Salaries of Members of Congress:
Recent Actions and Historical Tables
Updated July 29, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
97-1011

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Summary
Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay. In the
past, Congress periodical y enacted specific legislation to alter its pay; the last time this occurred
affected pay in 1991. More recently, pay has been determined 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 changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index
(ECI). The adjustment is automatic unless denied statutorily, although the perc entage 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 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.
Members of Congress last received a pay adjustment in January 2009. At that time, their salary
was increased 2.8%, to $174,000. A provision in P.L. 111-8 prohibited any pay adjustment for
2010. Under the pay adjustment formula, Members were original y scheduled to receive an
adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%, although this would have been revised downward
automatical y to 1.5% to match the GS base pay adjustment. Members next were scheduled to
receive a 0.9% pay adjustment in 2011. The pay adjustment was prohibited by P.L. 111-165.
Additional y, P.L. 111-322 prevented any adjustment in 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 was also frozen during this period. If not limited by GS
pay, Member pay could have been adjusted by 1.3% in 2012. The ECI formula established a
maximum potential pay adjustment in January 2013 of 1.1%. P.L. 112-175 extended the freeze on
GS pay rates for the duration of this continuing resolution, which also extended the Member
freeze since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment
in GS base pay. Subsequently, Member pay for 2013 was further frozen in P.L. 112-240. The
maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1.2%, or $2,100, was denied by P.L. 113-46. The
maximum potential January 2015 Member pay adjustment was 1.6%, or $2,800. President Obama
proposed a 1.0% increase in the base pay of GS employees, which would automatical y have
limited any Member pay adjustment to 1.0%. P.L. 113-235 contained a provision prohibiting any
Member pay adjustment. The maximum potential January 2016 pay adjustment of 1.7%, or
$3,000, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase. Member
pay for 2016 was frozen by P.L. 114-113. The maximum potential January 2017 pay adjustment
of 1.6%, or $2,800, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase.
Member pay for 2017 was frozen by P.L. 114-254. The maximum potential January 2018 pay
adjustment of 1.8%, or $3,100, was automatical y limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen
by P.L. 115-141. The maximum potential January 2019 pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was
automatical y limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen at the 2009 level by P.L. 115-244.
The maximum potential January 2020 pay adjustment of 2.6%, or $4,500, was prohibited by P.L.
116-94. The maximum potential January 2021 pay adjustment of 2.5%, or $4,400, was
automatical y limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, before being prohibited by P.L. 116-260. The maximum
potential January 2022 pay adjustment is 2.3%, or $4,000.
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 unchanged, the 2021 salary would be $218,600.
When adjusted for inflation, Member salaries decreased approximately 19.4% from 2009—when
Member pay was last adjusted—until 2021.
Congressional Research Service

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

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 bil s—and a provision prohibiting
a scheduled adjustment could be included in any bil , or introduced as a separate bil .
Congressional Research Service

link to page 28 link to page 29 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 23
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... 24

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
Congress shal be “ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”
Additional y, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution states, “No law, varying the
compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shal take effect, until an
election of Representatives shal 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
became the Bil of Rights. It was not ratified until May 7, 1992.
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
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
($223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in
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;
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
compared with actual adjustments in Member pay; and Member pay in constant and current
dollars since 1992.
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
Reform Act adjustment procedure, see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Members
of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2020.
 Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are
elected. Following their service, former Members of Congress may be eligible
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
Report R43194, Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated
Congressional Staff: In Brief.
 For an overview of compensation, benefits, al owances, and selected limitations,
see CRS Report RL30064, Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief .
Methods for Member Pay Adjustment
There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay.

