3.
27 Office of Management and Budget, 27 Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2013, Performance and Management (Washington, GPO: 2012), Table 2-1: Economic Assumptions, p. 17 and p. 114. (Washington, GPO: 2012), Table 2-1: Economic Assumptions, p. 17 and p. 114.
28 “Letter from the President Regarding an Alternative Plan for Pay Increases for Civilian Federal Employees,” 28 “Letter from the President Regarding an Alternative Plan for Pay Increases for Civilian Federal Employees,” Text of
a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, August 21, , August 21,
2012, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/21/letter-president-regarding-alternative-plan-2012, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/21/letter-president-regarding-alternative-plan-
pay-increases-civilian-feder. pay-increases-civilian-feder.
29 Prior executive orders listing the rates of pay for Members of Congress include Executive Order 12944 of December 29 Prior executive orders listing the rates of pay for Members of Congress include Executive Order 12944 of December
28, 1994; Executive Order 12984 of December 28, 1995; Executive Order 13071 of December 29, 1997; Executive 28, 1994; Executive Order 12984 of December 28, 1995; Executive Order 13071 of December 29, 1997; Executive
Order 13106 of December 7, 1998; Executive Order 13144 of December 21, 1999; Executive Order 13182 of Order 13106 of December 7, 1998; Executive Order 13144 of December 21, 1999; Executive Order 13182 of
December 23, 2000; Executive Order 13249 of December 28, 2001; Executive Order 13282 of December 31, 2002; December 23, 2000; Executive Order 13249 of December 28, 2001; Executive Order 13282 of December 31, 2002;
Executive Order 13322 of December 30, 2003; Executive Order 13332 of March 3, 2004; Executive Order 13368 of Executive Order 13322 of December 30, 2003; Executive Order 13332 of March 3, 2004; Executive Order 13368 of
~~December 30, 2004; Executive Order 13393 of December 22, 2005; Executive Order 13420 of December 21, 2006;~~
~~Executive Order 13454 of January 4, 2008; Executive Order 13483 of December 18, 2008; Executive Order 13525 of~~
~~December 23, 2009; Executive Order 13561 of December 22, 2010; and Executive Order 13594 of December 19, 2011.~~
~~Pay rates for Members of Congress generally are listed in “Schedule 6.” In most years, the Executive Orders state that~~
~~the pay rates in this schedule are “effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after~~
~~January 1.”~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

9

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

(continued...) Congressional Research Service 9 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables would take effect after the expiration of the freeze included in P.L. 112-175. As stated above, the annual adjustments take effect automatically if legislation is not enacted preventing them. The executive order, however, by establishing the GS pay adjustment at a lower rate than the scheduled Member pay adjustment, automatically lowered the Member pay adjustment rate since scheduled Member pay adjustment, automatically lowered the Member pay adjustment rate since
by law Member pay adjustments cannot be higher than GS pay adjustments. by law Member pay adjustments cannot be higher than GS pay adjustments.
Subsequently, a provision in H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was Subsequently, a provision in H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was
enacted on January 2, 2013 (P.L. 112-240), froze Member pay at the 2009 level for 2013. The enacted on January 2, 2013 (P.L. 112-240), froze Member pay at the 2009 level for 2013. The
language was included in S.Amdt. 3448, a substitute amendment agreed to by unanimous language was included in S.Amdt. 3448, a substitute amendment agreed to by unanimous
consent. The bill, as amended, passed the Senate (89-8, vote #251) and the House (257-167, roll consent. The bill, as amended, passed the Senate (89-8, vote #251) and the House (257-167, roll
call #659) on January 1, 2013. This freeze was subsequently reflected in Executive Order 13641, call #659) on January 1, 2013. This freeze was subsequently reflected in Executive Order 13641,
which was signed April 5, 2013. which was signed April 5, 2013.
This represented the second time, the first being in 2006, that Member pay was statutorily frozen This represented the second time, the first being in 2006, that Member pay was statutorily frozen
for only a portion of the following year at the time of the issuance of the executive order. In both for only a portion of the following year at the time of the issuance of the executive order. In both
instances, the executive order listed new pay rates and indicated an effective date following the instances, the executive order listed new pay rates and indicated an effective date following the
expiration of the statutory freeze. Pay adjustments in both years were further frozen pursuant to expiration of the statutory freeze. Pay adjustments in both years were further frozen pursuant to
subsequent laws.30 subsequent laws.30
January 2011 and January 2012 Member Pay
Adjustments Denied
As stated above, projected Member pay adjustments are calculated based on changes in the ECI. As stated above, projected Member pay adjustments are calculated based on changes in the ECI.
The projected 2011 adjustment of 0.9% was known when the BLS released data for the ECI The projected 2011 adjustment of 0.9% was known when the BLS released data for the ECI
change during the 12-month period from December 2008 to December 2009 on January 29, change during the 12-month period from December 2008 to December 2009 on January 29,
2010.31 This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600. 2010.31 This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600.
The 2011 pay adjustment was prohibited by the enactment of H.R. 5146 (P.L. 111-165) on May The 2011 pay adjustment was prohibited by the enactment of H.R. 5146 (P.L. 111-165) on May
14, 2010. H.R. 5146 was introduced in the House on April 27 and was agreed to the same day 14, 2010. H.R. 5146 was introduced in the House on April 27 and was agreed to the same day
(Roll no. 226). It was agreed to in the Senate the following day by unanimous consent. Other (Roll no. 226). It was agreed to in the Senate the following day by unanimous consent. Other
legislation was also introduced to prevent the scheduled 2011 pay adjustment.32 legislation was also introduced to prevent the scheduled 2011 pay adjustment.32
Additionally, P.L. 111-322, which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevents any adjustment in Additionally, P.L. 111-322, which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevents any adjustment in
GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not
exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen
during this period. If not limited by GS pay, Members could have received a salary adjustment of during this period. If not limited by GS pay, Members could have received a salary adjustment of
~~1.3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula.33 Pay for Members of Congress remained~~
~~$174,000.~~

December 30, 2004; Executive Order 13393 of December 22, 2005; Executive Order 13420 of December 21, 2006; Executive Order 13454 of January 4, 2008; Executive Order 13483 of December 18, 2008; Executive Order 13525 of December 23, 2009; Executive Order 13561 of December 22, 2010; and Executive Order 13594 of December 19, 2011. Pay rates for Members of Congress generally are listed in “Schedule 6.” In most years, the Executive Orders state that the pay rates in this schedule are “effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1.” 30 P.L. 110-5, for the 2007 scheduled pay adjustment, and P.L. 112-240, for the 2013 scheduled pay adjustment. 30 P.L. 110-5, for the 2007 scheduled pay adjustment, and P.L. 112-240, for the 2013 scheduled pay adjustment.
31 The annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 31 The annual Member 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 quarter ending industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending
December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 0.9% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 0.9% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage
increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2008 and December 2009, which was 1.4%, and increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2008 and December 2009, which was 1.4%, and
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2009 subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2009
(Washington: January 29, 2010), p. 2. (Washington: January 29, 2010), p. 2.
32 H.R. 4255, introduced December 9, 2009; H.R. 4423, introduced January 12, 2010; S. 3074, introduced March 4, 32 H.R. 4255, introduced December 9, 2009; H.R. 4423, introduced January 12, 2010; S. 3074, introduced March 4,
2010; S. 3198, introduced March 14, 2010; and S. 3244, introduced April 22, 2010. 2010; S. 3198, introduced March 14, 2010; and S. 3244, introduced April 22, 2010.
~~33 The annual Member 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 quarter ending~~
~~December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.3% potential adjustment was determined by taking the~~
~~percentage increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2009 and December 2010, which was 1.8%,~~
~~and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December~~
~~2010 (Washington: January 28, 2011), p. 3. See also: “Schedule 6—Vice President and Members of Congress,”~~
~~(continued...)~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

