Order Code 97-1011 GOV
Updated October 29, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Salaries of Members of Congress: A List of
Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2003
Paul E. Dwyer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its
own pay. Prior to 1969, Congress did so by enacting stand-alone legislation. From
1789 through 1968, Congress raised its pay 22 times using this procedure.
Congressional salaries initially were $1,500. By 1968, they had risen to $30,000.
Stand-alone legislation may still be used to raise Member pay, as it was most recently
in 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991, but two other methods are now also available, an
automatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process.
In January 2004, Members are scheduled to receive a 2.2% annual adjustment,
increasing their salary to $158,100. Neither house has modified or prohibited the
adjustment. This report will be updated to reflect the most recent congressional actions.
Background
There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay. Stand-alone legislation has
frequently and primarily been used to raise Member pay throughout most of U.S. history,
1789 to the present. However, two other methods are also available.
The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant to
recommendations from the President, based on those made by a quadrennial salary
commission. In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative,
and Judicial Salaries to recommend salary increases for top-level federal officials (P.L.
90-206). Three times (in 1969, 1977, and 1987) Congress received pay increases made
under this procedure; on three occasions it did not. Effective with passage of the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194), the commission ceased to exist. Its authority was
assumed by the Citizens’ Commission on Public Service and Compensation. Although
the first commission under the 1989 Act was to have convened in 1993, it did not meet.
The third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annual
adjustments. Prior to 1990, the pay of Members, and other top-level federal officials, was
tied to the annual comparability increases provided to General Schedule (GS) federal
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
employees. This procedure was established in 1975 (P.L. 94-82). Such increases were
recommended by the President, subject to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or
modification. Congress accepted five such increases for itself — in 1975, 1979 (partial),
1984, 1985, and 1987 — and declined 10 since this method was authorized (1976, 1977,
1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989).
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment
is determined for Members and other senior officials, based on a formula using changes
in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index. Under
this revised method, annual adjustments were accepted eight times (those scheduled for
January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003) and denied five times
(those scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999).
The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless (1) Congress statutorily
prohibits the adjustment; (2) Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or (3) the annual
base pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than the scheduled
increase for Members, in which case Members would be paid the lower rate.1
Pending January 2004 Member Pay Increase
According to the formula, Members are scheduled to receive an automatic annual
pay adjustment of 2.2% in January 2004.2
Action to Modify or Deny the Scheduled Member Pay Increase. Two
votes were taken this year that related to the January 2004 Member pay increase. The first
was a House vote on September 4, 2003, that although not a direct vote to modify or deny
the increase, was reported in some press accounts as a vote to accept a Member pay
increase.
The House vote was held during consideration of the rule on H.R. 2989, the FY2004
transportation and treasury appropriation bill. H.R. 2989, as brought to the floor, did not
contain Member pay language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to accept or
reject a Member pay increase. However, action taken by the House on vote #463 (240-
173) is considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect of
not allowing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bill.3 They
1 Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added.
2
The annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index
(private industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change
reflected in the fourth quarter (ending Dec. 31) of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The
2.2% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index between the
quarters ending Dec. 2001 and Dec. 2002, which was 2.7%, and subtracting 0.5%.
3 On Sept. 4, 2003, the House agreed (240-173, vote #463) to order the previous question on a
rule (H.Res. 351) providing for consideration of H.R. 2989, the FY2004 transportation and
treasury appropriations bill. By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent an
amendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An
amendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the
bill prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 351 was an open rule that allowed any germane
amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been germane. By
agreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to consider an amendment to permit
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-3
argue that if nongermane amendments had been allowed, one could have been offered to
modify or deny the scheduled 2.2% Member pay increase. This action, some believe,
means that most Members voted for the raise.
It is important to note that a few Members expressed interest in introducing other
nongermane amendments on entirely different issues. As a consequence, other Members
believe that it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have voted
to accept a pay increase if they had been given an opportunity.
Some press accounts also stated that Members voted themselves a 4.1% increase.