1 P.L. 97-51; 95 Stat. 966; September 11, 1981. See also, for example: “T able 32-1. Federal Programs By Agency and
Account” in Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014 (Washington, GPO:
2013), pp. 2, 3.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 26 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 periodical y
since, most recently affecting pay for 1991.
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 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 5 such increases for
itself—in 1975, 1979 (partial), 1984, 1985, and 1987—and declined 10 (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. This procedure employs a formula based on
changes in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI).
The annual adjustment automatical y 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 adjustment for Members, in which case Members would be paid
the lower rate.2
Under this revised method, annual adjustments were
 accepted 13 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998,
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) and
 denied 18 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020,
and 2021).3
Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during consideration of
annual appropriations bil s, these bil s 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 bil s 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 bil , or be introduced as a separate bil .4

2 Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added. T his limitation was included in P.L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410-
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,
see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Mem bers of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990 -2020.
4 For a list of the laws that have previously prohibited Member pay adjustments, see Table 3, “Legislative Vehicles
Congressional Research Service

2

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

January 2022 Potential Member Pay Adjustment
The maximum potential January 2022 Member pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was known
when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost
Index (ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2019 to December 2020.5
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatical y unless it is either denied or modified
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 FY2022 House-passed legislative branch appropriations bil , H.R. 4346, includes a provision
prohibiting any Member pay adjustment in 2021.
January 2021 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
The maximum potential January 2021 Member pay adjustment of 2.5%, or $4,400, was known
when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost
Index (ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2018 to December 2019 on January 31,
2020.6
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatical y unless it is either denied or modified
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
adjustment was 1.0%, automatical y limiting any Member pay adjustment to $1,700.
Both the FY2021 House-reported legislative branch appropriations bil , H.R. 7611, and the
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,
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
when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost
Index (ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2017 to December 2018 on January 31,
2019.7

Used for Pay P rohibitions, Enacted Dates, and Pay Language.”
5 T he 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%. T he 2.3% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the index
between t he 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,
2020), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “ rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
6 T he 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%. T he 2.5% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between t he quarters ending December 2018 and December 2019, which was 3.0 %, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Emp loyment 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.”
7 T he potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
Congressional Research Service

3

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatical y unless it is either denied or modified
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.
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
on this provision.8
January 2019 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
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
December 2016 to December 2017 on January 31, 2018.9
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatical y unless it is either denied or modified
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
adjustment was 1.4%, automatical y limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400.
The House-passed (H.R. 5894) and Senate-reported versions (S. 3071) of the FY2019 legislative
branch appropriations bil both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay
provision was included in the bil s as introduced and no separate votes were held on this

industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the 12 -month percentage change reported for the quarter
ending December 31, minus 0.5%. T he 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.
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.”
8 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
Appropriations bill. T he 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. T his 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
Division B of H.R. 2740). T he 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 -
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
text of the legislative branch appropriatio ns 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 durin g
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. T he 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,
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
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
legislative branch operated pursuant to continuing resolutions from October 1 until the enactment of P.L. 116-94.
9 T he 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%. T he 2.3% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between t he quarters ending December 2016 and December 2017, which was 2.8 %, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Emp loyment 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.”
Congressional Research Service

4

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

provision. Division B of P.L. 115-244, enacted September 21, 2018, included the pay freeze
provision.
January 2018 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
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
December 2015 to December 2016 on January 31, 2017.10
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatical y unless it is either denied or modified
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
adjustment was 1.4%, automatical y limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400.
The House-passed (H.R. 3162) and Senate-reported versions (S. 1648) of the FY2018 legislative
branch appropriations bil both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay
provision was included in the bil s as introduced and no separate votes were held on this
provision.
Neither bil was enacted prior to the start of FY2018, and legislative branch activities were
initial y 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
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
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
(P.L. 115-141) prohibited the adjustment for the remainder of the year.11
January 2017 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
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
December 2014 to December 2015 on January 30, 2016.12
Both the House-passed (H.R. 5325) and Senate-reported (S. 2955) versions of the FY2017
legislative branch appropriations bil —which would provide approximately $4.4 bil ion in
funding for the activities of the House of Representatives, Senate, and legislative branch support

10 T he 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%. T he 1.8% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between t he quarters ending December 2015 and December 2016, which was 2.3%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Emp loyment 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.”
11 Although this provision refers to fiscal year, since 1992, Member pay adjustments have been effective in January.
12 T he 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%. T he 1.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between t he quarters ending December 2014 and December 201 5, which was 2.1%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Emp loyment 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 $10 0.”
Congressional Research Service