10

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~
Congressional Research Service 10 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables 1.3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula.33 Pay for Members of Congress remained $174,000.
January 2010 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
Under the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act, Members were originally scheduled to Under the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act, Members were originally scheduled to
receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%.34 This adjustment was denied by Congress receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%.34 This adjustment was denied by Congress
through a provision included in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Section 103 of through a provision included in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Section 103 of
Division J of the act states, “Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Division J of the act states, “Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to
take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 shall not take effect.”35 take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 shall not take effect.”35
Had this provision not been enacted, the 2.1% projected adjustment would have been Had this provision not been enacted, the 2.1% projected adjustment would have been
automatically reduced to 1.5% to match the 2010 GS base pay adjustment.36 automatically reduced to 1.5% to match the 2010 GS base pay adjustment.36
Member Pay: Other Proposals and Actions by
Congress
118th Congress
Legislation Legislation ~~was~~has been introduced in the 118th Congress to introduced in the 118th Congress to
• repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 265, H.R. • repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 265, H.R.
1417, and S. 43); 1417, and S. 43); ~~and~~
• change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or
disbursed disbursed (e.g., holding salaries in escrow) by linking it to congressional actions (e.g., election of a Speaker, H.R. by linking it to congressional actions (e.g., election of a Speaker, H.R.
141, H.R. 352, or H.R. 507) or economic indicators or actions, including passage 141, H.R. 352, or H.R. 507) or economic indicators or actions, including passage
of a balanced budget, of a balanced budget, passage of regular appropriations (i.e., not continuing appropriations), or in the event the debt of the or in the event the debt of the ~~United States~~U.S. government government
~~reaches the statutory limit (e.g., H.R. 135 or H.R. 187).~~
~~117th Congress~~
~~Legislation was introduced in the 117th Congress to~~
~~• repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 823 and S. 55);~~
~~• repeal the provision providing for permanent appropriations for Member salaries~~
~~(H.R. 1802);~~
~~• change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or~~
~~disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including~~
~~passage of a budget resolution, passage of appropriations, or reaching the debt~~

reaches the statutory limit (e.g., S. 89, S. 219, H.J.Res 4, H.R. 111, H.R. 135, H.R. 187, H.R. 224, H.R. 225); and 33 The annual Member 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 quarter ending December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.3% potential adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2009 and December 2010, which was 1.8%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2010 (Washington: January 28, 2011), p. 3. See also: “Schedule 6—Vice President and Members of Congress,” Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay, Executive Order 13594, December 23, 2011, , Executive Order 13594, December 23, 2011, Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 247 , vol. 76, no. 247
(Washington, GPO: 2011), pp. 80191-80196. (Washington, GPO: 2011), pp. 80191-80196.
34 The annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private 34 The annual Member 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 quarter ending industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending
December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 2.1% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 2.1% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage
increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2007 and December 2008, which was 2.6%, and increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2007 and December 2008, which was 2.6%, and
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2008 subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2008
(Washington: January 31, 2009), pp. 2, 17. (Washington: January 31, 2009), pp. 2, 17.
35 P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009. 35 P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009.
36 The 1.5% GS base adjustment was finalized by U.S. President (Obama), “Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay,” 36 The 1.5% GS base adjustment was finalized by U.S. President (Obama), “Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay,”
Executive Order 13525, Executive Order 13525, Federal Register, vol. 74, December 23, 2009, pp. 69231-69242. , vol. 74, December 23, 2009, pp. 69231-69242.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

11 11

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

• prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (e.g., H.R. 3538 and H.R. 4287). 117th Congress Legislation was introduced in the 117th Congress to • repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 823 and S. 55); • revise the annual rate of pay of Members of Congress to restore cost-of-living increases which were waived under previous laws (e.g., H.R. 9418); • repeal the provision providing for permanent appropriations for Member salaries (H.R. 1802); • tie congressional salaries to judicial salaries (H.R. 9417); • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed (e.g., holding salaries in escrow) by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution, passage of regular appropriations (i.e., not continuing appropriations), or reaching the debt limit, or other events (for example, S. 48, H.R. 75, H.R. 178, H.R. 180, H.R. ~~limit, or other events (for example, H.R. 75, H.R.~~ 470, H.R. 1802, H.R. 7135, 470, H.R. 1802, H.R. 7135, H.R. 7262, H.R. 7883, and and
H.R. H.R. ~~7883~~9031); and ); and
• prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting • prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting
in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 1774 and H.R. 5443). in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 1774 and H.R. 5443).
116th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 116th Congress to Legislation was introduced in the 116th Congress to
• repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 751, H.R. • repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 751, H.R.
1466, H.R. 3260, and S. 1444); 1466, H.R. 3260, and S. 1444);
• change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or
disbursed disbursed (e.g., holding salaries in escrow) by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including
passage of a budget resolution, passage of passage of a budget resolution, passage of ~~appropriations~~regular appropriations (i.e., not continuing appropriations), or reaching the debt , or reaching the debt
limit (for example, S. 39, S. 44, S. 949, S. 1877, H.R. 86, H.R. 102, H.R. 129, limit (for example, S. 39, S. 44, S. 949, S. 1877, H.R. 86, H.R. 102, H.R. 129,
H.R. 236, H.R. 298, H.R. 834, H.R. 1172, H.R. 1178, H.R. 1466, H.R. 1612, H.R. 236, H.R. 298, H.R. 834, H.R. 1172, H.R. 1178, H.R. 1466, H.R. 1612,
H.R. 3118, H.R. 3271, H.R. 3440, H.J.Res. 10, and H.J.Res. 51); and H.R. 3118, H.R. 3271, H.R. 3440, H.J.Res. 10, and H.J.Res. 51); and
• prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting • prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting
in a government shutdown (for example, S. 74, S. 949, H. in a government shutdown (for example, S. 74, S. 949, H.J.Res 18, H.R. 26, H.R. 211, H.R. R. 26, H.R. 211, H.R.
845, and H.R. 1612) or to reduce or withhold the pay of Members who cast a 845, and H.R. 1612) or to reduce or withhold the pay of Members who cast a
vote or record their presence in the House by proxy (for example, H.R. 7044 and vote or record their presence in the House by proxy (for example, H.R. 7044 and
H.R. 7180). H.R. 7180).
115th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 115th Congress to Legislation was introduced in the 115th Congress to
• prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 342); • prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 342);
• repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 668 and H.R. • repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 668 and H.R.
5946); 5946);
Congressional Research Service 12 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or
disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including
passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H.R. 429, passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H.R. 429,
H.R. 536, H.R. 646, H.R. 1779, H.R. 1951, H.R. 2153, H.R. 2665, H.R. 3675, H.R. 536, H.R. 646, H.R. 1779, H.R. 1951, H.R. 2153, H.R. 2665, H.R. 3675,
H.R. 4512, and H.R. 5946, and S. 14); H.R. 4512, and H.R. 5946, and S. 14);
• reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 1786 and H.R. 5539); • reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 1786 and H.R. 5539);
and and
• prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting • prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting
in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 1789, H.R. 1794, H.R. 2214, H.R. in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 1789, H.R. 1794, H.R. 2214, H.R.
4852, H.R. 4870, and S. 2327). 4852, H.R. 4870, and S. 2327).
114th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 114th Congress to Legislation was introduced in the 114th Congress to
• prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 109 and H.R. 302); • prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 109 and H.R. 302);
• repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 179, H.R. 513, • repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 179, H.R. 513,
H.R. 688, H.R. 1585, and S. 17); H.R. 688, H.R. 1585, and S. 17);
~~Congressional Research Service~~

12

~~link to page 25 link to page 21~~ ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

• change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or
disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including
the passage of a budget resolution or existence of a deficit (for example, the passage of a budget resolution or existence of a deficit (for example,
H.Con.Res. 27, S.Con.Res. 11, H.R. 92, H.R. 110, H.R. 174, H.R. 187, H.R. H.Con.Res. 27, S.Con.Res. 11, H.R. 92, H.R. 110, H.R. 174, H.R. 187, H.R.
3757, H.R. 4814, H.R. 4476, and S. 39); 3757, H.R. 4814, H.R. 4476, and S. 39);
• reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 179 and H.R. 688); • reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 179 and H.R. 688);
and and
• prohibit or reduce pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations • prohibit or reduce pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations
resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S. 2074, H.R. 3562, H.R. resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S. 2074, H.R. 3562, H.R.
2023, and H.R. 1032).37 2023, and H.R. 1032).37
Linking Salaries to Passage of a Concurrent Resolution on the Budget
The House budget resolution for FY2016, H.Con.Res. 27, included a policy statement that The House budget resolution for FY2016, H.Con.Res. 27, included a policy statement that
Congress should agree to a concurrent budget resolution each year by April 15, and if not, Congress should agree to a concurrent budget resolution each year by April 15, and if not,
congressional salaries should be held in escrow (Section 819). The statement proposed that congressional salaries should be held in escrow (Section 819). The statement proposed that
salaries would be released from the escrow account either when a chamber agrees to a concurrent salaries would be released from the escrow account either when a chamber agrees to a concurrent
resolution on the budget or the last day of the Congress, whichever is earlier. The House agreed to resolution on the budget or the last day of the Congress, whichever is earlier. The House agreed to
this resolution on March 25, 2015, and no further action was taken. The Senate agreed to itsthis resolution on March 25, 2015, and no further action was taken. The Senate agreed to its
~~resolution on the FY2016 budget, S.Con.Res. 11, on March 27, 2015, without this language. The~~
~~conference report for S.Con.Res. 11—agreed to in the House on April 30 and in the Senate on~~
~~May 5, 2015—contains a “Policy Statement on ‘No Budget, No Pay’” (Section 6216), which~~
~~refers to actions by the House.~~
~~113th Congress~~
~~Legislation was introduced in the 113th Congress to~~
~~• prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 54, H.R. 243, H.R. 636, S. 18, S.~~
~~30);38~~