H.R. 2938, as reported and passed, contained language (Title VI, section 740(a))
providing for a 4.1% increase for GS federal employees. The increase was not applicable
to Members of Congress and other top-level federal officials.
The second vote related to Member pay took place in the Senate on October 23,
2003, when the majority of Senators voted to table an amendment to prohibit the pending
Member pay adjustment (vote #406, 60-34). The amendment was offered by Senator
Russell Feingold to the Senate version of H.R. 2989, the FY2004 transportation and
treasury appropriation bill, which passed the same day.
Possible Impact of An Increase in Federal Employee Pay on the
Pending Member Pay Increase. By approving a 4.1% GS federal employee pay
increase, the House and Senate actions, if signed into law, ensure that Members of
Congress will receive their scheduled 2.2% increase.4 That is because the base pay
allocation of the 4.1% increase would most likely be greater than 2.2%, probably about
3.1%. By law, Members may not receive an increase greater than the annual rate of
increase in the base pay of GS employees.
However, if the 4.1% GS pay increase provision is not signed into law, the
President’s pending pay plan for GS employees would become effective in January 2004.
The President’s plan provides for a 2.2% increase, with 1.5% allocated for base pay and
0.5% for locality pay.5 As a result, Member pay would increase by 1.5%, and not 2.2%.
It is possible that H.R. 2989 may not be signed into law but rather vetoed by the
President. This is because the Senate version of H.R. 2989 contains language to prohibit
the enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba6 to which the President objects. This
scenario assumes that conferees on H.R. 2989 would retain the Senate’s travel ban
amendment. Should Congress not override the President’s veto, and not approve a 4.1%
3 (...continued)
a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed to a motion to order the previous
question, a Member could have offered an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote in
some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 351, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay
raise was not in order.
4 The Senate version, pending full committee approval, also contains a 4.1% GS increase.
5 See summary of the President’s pay plan issued on Aug. 27, 2003, on the website of the Office
of Personnel Management at [http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/update.asp].
6 The amendment, offered by Senator Byron Dorgan, was adopted by voice vote on October 23,
2003 by voice vote. Earlier in debate, the Senate failed to table the amendment (vote #405, 36-
59).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-4
GS pay increase in other legislation before adjournment of this session, Members would
receive the President’s proposed 1.5% increase in January 2004.
Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-2003. For
each salary rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are indicated. From
1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which
Members were entitled. This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorized
pursuant to the annual comparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on several
occasions Congress did not appropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salary
increases mandated by P.L. 94-82. Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are the
payable rates, the salaries actually paid to Members of Congress.
Table 1. Salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-2003
Payable Salarya
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
1 Stat. 70-71
$1,500b
March 4, 1789
(September 22, 1789)
1 Stat. 70-71
$1,500b
March 4, 1795
(September 22, 1789)
1 Stat. 448
$1,500b
March 3, 1796
(March 10, 1796)
3 Stat. 257
$1,500
December 4, 1815
(March 19, 1816)
3 Stat. 345
$1,500b
March 3, 1817
(February 6, 1817)
3 Stat. 404
$2,000b
March 3, 1817
(January 22, 1818)
11 Stat. 48
$3,000
December 3, 1855
(August 16, 1856)
11 Stat. 367
$3,000c
December 23, 1857
(December 23, 1857)
14 Stat. 323
$5,000
December 4, 1865
(July 28, 1866)
17 Stat. 486
$7,500
March 4, 1871
(March 3, 1873)
18 Stat. 4
$5,000
January 20, 1874
(January 20, 1874)
34 Stat. 993
$7,500
March 4, 1907
(February 26, 1907)
43 Stat. 1301
$10,000
March 4, 1925
(March 4, 1925)
47 Stat. 401
$9,000
July 1, 1932
(June 30, 1932)
48 Stat. 14
$8,500
April 1, 1933
(March 20, 1933)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-5
Payable Salarya
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
48 Stat. 521
$9,000d
February 1, 1934
(March 28, 1934)
48 Stat. 521
$9,500
July 1, 1934