5

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

agencies13—contained a provision that would prohibit this adjustment. The Member pay
provision was included in the bil s 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
was included in the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L.
114-254).
Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have
automatical y been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base
salaries for GS employees.14
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, 2015.15
The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY2016 legislative branch appropriations
bil (H.R. 2250) both contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment.
The pay adjustment prohibition was subsequently included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113).
Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have
automatical y been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base
salaries for GS employees.16
January 2015 Member Pay Adjustment Denied
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
December 2013 on January 31, 2014.17

13 For additional information on funding provided by the legislative branch appropriations bill, see CRS Report
R44515, Legislative Branch: FY2017 Appropriations.
14 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/
31/letter-president-pay-federal-civilian-employees-2017). This proposal became effective with the issuance of
Executive Order 13756. As in prior years, sch edule 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
additional information on the inclusion of Member pay information in executive o rders.
15 T he 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%. T he 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,
2015), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
16 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/
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
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.
17 T he potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
Congressional Research Service

6

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatical y unless it is either denied 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 FY2015 legislative branch appropriations bil (H.R. 4487), as reported by the Committee on
Appropriations and passed by the House on May 1, 2014, contained a provision prohibiting this
adjustment.18 This provision was continued in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of
this bil , with no separate vote on the Member pay provision. No further action on this bil was
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 cal ed for a 1.0% increase in base salaries for General Schedule employees.19
Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have
automatical y 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
released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2011 to
December 2012 on January 31, 2013.20 The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-46,
enacted October 17, 2013), however, prohibited the scheduled 2014 pay adjustment for Members
of Congress.
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatical y unless it is either
 denied 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 scheduled
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
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

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%. T he 1.6% adjustment was determined by taking th e percentage
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
(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.”
18 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
Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill.
19 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/29/letter-president-alternative-pay-plan-federal-
civilian-employees.
20 T he 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
December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he 1.2% adjustment was determined by taking the perc entage
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
(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.”
Congressional Research Service

7

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

civilian federal employees on August 30, 2013.21 This plan cal ed for a January
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
not enacted to prohibit or alter the GS adjustment,22 and Executive Order 13655,
issued on December 23, 2013, implemented a 1.0% increase for GS employees.23
Had the Member pay adjustment not been prohibited by law, the GS base pay
adjustment would have automatical y limited a salary adjustment for Members of
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, 2012.24 The adjustment takes effect automatical y unless (1)
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.
The President’s budget, submitted on February 13, 2012, proposed an average (i.e., base and
locality) 0.5% adjustment for GS employees.25
Partial Year Pay Freeze Enacted
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.26 Section
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
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

21 Available at http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president-regarding-alternate-pay-civilian-
federal-employees.
22 See, however, language in two House Appropriations Committee reports ( H.Rept. 113-90 and H.Rept. 113-91)
stating: “T he 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
appropriations for fiscal year 2014,” pp. 2-3 and pp. 3-4.
23 As in prior years, schedule 6 of the executive order listed the pay rate for Mem bers of 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.
24 T he 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%. T he 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
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Emp loyment Cost Index—December 2011
(Washington: January 31, 2012), p. 3.
25 Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2013, Perform ance and Management (Washington, GPO: 2012), T able 2-1: Economic Assumptions, p. 17 and p. 114.
26 “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 Se nate, August 21,
2012, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/21/letter-president -regarding-alternative-plan-
pay-increases-civilian-feder.
Congressional Research Service

8

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

the implementation of pay adjustments for GS employees automatical y delays any scheduled
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
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
pay, which automatical y lowered the maximum potential Member pay adjustment from 1.1% to
0.5%.
As in prior years, schedule 6 of the 2012 executive order listed the pay rate for Members of
Congress for the upcoming year.27 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 automatical y 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, automatical y lowered the Member pay adjustment rate since
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
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
consent. The bil , as amended, passed the Senate (89-8, vote #251) and the House (257-167, roll
cal #659) on January 1, 2013. This freeze was subsequently reflected in Executive Order 13641,
which was signed April 5, 2013.
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
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
subsequent laws.28
January 2011 and January 2012 Member Pay
Adjustments Denied
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