37 Members of Congress continue to receive their pay during a lapse in appropriations for a number of reasons. Member 37 Members of Congress continue to receive their pay during a lapse in appropriations for a number of reasons. Member
salaries have been provided by a permanent, mandatory, appropriation since the enactment of P.L. 97-51 (95 Stat. 966, salaries have been provided by a permanent, mandatory, appropriation since the enactment of P.L. 97-51 (95 Stat. 966,
September 11, 1981, 2 U.S.C. §4501 note). Article I, §6 of the Constitution states, “Senators and Representatives shall September 11, 1981, 2 U.S.C. §4501 note). Article I, §6 of the Constitution states, “Senators and Representatives shall
receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”
The 27th Amendment to the Constitution added: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and The 27th Amendment to the Constitution added: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” Finally, the Government Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” Finally, the Government
Accountability Office’s (GAO) Accountability Office’s (GAO) Principles of Federal Appropriations Law states: “The salary of a Member of Congress states: “The salary of a Member of Congress
is fixed by statute and therefore cannot be waived without specific statutory authority. B-159835, April 22, 1975; B-is fixed by statute and therefore cannot be waived without specific statutory authority. B-159835, April 22, 1975; B-
123424, March 7, 1975; B-123424, April 15, 1955; A-8427, March 19, 1925; B-206396.2, November 15, 1988 123424, March 7, 1975; B-123424, April 15, 1955; A-8427, March 19, 1925; B-206396.2, November 15, 1988
(nondecision letter). However, as each of these cases points out, nothing prevents a Senator or Representative from (nondecision letter). However, as each of these cases points out, nothing prevents a Senator or Representative from
accepting the salary and then, as several have done, donate part or all of it back to the United States Treasury.” (U.S. accepting the salary and then, as several have done, donate part or all of it back to the United States Treasury.” (U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Government Accountability Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, Third Edition, February , Volume II, Third Edition, February
2006, p. 6-105, http://www.gao.gov/assets/210/202819.pdf.) 2006, p. 6-105, http://www.gao.gov/assets/210/202819.pdf.)
~~38 P.L. 112-240, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (January 2, 2013), froze Member pay at the 2009 level for~~
~~FY2013 (see notes for Table 3). Additional, broader, federal pay freeze legislation introduced in the 113th Congress~~
~~may be potentially related (for example, H.R. 273 and H.R. 933), although under 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), Member pay~~
~~adjustments are “effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay period commencing on or after the first day of the~~
~~month in which an adjustment takes effect under section 5303 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule”~~
~~and the “first day of the fiscal year in which such adjustment in the rates of pay under the General Schedule takes~~
~~effect.” Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303, General Schedule adjustments are “Effective as of the first day of the first~~
~~applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1 of each calendar year ... ” Since 1992, pay adjustments for~~
~~Members of Congress have been effective (or retroactive to) January 1 (see Table 1).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~
Congressional Research Service 13 link to page 26 link to page 22 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables resolution on the FY2016 budget, S.Con.Res. 11, on March 27, 2015, without this language. The conference report for S.Con.Res. 11—agreed to in the House on April 30 and in the Senate on May 5, 2015—contains a “Policy Statement on ‘No Budget, No Pay’” (Section 6216), which refers to actions by the House. 113th Congress Legislation was introduced in the 113th Congress to • prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 54, H.R. 243, H.R. 636, S. 18, S. 30);38
• repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 134, H.R. 150, • repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 134, H.R. 150,
H.R. 196, S. 65, and H.R. 398); H.R. 196, S. 65, and H.R. 398);
• change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or
disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including
passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H.R. 108, passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H.R. 108,
H.R. 167, H.R. 284, H.R. 308, H.R. 310, H.R. 325, H.R. 372, H.R. 397, H.R. H.R. 167, H.R. 284, H.R. 308, H.R. 310, H.R. 325, H.R. 372, H.R. 397, H.R.
396, H.R. 522, H.R. 593, H.R. 1884, H.R. 2335, H.R. 3234, S. 18, S. 30, and S. 396, H.R. 522, H.R. 593, H.R. 1884, H.R. 2335, H.R. 3234, S. 18, S. 30, and S.
263); 263);
• reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 37, H.R. 150, H.R. • reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 37, H.R. 150, H.R.
391, H.R. 396, H.R. 398, and H.R. 1467); 391, H.R. 396, H.R. 398, and H.R. 1467);
• prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting • prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting
in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 3160, H.R. 3215, H.R. 3224, H.R. in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 3160, H.R. 3215, H.R. 3224, H.R.
3234, and H.R. 3236); and 3234, and H.R. 3236); and
• apply any sequester to Member pay (for example, S. 436, H.R. 1181, H.R. 1478, • apply any sequester to Member pay (for example, S. 436, H.R. 1181, H.R. 1478,
and H.R. 2677).39 and H.R. 2677).39
Linking Salaries to Passage of a Concurrent Resolution on the Budget
H.R. 325, which (1) included language holding congressional salaries in escrow if a concurrent H.R. 325, which (1) included language holding congressional salaries in escrow if a concurrent
resolution on the budget was not agreed to by April 15, 2013, and (2) provided for a temporary resolution on the budget was not agreed to by April 15, 2013, and (2) provided for a temporary
~~extension of the debt ceiling through May 18, 2013, was introduced on January 21, 2013.40~~
~~Salaries would have been held in escrow for Members in a chamber if that chamber had not~~
~~agreed to a concurrent resolution by that date. Salaries would have been released from the escrow~~
~~account either when that chamber agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day~~
~~of the 113th Congress, whichever was earlier. H.R. 325 was agreed to in the House on January 23,~~
~~2013, and the Senate on January 31, 2013. It was enacted on February 4, 2013 (P.L. 113-3). Both~~
~~the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution prior to that date, however, and salaries were~~
~~not held in escrow.~~
~~Linking Salaries to the Debt Limit~~
~~H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act, was introduced in the House on February 25, 2013. The~~
~~bill would have prioritized certain payments in the event the debt reaches the statutory limit. An~~
~~amendment, H.Amdt. 61, was offered on May 9, 2013, that would clarify that these obligations~~
~~would not include compensation for Members of Congress. It was agreed to the same day. The~~
~~bill passed the House on May 13, 2013. No further action was taken in the 113th Congress.~~

38 P.L. 112-240, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (January 2, 2013), froze Member pay at the 2009 level for FY2013 (see notes for Table 3). Additional, broader, federal pay freeze legislation introduced in the 113th Congress may be potentially related (for example, H.R. 273 and H.R. 933), although under 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), Member pay adjustments are “effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay period commencing on or after the first day of the month in which an adjustment takes effect under section 5303 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule” and the “first day of the fiscal year in which such adjustment in the rates of pay under the General Schedule takes effect.” Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303, General Schedule adjustments are “Effective as of the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1 of each calendar year ... ” Since 1992, pay adjustments for Members of Congress have been effective (or retroactive to) January 1 (see Table 1). 39 As in previous years, OMB has determined that Member pay is not subject to sequestration (Appendix A. 39 As in previous years, OMB has determined that Member pay is not subject to sequestration (Appendix A.
Preliminary Estimates of Sequestrable and Exempt Budgetary Resources and Reduction in Sequestrable Budgetary Preliminary Estimates of Sequestrable and Exempt Budgetary Resources and Reduction in Sequestrable Budgetary
Resources by OMB Account–Resources by OMB Account–~~FY 2013~~FY2013 and Appendix B. Preliminary Sequestrable and Appendix B. Preliminary Sequestrable / /Exempt Classification by OMB Exempt Classification by OMB
Account and Type of Budgetary Resource, in OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 Account and Type of Budgetary Resource, in OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012
(P.L. 112-155).) Bills have been introduced in prior Congresses that would apply sequestration to Member salaries (for (P.L. 112-155).) Bills have been introduced in prior Congresses that would apply sequestration to Member salaries (for
example, H.R. 4675, 99th Cong.; H.Res. 481, 101st Cong.; H.R. 5585, 101st Cong.; S.Amdt. 3044 to S.Amdt. 3209, example, H.R. 4675, 99th Cong.; H.Res. 481, 101st Cong.; H.R. 5585, 101st Cong.; S.Amdt. 3044 to S.Amdt. 3209,
101st Cong.; S.Amdt. 2916 to H.R. 5558, 101st Cong.; S. 3051, 101st Cong.; H.R. 5587, 101st Cong.; H.R. 5718, 101st 101st Cong.; S.Amdt. 2916 to H.R. 5558, 101st Cong.; S. 3051, 101st Cong.; H.R. 5587, 101st Cong.; H.R. 5718, 101st
Cong.; S.Amdt. 2760 to S. 1224, 101st Cong.; S.Amdt. 2881 and S.Amdt. 2884 to S. 110, 101st Cong.; S. 99, 102nd Cong.; S.Amdt. 2760 to S. 1224, 101st Cong.; S.Amdt. 2881 and S.Amdt. 2884 to S. 110, 101st Cong.; S. 99, 102nd
Cong; S. 731, 103rd Cong.; and S.Amdt. 15 to S. 2, 104th Cong.). Cong; S. 731, 103rd Cong.; and S.Amdt. 15 to S. 2, 104th Cong.).
~~40 The bill states: “If by April 15, 2013, a House of Congress has not agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget for~~
~~fiscal year 2014 pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, during the period described in~~
~~paragraph (2) the payroll administrator of that House of Congress shall deposit in an escrow account all payments~~
~~otherwise required to be made during such period for the compensation of Members of Congress who serve in that~~
~~House of Congress.... ”~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