(March 28, 1934)
49 Stat. 24
$10,000
April 4, 1935
(February 13, 1935)
60 Stat. 850
$12,500
January 3, 1947
(August 2, 1946)
69 Stat. 11
$22,500
March 1, 1955
(March 2, 1955)
78 Stat. 415
$30,000
January 3, 1965
(August 14, 1964)
81 Stat. 642
$42,500
March 1, 1969
(December 16, 1967)
89 Stat. 421
$44,600
October 1, 1975
(August 9, 1975)
81 Stat. 642
$57,500
March 1, 1977
(December 16, 1967)
89 Stat. 421
$60,662.50
October 1, 1979
(August 9, 1975)
96 Stat. 1914
December 18, 1982 for
(December 21, 1982)
$69,800
Representatives; July 1,
97 Stat. 338
1983 for Senators
(July 30, 1983)
89 Stat. 421
$72,600
January 1, 1984
(August 9, 1975)
89 Stat. 421
$75,100
January 1, 1985
(August 9, 1975)
89 Stat. 421
$77,400
January 1, 1987
(August 9, 1975)
81 Stat. 642
$89,500
February 4, 1987
(December 16, 1967)
$96,600e
103 Stat. 1767-1768
February 1, 1990
(Representatives)
(November 30, 1989)
$98,400e
103 Stat. 1767-1768
February 1, 1990
(Senators)
(November 30, 1989)
$125,100
103 Stat. 1768-1769
January 1, 1991
(Representatives)
(November 30, 1989)
$101,900
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 1991
(Senators)
(November 30, 1989)
$125,100
105 Stat. 450
August 14, 1991
(Senators)
(August 14, 1991)
$129,500
103 Stat.1769
January 1, 1992
(Reps. and Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-6
Payable Salarya
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
$133,600
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 1993
(Reps. and Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
$136,700
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 1998
(Reps. and Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
$141,300
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 2000
(Reps. and Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
$145,100
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 2001
(Reps. and Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
$150,000
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 2002
(Reps. and Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
$154,700
103 Stat. 1769
January 1, 2003
(Reps. and Sens.)
(November 30, 1989)
a. From 1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members were
entitled. This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annual
comparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82).
However, on several occasions Congress did not
appropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salary increases mandated by P.L. 94-82.
Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are the payable rates, the salaries actually paid to
Members of Congress.
b. Per diem rates have been converted to per annum rates based on a hypothetically possible 250-day
session. From 1789 to 1856, Senators and Representatives received a per diem pay rate while
Congress was in session, except for the period December 1815 — March 1817, when they received
$1,500 a year. First established at $6 a day in 1789 ($7 for Senators from March 4, 1795 — March
3, 1796), the per diem was raised to $8 in 1818 and remained there until 1856, when Members of
Congress were placed on annual salaries.
c. In 1857, Congress provided for pay at the rate of $250 per month while in session, or a maximum of
$3,000 per annum.
d. The Act authorized the restoration of pay as of February 1, 1934, and the restoration of pay as of July
1, 1934.
e. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1767-1768) increased pay for Representatives and Senators
at different rates. The pay of Representatives was increased to reflect the previously denied 1989 and
1990 pay adjustments (4.1% and 3.6%), compounded at 7.9%, effective February 1, 1990. The Act
further provided for a 25% increase in Representatives’ pay, effective January 1, 1991. As a result,
the pay of Representatives increased from $89,500 to $96,600 on February 1, 1990, and increased
to $125,100 on January 1, 1991.
The pay of Senators was increased to reflect the previously denied 1988, 1989, and 1990
comparability pay adjustments (2%, 4.1%, and 3.6%), compounded at 9.9%, effective February 1,
1990. As a result, the pay of Senators increased from $89,500 to $98,400 on February 1, 1990. The
Ethics Act did not provide for any other pay increase for Senators, as it did in providing a 25%
increase for Representatives. The reason is that Senators elected to deny themselves the 25% increase
while retaining the ability to receive honoraria. Subsequently, the Senate voted to increase its pay rate
to that of Representatives and to prohibit receipt of honoraria by Senators, effective August 14, 1991.
As a result, Senate pay increased from $101,900 to $125,100 per annum.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress