Salaries of Members of Congress:
August 12, 2021
Congressional Votes, 1990-2021
Ida A. Brudnick
Article I, Section 6, of the U.S. Constitution requires that compensation for Members of
Specialist on the Congress
Congress be “ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”

Congress has relied on three different methods in adjusting salaries for Members.

Specific legislation was last used to provide increases in 1990 and 1991. It was the only
method used by Congress for many years.
The second method, under which annual adjustments took effect automatical y unless disapproved by Congress,
was established in 1975. From 1975 to 1989, these annual adjustments were based on the rate of annual
comparability increases given to the General Schedule (GS) federal employees. This method was changed by the
1989 Ethics Act to require that the annual adjustment be determined by a formula based on certain elements of the
Employment Cost Index (ECI). Under this revised process, annual adjustments were accepted 13 times (scheduled
for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) and denied 18
times (scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021).
Since January 2009, the salary for Members of Congress has been $174,000. Subsequent adjustments were denied
by P.L. 111-8 (enacted March 11, 2009), P.L. 111-165 (May 14, 2010), P.L. 111-322 (December 22, 2010), P.L.
112-175 (September 28, 2012), P.L. 112-240 (January 2, 2013), P.L. 113-46 (October 17, 2013), P.L. 113-235
(December 16, 2014), P.L. 114-113 (December 18, 2015), P.L. 114-254 (December 10, 2016), P.L. 115-141
(March 23, 2018), P.L. 115-244 (September 21, 2018), P.L. 116-94 (December 20, 2019), and P.L. 116-260
(December 27, 2020).
Although provisions prohibiting the annual adjustment often appear in appropriations acts, 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 the scheduled adjustment could be included in any
bil , or introduced as a separate bil .
A third method for adjusting Member pay is congressional action pursuant to recommendations from the
President, based on the recommendations of the Citizens’ Commission on Public Service and Compensation
established in the 1989 Ethics Reform Act. Although the Citizens’ Commission was to have convened in 1993, it
did not and has not met since then.
This report contains information on actions taken affecting each pay year since the establishment of the Ethics
Reform Act adjustment procedure. It also provides information on other floor action related to pay for Members
of Congress.
CRS Report 97-1011, Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables, by Ida A.
Brudnick, has additional information on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789; recent proposals to
change Member pay; the adjustments projected by the Ethics Reform Act as compared with actual pay
adjustments; details on enacted legislation with language prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustment; and
Member pay in constant and current dollars since 1992.
Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are elected. Former Members of Congress may be
eligible for retirement benefits. For additional information on retirement benefit requirements, contrib utions, and formulas,
see CRS Report RL30631, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress, by Katelin P. Isaacs.
Congressional Research Service

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Introduction
The automatic annual adjustment for Members of Congress is determined by a formula using a
component of the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which measures rate of change in private sector
pay.1 The adjustment automatical y takes effect unless (1) Congress statutorily prohibits the
adjustment; (2) Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or (3) the annual base pay adjustment
of General Schedule (GS) federal employees is established at a rate less than the scheduled
increase for Members, in which case the percentage adjustment for Member pay is automatical y
lowered to match the percentage adjustment in GS base pay.2 Under the ECI formula, Members
may not receive an annual pay adjustment greater than 5%.
In the past, Member pay has been frozen statutorily in two ways: (1) directly, through legislation
that freezes salaries for Members but not other federal employees, and (2) indirectly, through
broader pay freeze legislation that covers Members and other specified categories of federal
employees.
This adjustment formula was established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.3 Votes potential y
related to the annual adjustments since the implementation of this act are contained in this report.
Source of Member Pay Appropriations and Relationship to
Appropriations Bills
Member salaries are funded in a permanent appropriations account and not in the annual
appropriations bil s.4 Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs
during consideration of the annual appropriations bil s funding the U.S. Department of the
Treasury—currently the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bil —or the
legislative branch, 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 .5