27 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 Dece mber 29, 1997; Executive
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;
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 1348 3 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.”
28 P.L. 110-5, for the 2007 scheduled pay adjustment, and P.L. 112-240, for the 2013 scheduled pay adjustment.
Congressional Research Service

9

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

change during the 12-month period from December 2008 to December 2009 on January 29,
2010.29 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
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
legislation was also introduced to prevent the scheduled 2011 pay adjustment.30
Additional y, 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
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
1.3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula.31 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 original y scheduled to
receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%.32 This adjustment was denied by Congress
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
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 shal not take effect.”33
Had this provision not been enacted, the 2.1% projected adjustment would have been
automatical y reduced to 1.5% to match the 2010 GS base pay adjustment.34

29 T he 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%. T he 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
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Emp loyment Cost Index—December 2009
(Washington: January 29, 2010), p. 2.
30 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.
31 T he 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%. T he 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,”
Adjustm ents of Certain Rates of Pay, Executive Order 13594, December 23, 2011, Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 247
(Washington, GPO: 2011), pp. 80191 -80196.
32 T he 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%. T he 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
subtracting 0.5%. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index —December 2008
(Washington: January 31, 2009), pp. 2, 17.
33 P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009.
34 T he 1.5% GS base adjustment was finalized by U.S. President (Obama), “Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay,”
Executive Order 13525, Federal Register, vol. 74, December 23, 2009, pp. 69231-69242.
Congressional Research Service

10

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Member Pay: Other Proposals and Actions by
Congress
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
limit (for example, H.R. 75, H.R. 470, and H.R. 1802); and
 prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting
in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 1774).
116th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 116th Congress to
 repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 751, H.R.
1466, H.R. 3260, and S. 1444);
 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
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. 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
in a government shutdown (for example, S. 74, S. 949, H.R. 26, H.R. 211, H.R.
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
H.R. 7180).
115th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 115th Congress to
 prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 342);
 repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 668 and H.R.
5946);
 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 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. 4512, and H.R. 5946, and S. 14);
Congressional Research Service

11

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

 reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 1786 and H.R. 5539);
and
 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.
4852, H.R. 4870, and S. 2327).
114th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 114th Congress to
 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,
H.R. 688, H.R. 1585, and S. 17);
 change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or
disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including
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.
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);
and
 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.
2023, and H.R. 1032).35
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
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
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
this 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.

35 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,
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 T reasury of the United States.”
T he 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
Accountability Office’s (GAO) Principles of Federal Appropriations Law states: “T he 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-
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
accepting the salary and then, as several have done, donate part or all of it back to t he United States T reasury.” (U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, T hird Edition, February
2006, p. 6-105, http://www.gao.gov/assets/210/202819.pdf.)
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 26 link to page 21 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

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);36
 repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 134, H.R. 150,
H.R. 196, S. 65, and H.R. 398);
 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 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.
396, H.R. 522, H.R. 593, H.R. 1884, H.R. 2335, H.R. 3234, S. 18, S. 30, and S.
263);
 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);
 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.
3234, and H.R. 3236); and
 apply any sequester to Member pay (for example, S. 436, H.R. 1181, H.R. 1478,
and H.R. 2677).37
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
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, 2013.38
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

36 P.L. 112-240, the American T axpayer 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 113 th 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 rate s 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).
37 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
Resources by OMB Account –FY 2013 and Appendix B. Preliminary Sequestrable / Exempt Classification by OMB
Account and T ype of Budgetary Resource, in OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration T ransparency Act of 2012
(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,
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. 731, 103rd Cong.; and S.Amdt. 15 to S. 2, 104th Cong.).
38 T he 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

13

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

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
bil 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
bil 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
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
borrowing to provide pay for Members of Congress in the event that the debt reaches the statutory
limit prior to December 15, 2014. The bil passed the House on September 20, 2013. It was
enacted on December 26, 2013, without this section.
112th Congress
Legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress to
 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);
 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.
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);
 reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 204, H.R. 270, H.R.
335, H.R. 1012, H.R. 4399);
 otherwise alter or restrict pay for Members under certain conditions (for example,
H.R. 6108); and
 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).
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
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.
The Senate passed S. 388 on March 1, 2011.39 The bil would have prohibited Members of the
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
because of the public debt limit. The House passed H.R. 1255 on April 1, 2011. The bil would

39 Cong. Rec., March 1, 2011, pp. S1051-1052.
Congressional Research Service

14

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

have prohibited the disbursement of pay to Members of the House and Senate during either of
these situations.40 No further action was taken on either bil .
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-
Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which as stated above, states: “No law, varying the
compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shal take effect, until an
election of Representatives shal have intervened”—although Members could elect to return any
compensation to the Treasury.
Additional Legislation Receiving Floor Action but Not Enacted
Additional legislation to prohibit any Member pay adjustment in 2013 was introduced but not
enacted in the 112th Congress, including the following:
 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.
Section 706 of the motion to recommit also contained language freezing Member
pay.41 On December 13, 2011, the motion to recommit failed (183-244, roll cal
#922), and the bil passed the House (234-193, roll cal #923). The House-passed
version of the bil was titled the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
of 2011.” The Senate substitute amendment, which did not address pay
adjustments, passed on December 17. It was titled the “Temporary Payroll Tax
Cut Continuation Act of 2011.” The bil was enacted on February 22, 2012 (P.L.
112-96), without the pay freeze language.
 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,
2013. This bil passed the House on February 1, 2012.
 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.
This bil passed the House on January 2, 2013.
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
rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are provided.42
Table 2 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.
The table provides the projected percentage changes under the formula based on the Employment

40 Cong. Rec., April 1, 2011, pp.H2239-2251.
41 Congressional Record, December 13, 2011, p. H8822.
42 T he salaries shown are the payable salaries, indicating the rate actually paid to Members of Con gress. From 1976 to
1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members were entitled. T he 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

15

link to page 26 link to page 28 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Cost Index and the actual percentage adjustment. The differences between the projected and
actual Member pay adjustments resulted from
 the enactment of legislation preventing the increase (adjustments for 1994, 1995,
1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018,
2019, 2020, and 2021);
 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,
2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019,
and 2021); and
 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
base pay if Congress had not passed legislation denying the adjustment
(adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021).
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
employees remained unchanged, the 2020 salary would have been $216,400.43 The 2021 salary
would be $218,600.
Table 3 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 bil s in this list
are appropriations bil s, a prohibition on Member pay adjustments could be included in any bil ,
or be introduced as a separate bil .44
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 19.4% from 2009 until 2021.45
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)

43 T his calculation is based upon the adjustment of Member salaries since 1992 by the percentage in the “Maximum
Member Pay Potential Adjustment (assum ing GS Base Lim it)” column in Table 2.
44 Stand-alone bills prohibiting an adjustment in Member pay introduced in recent Congresses include, for example,
(111th Congress) H.R. 4255, H.R. 4423, H.R. 156, H.R. 282, and H.R. 395; (110th Congress) H.R. 2916, H.R. 2934,
H.R. 5087, H.R. 5091, and H.R. 6417; and (109th Congress) H.R. 4134 and H.R. 4047.
45 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 1992-2020, calculated average of January-June for 2021.

Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 24 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
$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)
$3,000c
December 23, 1857
11 Stat. 367
(December 23, 1857)
$5,000
December 4, 1865
14 Stat. 323
(July 28, 1866)
$7,500
March 4, 1871
17 Stat. 486
(March 3, 1873)
$5,000
January 20, 1874
18 Stat. 4
(January 20, 1874)
$7,500
March 4, 1907
34 Stat. 993
(February 26, 1907)
$10,000
March 4, 1925
43 Stat. 1301
(March 4, 1925)
$9,000d
July 1, 1932
47 Stat. 401
(June 30, 1932)
$8,500
April 1, 1933
48 Stat. 14
(March 20, 1933)
$9,000
February 1, 1934
48 Stat. 521
(March 28, 1934)
$9,500
July 1, 1934
48 Stat. 521
(March 28, 1934)
$10,000
April 4, 1935
49 Stat. 24
(February 13, 1935)
$12,500
January 3, 1947
60 Stat. 850
(August 2, 1946)
$22,500
March 1, 1955
69 Stat. 11
(March 2, 1955)
$30,000
January 3, 1965
78 Stat. 415
(August 14, 1964)
$42,500
March 1, 1969
81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967)
$44,600
October 1, 1975
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$57,500
March 1, 1977
81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967)
$60,662.50
October 1, 1979
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
Congressional Research Service