14

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~
Congressional Research Service 14 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables extension of the debt ceiling through May 18, 2013, was introduced on January 21, 2013.40 Salaries would have been held in escrow for Members in a chamber if that chamber had not agreed to a concurrent resolution by that date. Salaries would have been released from the escrow account either when that chamber agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day of the 113th Congress, whichever was earlier. H.R. 325 was agreed to in the House on January 23, 2013, and the Senate on January 31, 2013. It was enacted on February 4, 2013 (P.L. 113-3). Both the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution prior to that date, however, and salaries were not held in escrow. Linking Salaries to the Debt Limit H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act, was introduced in the House on February 25, 2013. The bill would have prioritized certain payments in the event the debt reaches the statutory limit. An amendment, H.Amdt. 61, was offered on May 9, 2013, that would clarify that these obligations would not include compensation for Members of Congress. It was agreed to the same day. The bill passed the House on May 13, 2013. No further action was taken in the 113th Congress.
The House-passed version of H.J.Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, also The House-passed version of H.J.Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, also
contained a provision addressing actions by the Secretary of the Treasury in the event that the contained a provision addressing actions by the Secretary of the Treasury in the event that the
debt limit is reached and not raised. The provision (Section 138) would, in part, prohibit debt limit is reached and not raised. The provision (Section 138) would, in part, prohibit
borrowing to provide pay for Members of Congress in the event that the debt reaches the statutory borrowing to provide pay for Members of Congress in the event that the debt reaches the statutory
limit prior to December 15, 2014. The bill passed the House on September 20, 2013. It was limit prior to December 15, 2014. The bill passed the House on September 20, 2013. It was
enacted on December 26, 2013, without this section. enacted on December 26, 2013, without this section.
112th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress to Legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress to
• repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, S. 133, S. 148, H.R. • repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, S. 133, S. 148, H.R.
187, H.R. 235, H.R. 246, H.R. 343, H.R. 431, H.R. 3673); 187, H.R. 235, H.R. 246, H.R. 343, H.R. 431, H.R. 3673);
• change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or • change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or
disbursed by linking it to other action or economic indicators (for example, H.R. disbursed by linking it to other action or economic indicators (for example, H.R.
124, H.R. 172, H.R. 236, H.R. 994, H.R. 1454, H.R. 3136, H.R. 3565, H.R. 3774, 124, H.R. 172, H.R. 236, H.R. 994, H.R. 1454, H.R. 3136, H.R. 3565, H.R. 3774,
H.R. 3799, H.R. 3883, H.R. 4036, H.R. 6438, S. 1442); H.R. 3799, H.R. 3883, H.R. 4036, H.R. 6438, S. 1442);
• reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 204, H.R. 270, H.R. • reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 204, H.R. 270, H.R.
335, H.R. 1012, H.R. 4399); 335, H.R. 1012, H.R. 4399);
• otherwise alter or restrict pay for Members under certain conditions (for example, • otherwise alter or restrict pay for Members under certain conditions (for example,
H.R. 6108); and H.R. 6108); and
• freeze Member pay (for example, S. 1931, S. 1936, S. 2065, S. 2079, S. 2210, • freeze Member pay (for example, S. 1931, S. 1936, S. 2065, S. 2079, S. 2210,
H.R. 3858, H.R. 6474, H.R. 6720, H.R. 6721, H.R. 6722). H.R. 3858, H.R. 6474, H.R. 6720, H.R. 6721, H.R. 6722).
40 The bill states: “If by April 15, 2013, a House of Congress has not agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014 pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, during the period described in paragraph (2) the payroll administrator of that House of Congress shall deposit in an escrow account all payments otherwise required to be made during such period for the compensation of Members of Congress who serve in that House of Congress.... ” Congressional Research Service 15 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Actions Related to Member Pay During a Lapse in Appropriations
Legislation was also introduced in the 112th Congress that would have affected Member pay in Legislation was also introduced in the 112th Congress that would have affected Member pay in
the event of a lapse of appropriations resulting in a government shutdown. These included H.R. the event of a lapse of appropriations resulting in a government shutdown. These included H.R.
819, H.R. 1255, H.R. 1305, H.Con.Res. 56, and S. 388. 819, H.R. 1255, H.R. 1305, H.Con.Res. 56, and S. 388.
The Senate passed S. 388 on March 1, 2011.41 The bill would have prohibited Members of the The Senate passed S. 388 on March 1, 2011.41 The bill would have prohibited Members of the
House and Senate from receiving pay, including retroactive pay, for each day that there is a lapse House and Senate from receiving pay, including retroactive pay, for each day that there is a lapse
in appropriations or the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations in appropriations or the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations
because of the public debt limit. The House passed H.R. 1255 on April 1, 2011. The bill would because of the public debt limit. The House passed H.R. 1255 on April 1, 2011. The bill would
have prohibited the disbursement of pay to Members of the House and Senate during either of have prohibited the disbursement of pay to Members of the House and Senate during either of
these situations.42 No further action was taken on either bill. these situations.42 No further action was taken on either bill.
On April 8, 2011, the Speaker of the House issued a “Dear Colleague” letter indicating that in the On April 8, 2011, the Speaker of the House issued a “Dear Colleague” letter indicating that in the
event of a shutdown, Members of Congress would continue to be paid pursuant to the Twenty-event of a shutdown, Members of Congress would continue to be paid pursuant to the Twenty-
Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which as stated above, states: “No law, varying the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which as stated above, states: “No law, varying the
compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an
election of Representatives shall have intervened”—although Members could elect to return any election of Representatives shall have intervened”—although Members could elect to return any
compensation to the Treasury. compensation to the Treasury.

~~41 Cong. Rec., March 1, 2011, pp. S1051-1052.~~
~~42 Cong. Rec., April 1, 2011, pp.H2239-2251.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

15

~~link to page 21 link to page 24~~ ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

Additional Legislation Receiving Floor Action but Not Enacted
Additional legislation to prohibit any Member pay adjustment in 2013 was introduced but not Additional legislation to prohibit any Member pay adjustment in 2013 was introduced but not
enacted in the 112th Congress, including the following: enacted in the 112th Congress, including the following:
• Section 5421(b)(1) of H.R. 3630, as introduced in the House, would have • Section 5421(b)(1) of H.R. 3630, as introduced in the House, would have
prohibited any adjustment for Members of Congress prior to December 31, 2013. prohibited any adjustment for Members of Congress prior to December 31, 2013.
Section 706 of the motion to recommit also contained language freezing Member Section 706 of the motion to recommit also contained language freezing Member
pay.43 On December 13, 2011, the motion to recommit failed (183-244, roll call pay.43 On December 13, 2011, the motion to recommit failed (183-244, roll call
#922), and the bill passed the House (234-193, roll call #923). The House-passed #922), and the bill passed the House (234-193, roll call #923). The House-passed
version of the bill was titled the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act version of the bill was titled the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
of 2011.” The Senate substitute amendment, which did not address pay of 2011.” The Senate substitute amendment, which did not address pay
adjustments, passed on December 17. It was titled the “Temporary Payroll Tax adjustments, passed on December 17. It was titled the “Temporary Payroll Tax
Cut Continuation Act of 2011.” The bill was enacted on February 22, 2012 (P.L. Cut Continuation Act of 2011.” The bill was enacted on February 22, 2012 (P.L.
112-96), without the pay freeze language. 112-96), without the pay freeze language.
• H.R. 3835, introduced on January 27, 2012, also would have extended the pay • H.R. 3835, introduced on January 27, 2012, also would have extended the pay
freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31,
2013. This bill passed the House on February 1, 2012. 2013. This bill passed the House on February 1, 2012.
• H.R. 6726, introduced on January 1, 2013, would have extended the pay freeze • H.R. 6726, introduced on January 1, 2013, would have extended the pay freeze
for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013. for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013.
This bill passed the House on January 2, 2013. This bill passed the House on January 2, 2013.
41 Cong. Rec., March 1, 2011, pp. S1051-S1052. 42 Cong. Rec., April 1, 2011, pp. H2239-2251. 43 Congressional Record, December 13, 2011, p. H8822. Congressional Research Service 16 link to page 22 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 25 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Reference and Historical Information and
Explanation of Tables
Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress since 1789. For each salary provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress since 1789. For each salary
rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are provided.44 rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are provided.44
Table 2 provides information on pay adjustments for Members since 1992, which was the first provides information on pay adjustments for Members since 1992, which was the first
full year after the Ethics Reform Act that Representatives and Senators received the same salary. full year after the Ethics Reform Act that Representatives and Senators received the same salary.
The table provides the projected percentage changes under the formula based on the Employment The table provides the projected percentage changes under the formula based on the Employment
Cost Index and the actual percentage adjustment. The differences between the projected and Cost Index and the actual percentage adjustment. The differences between the projected and
actual Member pay adjustments resulted from actual Member pay adjustments resulted from
• the enactment of legislation preventing the increase (adjustments for 1994, 1995, • the enactment of legislation preventing the increase (adjustments for 1994, 1995,
1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018,
2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023); 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023);
• limits on the percentage increase of Member pay because of the percentage • limits on the percentage increase of Member pay because of the percentage
increase in GS base pay (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, increase in GS base pay (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001,
2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019,
2021, 2022, and 2023); and 2021, 2022, and 2023); and
• a combination of the above. In some years, the percentage adjustment for • a combination of the above. In some years, the percentage adjustment for
Member pay would have been lowered to match the percentage adjustment in GS Member pay would have been lowered to match the percentage adjustment in GS

~~43 Congressional Record, December 13, 2011, p. H8822.~~
~~44 The salaries shown are the payable salaries, indicating the rate actually paid to Members of Congress. From 1976 to~~
~~1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members were entitled. The difference~~
~~arose because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annual pay comparability procedure (P.L.~~
~~94-82). However, on several occasions Congress did not appropriate funds to pay any or a portion of the new salary~~
~~increases authorized by P.L. 94-82.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

16

~~link to page 25 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 24~~ ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

base pay if Congress had not passed legislation denying the adjustment base pay if Congress had not passed legislation denying the adjustment
(adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023). 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023).
If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since
1992, and the 2 U.S.C. §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS 1992, and the 2 U.S.C. §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS
employees remained unchanged, the 2023 salary would be $232,600.45 employees remained unchanged, the 2023 salary would be $232,600.45
Applying the same methodology to the Member pay rate since 2009 of $174,000, if Member pay Applying the same methodology to the Member pay rate since 2009 of $174,000, if Member pay
had not been statutorily frozen in the subsequent years, salaries would be $208,300 in 2023 had not been statutorily frozen in the subsequent years, salaries would be $208,300 in 2023
(assuming the GS base limit remained in place, and including rounding).46 (assuming the GS base limit remained in place, and including rounding).46
Table 3 lists the laws which have previously delayed or prohibited Member pay adjustments, the lists the laws which have previously delayed or prohibited Member pay adjustments, the
dates these laws were enacted, and the text of the provision. While many of the bills in this list dates these laws were enacted, and the text of the provision. While many of the bills in this list
are appropriations bills, a prohibition on Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill, are appropriations bills, a prohibition on Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill,
or be introduced as a separate bill. or be introduced as a separate bill.
Figure 1, which follows, shows the salary of Members of Congress in current and constant
~~(inflation adjusted) dollars since 1992. It shows that Member salaries, when adjusted for inflation,~~
~~decreased approximately 29% from 2009 until 2023.47~~
~~Table 1. Salary Adjustments for Members of Congress Since 1789~~
~~(date of adjustment and authority)~~
~~Payable Salary~~
~~(Current Dollars)a~~
~~Effective Date~~
~~Statutory Authority~~
~~$6 per diemb~~
~~March 4, 1789~~
~~1 Stat. 70-71~~
~~(September 22, 1789)~~
~~$6 per diem (Representatives)~~
~~March 4, 1795~~
~~1 Stat. 70-71~~
~~$7 per diem (Senators)~~
~~(September 22, 1789)~~
~~$6 per diem~~
~~March 3, 1796~~
~~1 Stat. 448~~

~~(March 10, 1796)~~
~~$1,500~~
~~December 4, 1815~~
~~3 Stat. 257~~
~~(March 19, 1816)~~
~~$6 per diem (Representatives)~~
~~March 3, 1817~~
~~3 Stat. 345~~
~~$7 per diem (Senators)~~
~~(February 6, 1817)~~
~~$8 per diem~~
~~March 3, 1817~~
~~3 Stat. 404~~

~~(January 22, 1818)~~
~~$3,000~~
~~December 3, 1855~~
~~11 Stat. 48~~
~~(August 16, 1856)~~

~~45 This calculation is based upon the adjustment of Member salaries since 1992 by the percentage in the “Maximum~~
~~Member Pay Potential Adjustment (assuming GS Base Limit)” column in Table 2.~~
~~46 For example, starting with the 2009 Member salary of $174,000, this calculation assumes (1) a maximum adjustment~~
~~of 2.1% based on the ECI formula; (2) the maximum is automatically limited to match the GS base pay adjustment of~~
~~1.5%; (3) the adjustment took effect in January 2010 (i.e., if the adjustment was not prohibited by P.L. 111-8); (4) the~~
~~calculation is then rounded. This would have resulted in a hypothetical salary in 2010 of $176,600. As stated above,~~
~~since the calculations are cumulative, a change in any one factor in any year (e.g., statutory freeze or GS limit) would~~
~~compound over the period of analysis.~~
~~47 Constant dollars based on Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.~~
~~Department of Labor), annual average for 1992-2022, and available months for 2023.~~

~~Congressional Research Service~~

17

~~link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 24~~ ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

~~Payable Salary~~
~~(Current Dollars)a~~
~~Effective Date~~
~~Statutory Authority~~ 44 The salaries shown are the payable salaries, indicating the rate actually paid to Members of Congress. From 1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members were entitled. The difference arose because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annual pay comparability procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on several occasions Congress did not appropriate funds to pay any or a portion of the new salary increases authorized by P.L. 94-82. 45 This calculation is based upon the adjustment of Member salaries since 1992 by the percentage in the “Maximum Member Pay Potential Adjustment (assuming GS Base Limit)” column in Table 2. 46 For example, starting with the 2009 Member salary of $174,000, this calculation assumes (1) a maximum adjustment of 2.1% based on the ECI formula; (2) the maximum is automatically limited to match the GS base pay adjustment of 1.5%; (3) the adjustment took effect in January 2010 (i.e., if the adjustment was not prohibited by P.L. 111-8); (4) the calculation is then rounded. This would have resulted in a hypothetical salary in 2010 of $176,600. As stated above, since the calculations are cumulative, a change in any one factor in any year (e.g., statutory freeze or GS limit) would compound over the period of analysis. Congressional Research Service 17 link to page 29 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Figure 1, which follows, shows the salary of Members of Congress in current and constant (inflation adjusted) dollars since 1992. It shows that Member salaries, when adjusted for inflation, decreased approximately 29% from 2009 until 2023.47 Table 1. Salary Adjustments for Members of Congress Since 1789 (date of adjustment and authority) Payable Salary (Current Dollars)a Effective Date Statutory Authority $6 per diemb March 4, 1789 1 Stat. 70-71 (September 22, 1789) $6 per diem (Representatives) March 4, 1795 1 Stat. 70-71 $7 per diem (Senators) (September 22, 1789) $6 per diem March 3, 1796 1 Stat. 448 (March 10, 1796) $1,500 December 4, 1815 3 Stat. 257 (March 19, 1816) $6 per diem (Representatives) March 3, 1817 3 Stat. 345 $7 per diem (Senators) (February 6, 1817) $8 per diem March 3, 1817 3 Stat. 404 (January 22, 1818) $3,000 December 3, 1855 11 Stat. 48 (August 16, 1856)
$3,00 $3,000c
December 23, 1857 December 23, 1857
11 Stat. 367 11 Stat. 367
(December 23, 1857) (December 23, 1857)
$5,000 $5,000
December 4, 1865 December 4, 1865
14 Stat. 323 14 Stat. 323
(July 28, 1866) (July 28, 1866)
$7,500 $7,500
March 4, 1871 March 4, 1871
17 Stat. 486 17 Stat. 486
(March 3, 1873) (March 3, 1873)
$5,000 $5,000
January 20, 1874 January 20, 1874
18 Stat. 4 18 Stat. 4
(January 20, 1874) (January 20, 1874)
$7,500 $7,500
March 4, 1907 March 4, 1907
34 Stat. 993 34 Stat. 993
(February 26, 1907) (February 26, 1907)
$10,000 $10,000
March 4, 1925 March 4, 1925
43 Stat. 1301 43 Stat. 1301
(March 4, 1925) (March 4, 1925)
$9,00 $9,000d
July 1, 1932 July 1, 1932
47 Stat. 401 47 Stat. 401
(June 30, 1932) (June 30, 1932)
$8,500 $8,500
April 1, 1933 April 1, 1933
48 Stat. 14 48 Stat. 14
(March 20, 1933) (March 20, 1933)
$9,000 $9,000
February 1, 1934 February 1, 1934
48 Stat. 521 48 Stat. 521
(March 28, 1934) (March 28, 1934)
$9,500 $9,500
July 1, 1934 July 1, 1934
48 Stat. 521 48 Stat. 521
(March 28, 1934) (March 28, 1934)
47 Constant dollars based on Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor), annual average for 1992-2022, and available months for 2023. Congressional Research Service 18 link to page 24 link to page 24 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Payable Salary (Current Dollars)a Effective Date Statutory Authority $10,000 $10,000
April 4, 1935 April 4, 1935
49 Stat. 24 49 Stat. 24
(February 13, 1935) (February 13, 1935)
$12,500 $12,500
January 3, 1947 January 3, 1947
60 Stat. 850 60 Stat. 850
(August 2, 1946) (August 2, 1946)
$22,500 $22,500
March 1, 1955 March 1, 1955
69 Stat. 11 69 Stat. 11
(March 2, 1955) (March 2, 1955)
$30,000 $30,000
January 3, 1965 January 3, 1965
78 Stat. 415 78 Stat. 415
(August 14, 1964) (August 14, 1964)
$42,500 $42,500
March 1, 1969 March 1, 1969
81 Stat. 642 81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967) (December 16, 1967)
$44,600 $44,600
October 1, 1975 October 1, 1975
89 Stat. 421 89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975) (August 9, 1975)
$57,500 $57,500
March 1, 1977 March 1, 1977
81 Stat. 642 81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967) (December 16, 1967)
$60,662.50 $60,662.50
October 1, 1979 October 1, 1979
89 Stat. 421 89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975) (August 9, 1975)
$69,800 $69,800
December 18, 1982 December 18, 1982
96 Stat. 1914 96 Stat. 1914
(Representatives) (Representatives)
(December 21, 1982) (December 21, 1982)
July 1, 1983 (Senators) July 1, 1983 (Senators)
97 Stat. 338 97 Stat. 338
(July 30, 1983) (July 30, 1983)
$72,600 $72,600
January 1, 1984 January 1, 1984
89 Stat. 421 89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975) (August 9, 1975)
$75,100 $75,100
January 1, 1985 January 1, 1985
89 Stat. 421 89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975) (August 9, 1975)
~~Congressional Research Service~~

18

~~link to page 23 link to page 24~~ ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

~~Payable Salary~~
~~(Current Dollars)a~~
~~Effective Date~~
~~Statutory Authority~~
$77,400 $77,400
January 1, 1987 January 1, 1987
89 Stat. 421 89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975) (August 9, 1975)
$89,500 $89,500
February 4, 1987 February 4, 1987
81 Stat. 642 81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967) (December 16, 1967)
$96,60 $96,600e (Representatives) Representatives)
February 1, 1990 February 1, 1990
103 Stat. 1767-1768 103 Stat. 1767-1768
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$98,400 (Senators) $98,400 (Senators)
February 1, 1990 February 1, 1990
103 Stat. 1767-1768 103 Stat. 1767-1768
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$125,100 (Representatives) $125,100 (Representatives)
January 1, 1991 January 1, 1991
103 Stat. 1768-1769 103 Stat. 1768-1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$101,900 (Senators) $101,900 (Senators)
January 1, 1991 January 1, 1991
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$125,100 (Senators) $125,100 (Senators)
August 14, 1991 August 14, 1991
105 Stat. 450 105 Stat. 450
(August 14, 1991) (August 14, 1991)
$129,500 $129,500
January 1, 1992 January 1, 1992
103 Stat.1769 103 Stat.1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$133,600 $133,600
January 1, 1993 January 1, 1993
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$136,700 $136,700
January 1, 1998 January 1, 1998
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
Congressional Research Service 19 link to page 24 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Payable Salary (Current Dollars)a Effective Date Statutory Authority $141,300 $141,300
January 1, 2000 January 1, 2000
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$145,100 $145,100
January 1, 2001 January 1, 2001
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$150,000 $150,000
January 1, 2002 January 1, 2002
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$154,700 $154,700
January 1, 2003 January 1, 2003
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$158,100 $158,100
January 1, 2004 January 1, 2004
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$162,100 $162,100
January 1, 2005 January 1, 2005
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$165,200 $165,200
January 1, 2006 January 1, 2006
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$169,300 $169,300
January 1, 2008 January 1, 2008
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
$174,000 $174,000
January 1, 2009 January 1, 2009
103 Stat. 1769 103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989) (November 30, 1989)
Source: Congressional Research Service. Congressional Research Service.
a. Pay rates listed are applicable for Senators and Representatives unless otherwise specified. From 1976 to a. Pay rates listed are applicable for Senators and Representatives unless otherwise specified. From 1976 to
1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members were entitled. The 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members were entitled. The
difference arose because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annual pay difference arose because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annual pay
comparability procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on several occasions Congress did not appropriate funds to comparability procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on several occasions Congress did not appropriate funds to
pay any or part of the new salary increases authorized by P.L. 94-82. Accordingly, the salaries shown in this pay any or part of the new salary increases authorized by P.L. 94-82. Accordingly, the salaries shown in this
table are the payable rates, indicating the salaries actually paid to Members of Congress. table are the payable rates, indicating the salaries actually paid to Members of Congress.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

19

~~link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25~~ ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