1 For specific dollar amounts and statutory authority for each pay adjustment since 1789, a comparison of projected and
actual adjustments since 1992, and salaries in constant dollars, see CRS Report 97-1011, Salaries of Mem bers of
Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables, by Ida A. Brudnick. For retirement benefits information, see CRS
Report RL30631, Retirem ent Benefits for Mem bers of Congress, by Katelin P. Isaacs.
2 P.L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410, October 13, 1994.
3 §704(a)(2)(B) of P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1769, November 30, 1989.
4 P.L. 97-51; 95 Stat. 966; September 11, 1981. See also, for example: “T able 33 -1. Federal Programs By Agency and
Account” in Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012 (Washington, GPO:
2011), pp. 2, 3.
5 For a list of the laws that have previously prohibited Member pay adjustments, see “T able 3. Legislative Vehicles
Used for Pay Prohibitions, Enacted Dates, and Pay Language” in CRS Report 97-1011, Salaries of Members of
Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables, by Ida A. Brudnick.
Congressional Research Service

1

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Application of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Annual
Adjustments
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which was proposed on September 25,
1789, and ratified May 7, 1992, 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.”6 Under the process established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Member pay is
automatical y adjusted pursuant to a formula. Following ratification of the amendment, this
procedure was chal enged in federal court. The reviewing court held that the Twenty-seventh
Amendment does not apply to the automatic annual adjustments,7 since Congress is considered to
already have voted on future adjustments when the automatic mechanism was established.
Therefore, according to the court, any adjustment pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 is
considered a ministerial act and not a separate legislative enactment subject to the Twenty-
seventh Amendment.
Since these decisions, numerous bil s have been introduced to change the pay adjustment
procedure to require congressional action to effect the pay change. The effect of the Twenty-
seventh Amendment on pay adjustments that may occur separate from the procedures established
by the Ethics Reform Act—including, but not limited to, pay reductions, alternative pay
adjustment mechanisms, and Article III standing to chal enge any future adjustments in federal
court8—remains unclear.
Most Recent Developments
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 2020.9
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 FY2022 House-passed legislative branch appropriations bil , H.R. 4346, includes a provision
prohibiting any Member pay adjustment in 2021.

6 U.S. Constitution, amend. 27.
7 See Boehner v. Anderson, 809 F.Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1992) and 30 F.3d 156 (D.C.Cir. 1994).
8 Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).
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 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,
2021), p. 3. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(A), this amount is “ rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.”
Congressional Research Service

2

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

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,
2020.10
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 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.
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,
2019.11
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.12

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 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.”
11 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 2.6% 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.”
12 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 appropriations bill. H.R. 2779, as reported, did not contain a provision prohibiting the
automatic Member pay adjustment. Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during
Congressional Research Service

3

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

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, 2018.13
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 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
provision. Division B of P.L. 115-244, enacted September 21, 2018, included the pay freeze
provision.
Previous Actions: Votes by Year
Below is a chronology of Member pay actions since the implementation of the Ethics Reform Act
of 1989, which established the current pay adjustment system. In general, the salary adjustment
projected by the formula is followed by a discussion of any action or potential y related votes.
Any other action related to pay for Members of Congress that occurred during that calendar year
is also listed.
2018
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, 2017.14

consideration of annual appropriations bills, these bills do n ot 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 reso lutions from October 1 until the enactment of P.L. 116-94.
13 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 t o the nearest multiple of $100.”
14 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.”
Congressional Research Service

4

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Actions to Deny the Scheduled 2018 Member Pay Increase
As noted above, 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; and 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.15
2017
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, 2016.16
Actions to Deny the Scheduled 2017 Member Pay Increase
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
agencies17—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).

15 Although this provision refers to fiscal year, since 1992, Member pay adjustments have been effective in January.
16 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 2015, 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 $100.”
17 For additional information on funding provided by the legislative branch appropriations bill, see CRS Report
R44515, Legislative Branch: FY2017 Appropriations, by Ida A. Brudnick.
Congressional Research Service

5

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

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.18
2016
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, 2015.19
Actions to Deny the Scheduled 2016 Member Pay Increase
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.20
Linking Salaries to Passage of a Budget Resolution
The House budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 27 (Section 819), 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. The statement proposes 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. The Senate agreed to its resolution on the budget, S.Con.Res. 11, on
March 27.