17

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
$69,800
December 18, 1982
96 Stat. 1914
(Representatives)
(December 21, 1982)
July 1, 1983 (Senators)
97 Stat. 338
(July 30, 1983)
$72,600
January 1, 1984
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$75,100
January 1, 1985
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$77,400
January 1, 1987
89 Stat. 421
(August 9, 1975)
$89,500
February 4, 1987
81 Stat. 642
(December 16, 1967)
$96,600e (Representatives)
February 1, 1990
103 Stat. 1767-1768
(November 30, 1989)
$98,400 (Senators)
February 1, 1990
103 Stat. 1767-1768
(November 30, 1989)
$125,100 (Representatives)
January 1, 1991
103 Stat. 1768-1769
(November 30, 1989)
$101,900 (Senators)
January 1, 1991
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$125,100 (Senators)
August 14, 1991
105 Stat. 450
(August 14, 1991)
$129,500
January 1, 1992
103 Stat.1769
(November 30, 1989)
$133,600
January 1, 1993
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$136,700
January 1, 1998
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$141,300
January 1, 2000
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$145,100
January 1, 2001
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$150,000
January 1, 2002
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$154,700
January 1, 2003
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$158,100
January 1, 2004
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$162,100
January 1, 2005
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$165,200
January 1, 2006
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
$169,300
January 1, 2008
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
Congressional Research Service

18

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

Payable Salary
(Current Dollars)a
Effective Date
Statutory Authority
$174,000
January 1, 2009
103 Stat. 1769
(November 30, 1989)
Source: Congressional Research Service.
a. Pay rates listed are applicable for Senators and Representatives unless otherwise specified. From 1976 to
1983, the salary actual y 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 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 actual y paid to Members of Congress.
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
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
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
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
annual salaries. A list of al session dates and lengths is available at http://history.house.gov/Institution/
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
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 Janu ary 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.
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
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
1993
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
1994
2.1%
0.0%
0
1995
2.6%
2.0%
0
1996
2.3%
2.0%
0
1997
2.3%
2.3%
0
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 21 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
1998
2.9%
2.3%
2.3%
1999
3.4%
3.1%
0
2000
3.4%
3.4%
3.4%
2001
3.0%
2.7%
2.7%
2002
3.4%
3.4%
3.4%
2003
3.3%
3.1%
3.1%
2004a
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2005
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2006
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
2007
2.0%
1.7%
0
2008
2.7%
2.5%
2.5%
2009
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
2010
2.1%
1.5%
0
2011
0.9%
0.0%
0
2012
1.3%
0.0%
0
2013
1.1%
0.0%
0
2014
1.2%
1.0%
0
2015
1.6%
1.0%
0
2016
1.7%
1.0%
0
2017
1.6%
1.0%
0
2018
1.8%
1.4%
0
2019
2.3%
1.4%
0
2020
2.6%
2.6%
0
2021
2.5%
1.0%
0
2022
2.3%
TBD
TBD
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of BLS data, public laws, and executive orders.
a. As seen in Table 1, since 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
they were initial y 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
Appropriations Act, Members received the ful 2.2% pay increase, with 0.7% retroactive to the first pay
period in January 2004.
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 seasonal y
adjusted) reflected in the quarter ending December 31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%.
Congressional Research Service

20

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 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 Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Table 3. Legislative Vehicles Denying or Delaying Pay Adjustments, Enacted Dates,
and Pay Language
Pay
Year
Bill
Public Law
Enacted Date
Bill Title
1994
H.R. 920, 103rd Congress
P.L. 103-6
March 4, 1993
Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Amendments of 1993a
1995
H.R. 4539, 103rd Congress
P.L. 103-329 September 28,
Treasury, Postal Service and General
1994
Government Appropriations Act, 1995b
1996
H.R. 2020, 104th Congress
P.L. 104-52
November 15,
Treasury, Postal Service, and General
1995
Government Appropriations Act, 1996c
1997
H.R. 3610, 104th Congress
P.L. 104-208 September 30,
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act,
1996
1997d
1999
H.R. 4328, 105th Congress
P.L. 105-277 October 21, 1998
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999e
2007
H.J.Res. 102, 109th
P.L. 109-383 December 9, 2006
Making further continuing appropriations for
(partial
Congress
the FY2007, and for other purposesg
year)f
2007
H.J.Res. 20, 110th Congress
P.L. 110-5
February 15, 2007
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007h
2010
H.R. 1105, 111th Congress
P.L. 111-8
March 11, 2009
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009i
2011
H.R. 5146, 111th Congress
P.L. 111-165 May 14, 2010
To provide that Members of Congress shal not
receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during
fiscal year 2011j
2012
H.R. 3082, 111th Congress
P.L. 111-322 December 22,
Continuing Appropriations and Surface
2010
Transportation Extensions Act, 2011k
2013
H.J.Res. 117, 112th
P.L. 112-175 September 28,
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013l
(partial
Congress
2012
year)f
2013
H.R. 8, 112th Congress
P.L. 112-240 January 2, 2013
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012m
2014
H.R. 2775, 113th Congress
P.L. 113-46
October 17, 2013
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014n
2015
H.R. 83, 113th Congress
P.L. 113-235 December 16,
Consolidated and Further Continuing
2014
Appropriations Act, 2015o
2016
H.R. 2029
P.L. 114-113 December 18,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016p
2015
2017
H.R. 2028
P.L. 114-254 December 10,
Further Continuing and Security Assistance
2016
Appropriations Act, 2017q
2018f
H.R. 601
P.L. 115-56
September 8, 2017
FY2018 Continuing Appropriations Resolutionr
(partial
year)
2018
H.R. 1625
P.L. 115-141 March 23, 2018
FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Acts
2019
H.R. 5894
P.L. 115-244 September 21,
Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and
2018
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act, 2019t
2020
H.R. 1865
P.L. 116-94
December 20,
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2019
2020u
2021
H.R. 133
P.L. 116-260 December 27,
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021v
2021
Congressional Research Service

21

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Source: Congressional Research Service examination of enacted legislation.
Notes: 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
of living adjustment (relating to pay for Members of Congress) which would become effective under such
provision of law during calendar year 1994 shal 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
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shal be considered to
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
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shal be considered to
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
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shal be considered to
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
U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shal be considered to
have taken effect in fiscal year 1999 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems.”
f.
The partial year pay freezes for 2007, 2013, and 2018 were included in joint resolutions providing
continuing funding for a portion of the fiscal year and continued for the duration of the con tinuing
resolution.
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
under such section for 2007 shal not take effect until February 16, 2007.”
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
under such section for 2007 shal not take effect.”
i.
“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
shal not take effect.”
j.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2011.”
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
January 1, 2011, and ending on December 31, 2012, shal be made.”
l.
“(a) Section 147 of P.L. 111-242, as added by P.L. 111-322, shal 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
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
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).”
m. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2013.”
n. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2014.”
o. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2015.”
p. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2016.”
q. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2017.”
Congressional Research Service

22

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-
223, as amended by division A of P.L. 114-254.”
s. “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2018.”
t.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2019.”
u. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2020.”
v. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shal 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
Congress) during fiscal year 2021.”
Figure 1. Salary for Members of Congress: Current and Constant Dollars, 1992-2021

Source: Congressional Research Service.
Notes: 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 Al
Urban Consumers (CPI-U, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor), annual average for 1992-2020,
calculated average of January-June for 2021.

Author Information

Ida A. Brudnick

Specialist on the Congress

Congressional Research Service

23

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by Paul E. Dwyer, formerly a Specialist in American National
Government at CRS, who has since retired.

Disclaimer
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
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
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
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
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.

Congressional Research Service
97-1011 · VERSION 83 · UPDATED
24