b. From 1789 to 1856, Senators and Representatives received a per diem pay rate for their attendance while b. From 1789 to 1856, Senators and Representatives received a per diem pay rate for their attendance while
Congress was in session, except for the period December 1815-March 1817, when they received $1,500 a 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 for Senators and Representatives, the per diem for Senators was year. First established at $6 a day in 1789 for Senators and Representatives, the per diem for Senators was
increased to $7 beginning March 4, 1795, pursuant to language in the 1789 act. A March 10, 1796, act increased to $7 beginning March 4, 1795, pursuant to language in the 1789 act. A March 10, 1796, act
returned the per diem for Senators to $6 for each day of attendance while the Senate was in session. returned the per diem for Senators to $6 for each day of attendance while the Senate was in session.
Although a law providing for annual salaries was enacted during the 14th Congress, it was repealed on Although a law providing for annual salaries was enacted during the 14th Congress, it was repealed on
February 6, 1817, and pay reverted to a per diem basis. The per diem rate was raised to $8 in 1818 February 6, 1817, and pay reverted to a per diem basis. The per diem rate was raised to $8 in 1818
(retroactive to March 3, 1817) and remained there until 1856, when Members of Congress began to receive (retroactive to March 3, 1817) and remained there until 1856, when Members of Congress began to receive
annual salaries. A list of all session dates and lengths is available at http://history.house.gov/Institution/annual salaries. A list of all session dates and lengths is available at http://history.house.gov/Institution/
Session-Dates/Session-Dates/. Session-Dates/Session-Dates/.
c. In 1857, Congress provided for pay at the rate of $250 per month while in session, or a maximum of $3,000 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. per annum.
d. The act authorized the restoration of pay as of February 1, 1934, and the restoration of pay as of July 1, d. The act authorized the restoration of pay as of February 1, 1934, and the restoration of pay as of July 1,
1934. 1934.
e. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1767-1768) increased pay for Representatives and Senators at 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 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 act further provided pay adjustments (4.1% and 3.6%), compounded at 7.9%, effective February 1, 1990. The act further provided
for a 25% increase in Representatives’ pay, effective January 1, 1991. As a result, the pay of Representatives 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 Subsequently, the Senate voted to increase its pay rate to that of Representatives and to prohibit receipt of
Congressional Research Service 20 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables honoraria by Senators, effective August 14, 1991. As a result, Senate pay increased from $101,900 to honoraria by Senators, effective August 14, 1991. As a result, Senate pay increased from $101,900 to
$125,100 per annum. $125,100 per annum.
Table 2. Member Pay Projected vs. Actual Adjustments Since 1992
Maximum
Projected
Member Pay
Percentage
Potential
Adjustment
Adjustment
Actual
Under
(assuming
Percentage
Yeara
ECI Formulab
GS Base Limit)
Adjustment
1992 1992
3.5% 3.5%
3.5% 3.5%
3.5% 3.5%
1993 1993
3.2% 3.2%
3.2% 3.2%
3.2% 3.2%
1994 1994
2.1% 2.1%
0.0% 0.0%
0 0
1995 1995
2.6% 2.6%
2.0% 2.0%
0 0
1996 1996
2.3% 2.3%
2.0% 2.0%
0 0
1997 1997
2.3% 2.3%
2.3% 2.3%
0 0
1998 1998
2.9% 2.9%
2.3% 2.3%
2.3% 2.3%
1999 1999
3.4% 3.4%
3.1% 3.1%
0 0
2000 2000
3.4% 3.4%
3.4% 3.4%
3.4% 3.4%
2001 2001
3.0% 3.0%
2.7% 2.7%
2.7% 2.7%
2002 2002
3.4% 3.4%
3.4% 3.4%
3.4% 3.4%
2003 2003
3.3% 3.3%
3.1% 3.1%
3.1% 3.1%
200 2004a
2.2% 2.2%
2.2% 2.2%
2.2% 2.2%
2005 2005
2.5% 2.5%
2.5% 2.5%
2.5% 2.5%
~~Congressional Research Service~~

20

~~link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 21 link to page 27 link to page 27~~ ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

~~Maximum~~
~~Projected~~
~~Member Pay~~
~~Percentage~~
~~Potential~~
~~Adjustment~~
~~Adjustment~~
~~Actual~~
~~Under~~
(assuming
~~Percentage~~
~~Yeara~~
~~ECI Formulab~~
GS Base Limit)
~~Adjustment~~
2006 2006
1.9% 1.9%
1.9% 1.9%
1.9% 1.9%
2007 2007
2.0% 2.0%
1.7% 1.7%
0 0
2008 2008
2.7% 2.7%
2.5% 2.5%
2.5% 2.5%
2009 2009
2.8% 2.8%
2.8% 2.8%
2.8% 2.8%
2010 2010
2.1% 2.1%
1.5% 1.5%
0 0
2011 2011
0.9% 0.9%
0.0% 0.0%
0 0
2012 2012
1.3% 1.3%
0.0% 0.0%
0 0
2013 2013
1.1% 1.1%
0.0% 0.0%
0 0
2014 2014
1.2% 1.2%
1.0% 1.0%
0 0
2015 2015
1.6% 1.6%
1.0% 1.0%
0 0
2016 2016
1.7% 1.7%
1.0% 1.0%
0 0
2017 2017
1.6% 1.6%
1.0% 1.0%
0 0
2018 2018
1.8% 1.8%
1.4% 1.4%
0 0
2019 2019
2.3% 2.3%
1.4% 1.4%
0 0
2020 2020
2.6% 2.6%
2.6% 2.6%
0 0
2021 2021
2.5% 2.5%
1.0% 1.0%
0 0
2022 2022
2.3% 2.3%
2.2% 2.2%
0 0
Congressional Research Service 21 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 22 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Maximum Projected Member Pay Percentage Potential Adjustment Adjustment Actual Under (assuming Percentage Yeara ECI Formulab GS Base Limit) Adjustment 2023 2023
4.5% 4.5%
4.1% 4.1%
0 0
2024 2024
4.6% 4.6%
TBD TBD
TBD TBD
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of BLS data, public laws, and executive orders. Congressional Research Service analysis of BLS data, public laws, and executive orders.
a. As seen ina. As seen in Table 1, since 1992, Member pay adjustments have been effective in January. In 2004, the ince 1992, Member pay adjustments have been effective in January. In 2004, the
adjustment was effective in two stages. The first adjustment increased Members’ salary by 1.5%, to which adjustment was effective in two stages. The first adjustment increased Members’ salary by 1.5%, to which
they were initially limited because by law they may not receive an annual adjustment greater than the they were initially limited because by law they may not receive an annual adjustment greater than the
increase in the base pay of GS federal employees. After the passage of the FY2004 Consolidated increase in the base pay of GS federal employees. After the passage of the FY2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Members received the ful 2.2% pay increase, with 0.7% retroactive to the first pay Appropriations Act, Members received the ful 2.2% pay increase, with 0.7% retroactive to the first pay
period in January 2004. period in January 2004.
b. Projected increase is based on the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act. This is equivalent to the b. Projected increase is based on the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act. This is equivalent to the
percentage change in the Employment Cost Index (private industry wages and salaries, not seasonally percentage change in the Employment Cost Index (private industry wages and salaries, not seasonally
adjusted) reflected in the quarter ending December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. adjusted) reflected in the quarter ending December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%.
Table 3. Legislative Vehicles Denying or Delaying Pay Adjustments, Enacted Dates,
and Pay Language
Pay
Year
Bill
Public Law
Enacted Date
Bill Title
1994 1994
H.R. 920, 103rd Congress H.R. 920, 103rd Congress
P.L. 103-6 P.L. 103-6
March 4, 1993 March 4, 1993
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Amendments of 199Amendments of 1993a
1995 1995
H.R. 4539, 103rd Congress H.R. 4539, 103rd Congress
P.L. 103-329 September 28, P.L. 103-329 September 28,
Treasury, Postal Service and General Treasury, Postal Service and General
1994 1994
Government Appropriations Act, 199 Government Appropriations Act, 1995b
~~Congressional Research Service~~

21

link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 ~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

~~Pay~~
~~Year~~
~~Bill~~
~~Public Law~~
~~Enacted Date~~
~~Bill Title~~
1996 1996
H.R. 2020, 104th Congress H.R. 2020, 104th Congress
P.L. 104-52 P.L. 104-52
November 15, November 15,
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Treasury, Postal Service, and General
1995 1995
Government Appropriations Act, 199 Government Appropriations Act, 1996c
1997 1997
H.R. 3610, 104th Congress H.R. 3610, 104th Congress
P.L. 104-208 September 30, P.L. 104-208 September 30,
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act,
1996 1996
199 1997d
1999 1999
H.R. 4328, 105th Congress H.R. 4328, 105th Congress
P.L. 105-277 October 21, 1998 P.L. 105-277 October 21, 1998
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 199Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999e
2007 2007
H.J.Res. 102, 109th H.J.Res. 102, 109th
P.L. 109-383 December 9, 2006 P.L. 109-383 December 9, 2006
Making further continuing appropriations for Making further continuing appropriations for
(partial (partial
Congress Congress
the FY2007, and for other purpo the FY2007, and for other purposesg
year year)f
2007 2007
H.J.Res. 20, 110th Congress H.J.Res. 20, 110th Congress
P.L. 110-5 P.L. 110-5
February 15, 2007 February 15, 2007
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2002007h
2010 2010
H.R. 1105, 111th Congress H.R. 1105, 111th Congress
P.L. 111-8 P.L. 111-8
March 11, 2009 March 11, 2009
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 200 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009i
2011 2011
H.R. 5146, 111th Congress H.R. 5146, 111th Congress
P.L. 111-165 May 14, 2010 P.L. 111-165 May 14, 2010
To provide that Members of Congress shall To provide that Members of Congress shall
not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay
during during ~~fiscal year 201~~FY2011j
2012 2012
H.R. 3082, 111th Congress H.R. 3082, 111th Congress
P.L. 111-322 December 22, P.L. 111-322 December 22,
Continuing Appropriations and Surface Continuing Appropriations and Surface
2010 2010
Transportation Extensions Act, 201 Transportation Extensions Act, 2011k
2013 2013
H.J.Res. 117, 112th H.J.Res. 117, 112th
P.L. 112-175 September 28, P.L. 112-175 September 28,
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 201 Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013l
(partial (partial
Congress Congress
2012 2012
year year)f
2013 2013
H.R. 8, 112th Congress H.R. 8, 112th Congress
P.L. 112-240 January 2, 2013 P.L. 112-240 January 2, 2013
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 201 American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012m Congressional Research Service 22 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables Pay Year Bill Public Law Enacted Date Bill Title
2014 2014
H.R. 2775, 113th Congress H.R. 2775, 113th Congress
P.L. 113-46 P.L. 113-46
October 17, 2013 October 17, 2013
Continuing Appropriations Act, 201 Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014n
2015 2015
H.R. 83, 113th Congress H.R. 83, 113th Congress
P.L. 113-235 December 16, P.L. 113-235 December 16,
Consolidated and Further Continuing Consolidated and Further Continuing
2014 2014
Appropriations Act, 201 Appropriations Act, 2015o
2016 2016
H.R. 2029 H.R. 2029
P.L. 114-113 December 18, P.L. 114-113 December 18,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 201 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016p
2015 2015
2017 2017
H.R. 2028 H.R. 2028
P.L. 114-254 December 10, P.L. 114-254 December 10,
Further Continuing and Security Assistance Further Continuing and Security Assistance
2016 2016
Appropriations Act, 201 Appropriations Act, 2017q
2018 2018
H.R. 601 H.R. 601
P.L. 115-56 P.L. 115-56
September 8, 2017 September 8, 2017
FY2018 Continuing Appropriations Resolutio FY2018 Continuing Appropriations Resolutionr
(partial (partial
yearyear)f
2018 2018
H.R. 1625 H.R. 1625
P.L. 115-141 March 23, 2018 P.L. 115-141 March 23, 2018
FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Acts
2019 2019
H.R. 5894 H.R. 5894
P.L. 115-244 September 21, P.L. 115-244 September 21,
Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and
2018 2018
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act, 201Appropriations Act, 2019t
2020 2020
H.R. 1865 H.R. 1865
P.L. 116-94 P.L. 116-94
December 20, December 20,
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2019 2019
202 2020u
2021 2021
H.R. 133 H.R. 133
P.L. 116-260 December 27, P.L. 116-260 December 27,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 202 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021v
2020 2020
2022 2022
H.R. 5305 H.R. 5305
P.L. 117-43 P.L. 117-43
September 30, September 30,
Extending Government Funding and Delivering Extending Government Funding and Delivering
(partial (partial
2021 2021
Emergency Assistance Emergency Assistance Actw
year year)f
2022 2022
H.R. 2471 H.R. 2471
P.L. 117-103 March 15, 2022 P.L. 117-103 March 15, 2022
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 202 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022x
2023 2023
H.R. 2617 H.R. 2617
P.L. 117-328 December 29, P.L. 117-328 December 29,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 202 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023y
2022 2022
~~Congressional Research Service~~

22

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

Source: Congressional Research Service examination of enacted legislation. Congressional Research Service examination of enacted legislation.
Notes: The provisions footnoted below have been delayed or prohibited Member pay adjustments. The provisions footnoted below have been delayed or prohibited Member pay adjustments.
a. “Notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the cost a. “Notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the cost
of living adjustment (relating to pay for Members of Congress) which would become effective under such of living adjustment (relating to pay for Members of Congress) which would become effective under such
provision of law during calendar year 1994 shall not take effect.” provision of law during calendar year 1994 shall not take effect.”
b. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 b. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to
have taken effect in fiscal year 1995 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.” have taken effect in fiscal year 1995 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.”
c. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 c. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to
have taken effect in fiscal year 1996 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.” have taken effect in fiscal year 1996 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.”
d. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 d. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to
have taken effect in fiscal year 1997 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.” have taken effect in fiscal year 1997 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.”
e. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 e. “For purposes of each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to
have taken effect in fiscal year 1999 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.” have taken effect in fiscal year 1999 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.”
f. f.
The partial year pay freezes for 2007, 2013, 2018, and 2022 were included in joint resolutions providing The partial year pay freezes for 2007, 2013, 2018, and 2022 were included in joint resolutions providing
continuing funding for a portion of the fiscal year and continued for the duration of the continuing continuing funding for a portion of the fiscal year and continued for the duration of the continuing
resolution. resolution.
g. “Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the g. “Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect
under such section for 2007 shall not take effect until February 16, 2007.” under such section for 2007 shall not take effect until February 16, 2007.”
Congressional Research Service 23 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables h. “Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the h. “Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and notwithstanding section 601(a)(2) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect
under such section for 2007 shall not take effect.” under such section for 2007 shall not take effect.”
i. i.
“Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. “Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C.
31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010
shall not take effect.” shall not take effect.”
j. j.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2011.” Congress) during fiscal year 2011.”
k. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as provided in subsection (e), no statutory pay k. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as provided in subsection (e), no statutory pay
adjustment which (but for this subsection) would otherwise take effect during the period beginning on adjustment which (but for this subsection) would otherwise take effect during the period beginning on
January 1, 2011, and ending on December 31, 2012, shall be made.” January 1, 2011, and ending on December 31, 2012, shall be made.”
l. l.
“(a) Section 147 of P.L. 111-242, as added by P.L. 111-322, shall be applied by substituting the date specified “(a) Section 147 of P.L. 111-242, as added by P.L. 111-322, shall be applied by substituting the date specified
in section 106(3) of this joint resolution for `December 31, 2012’ each place it appears (b) Notwithstanding in section 106(3) of this joint resolution for `December 31, 2012’ each place it appears (b) Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, any statutory pay adjustment (as defined in section 147(b)(2) of the Continuing any other provision of law, any statutory pay adjustment (as defined in section 147(b)(2) of the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-242)) otherwise scheduled to take effect during fiscal year 2013 but Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-242)) otherwise scheduled to take effect during fiscal year 2013 but
prior to the date specified in section 106(3) of this joint resolution may take effect on the first day of the prior to the date specified in section 106(3) of this joint resolution may take effect on the first day of the
first applicable pay period beginning after the date specified in section 106(3).” first applicable pay period beginning after the date specified in section 106(3).”
m. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the m. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2013.” Congress) during fiscal year 2013.”
n. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 610(a) of the n. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 610(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2014.” Congress) during fiscal year 2014.”
o. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 610(a) of the o. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 610(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2015.” Congress) during fiscal year 2015.”
p. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the p. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2016.” Congress) during fiscal year 2016.”
q. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the q. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2017.” Congress) during fiscal year 2017.”
~~Congressional Research Service~~

23

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

r. “(9) The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017 (division I of P.L. 115-31) and section 175 of P.L. 114-r. “(9) The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017 (division I of P.L. 115-31) and section 175 of P.L. 114-
223, as amended by division A of P.L. 114-254.” 223, as amended by division A of P.L. 114-254.”
s. “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the s. “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2018.” Congress) during fiscal year 2018.”
t. t.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2019.” Congress) during fiscal year 2019.”
u. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the u. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2020.” Congress) during fiscal year 2020.”
v. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the v. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2021.” Congress) during fiscal year 2021.”
w. “Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable w. “Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable
appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2021 and under the authority and conditions provided in such Acts, for appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2021 and under the authority and conditions provided in such Acts, for
continuing projects or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not continuing projects or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not
otherwise specifically provided for in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2021, and for which otherwise specifically provided for in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2021, and for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the fol owing appropriations Acts: …(9) appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the fol owing appropriations Acts: …(9)
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2021 (division I of Public Law 116-260), except sections 211 and The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2021 (division I of Public Law 116-260), except sections 211 and
213, including section 7 of Public Law 116-260.” This language was extended through February 18, 2022, by 213, including section 7 of Public Law 116-260.” This language was extended through February 18, 2022, by
P.L. 117-70. P.L. 117-70.
Congressional Research Service 24 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables x. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the x. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2022.” Congress) during fiscal year 2022.”
y. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the y. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of
Congress) during fiscal year 2023.” Congress) during fiscal year 2023.”
Figure 1. Salary for Members of Congress: Current and Constant Dollars, 1992-2023

Source: Congressional Research Service.Congressional Research Service.
Notes: The figure provides information since 1992, which was the first ful year after the Ethics Reform Act that The figure provides information since 1992, which was the first ful year after the Ethics Reform Act that
Representatives and Senators received the same salary. Constant dol ars based on Consumer Price Index for All Representatives and Senators received the same salary. Constant dol ars based on Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor). Urban Consumers (CPI-U, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor).

~~Congressional Research Service~~

24

~~Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables~~

Author Information

Ida A. Brudnick Ida A. Brudnick

Specialist on the Congress Specialist on the Congress

Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by Paul E. Dwyer, formerly a Specialist in American National This report was originally written by Paul E. Dwyer, formerly a Specialist in American National
Government at CRS, who has since retired.Government at CRS, who has since retired.
Congressional Research Service 25 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
97-1011 97-1011 · VERSION 8790 · UPDATED
2526