18 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, schedule 6 of Executive Order 13756 lists the pay rate for Members of
Congress for the upcoming year. See discussion of Executive Order 13635 (issued December 27, 2012) below for
additional information on the inclusion of Member pay information in executive orders.
19 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 t o the nearest multiple of $100.”
20 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.
Congressional Research Service

6

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

2015
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, 2014.21 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.
Actions to Deny the Scheduled 2015 Member Pay Increase
The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY2015 legislative branch appropriations
Act (H.R. 4487) contained a provision prohibiting any Member pay adjustment. Although no
further action was taken on that bil , 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 (P.L. 113-235).
Although discussion of Member pay is often associated with appropriations bil s, the legislative
branch bil does not contain language funding or increasing Member pay, and a prohibition on the
automatic Member pay adjustments could be included in any bil , or be introduced as a separate
bil .
The President proposed a 1.0% increase in the base pay of GS employees for January 2015,22
which would automatical y have limited any Member pay adjustment to 1.0%.
2014
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, 2013.23
Actions to Deny the Scheduled 2014 Member Pay Increase
The adjustment takes effect automatical y each year 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.

21 T he potential Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the ECI (private industry wages and
salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in th e quarter ending December 31 for the
two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he 1.6% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2012 and December 2013, which was 2.1%, and 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.”
22 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/29/letter-president-alternative-pay-plan-federal-civilian-
employees.
23 T he annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the ECI (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 percentage 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 In dex—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: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-46, Section 146, enacted October 17, 2013),
prohibited the scheduled 2014 pay adjustment for Members of Congress.
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 civilian federal employees on August 30, 2013.24 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,25 and Executive Order 13655, issued on
December 23, 2013, implemented a 1.0% increase for GS employees.26 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).
2013
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, 2012.27 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.
Actions to Delay and then Deny the Scheduled 2013 Member Pay Increase
The President’s budget, submitted on February 13, 2012, proposed an average (i.e., base and
locality) 0.5% adjustment for GS employees.28 President Obama later stated in a letter to
congressional leadership on August 21, 2012, that the federal pay freeze should extend until
FY2013 budget negotiations are finalized.29 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

24 Available at http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president-regarding-alternate-pay-civilian-
federal-employees.
25 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).
26 As in prior years, schedule 6 of the executive order listed the pay rate for Members of Congress for the upcoming
year.
27 T he annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the ECI (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, Employment Cost Index —December 2011 (Washington: January 31,
2012), p. 3.
28 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.
29 “Letter from the President Regarding an Alternative Plan for Pay Increases for Civilian Federal Employees,” Text of
a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate , August 21,
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: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

President on September 28, 2012 (P.L. 112-175). A delay in the implementation of pay
adjustments for GS employees automatical y delays any scheduled Member pay adjustment.
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 executive order showed the new rate for Members.30
The annual adjustments take effect automatical y if legislation is not enacted preventing them.
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.
Linking Salaries to Passage of a Budget Resolution
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, 2013.31
Salaries would have been held in escrow for Members in a chamber if that chamber had not
agreed to a concurrent resolution by that date. Salaries would have been released from the escrow
account either when that chamber agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day
of the 113th Congress, whichever was earlier. H.R. 325 was agreed to in the House on January 23,
2013, and the Senate on January 31, 2013. It was enacted on February 4, 2013 (P.L. 113-3). Both
the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution prior to that date, however, and salaries were
not held in escrow.

30 Prior Executive Orders indicating the rates of pay for Members of Congress include Executive Order 12944 of
December 28, 1994; Executive Order 12984 of December 28, 1995; Executive Order 13071 of December 29, 1997;
Executive 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 13483 of December 18, 2008; Executive Order 13525 of
December 23, 2009; Executive Order 13561 of December 22, 2010; and Executive Order 13594 of December 19, 2011.
Pay rates for Members of Congress generally are listed in “ Schedule 6.” In most years, the Executive Orders state that
the pay rates in this schedule are “effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after
January 1.” T wice, in 2006 and in 2012, 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 (P.L. 110-5, for the 2007 scheduled pay adjustment, and P.L. 112-240, for the 2013
scheduled pay adjustment). T he 2013 freeze was subsequently reflected in Executive Order 13641, which was signed
April 5, 2013.
31 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

9

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

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 prioritize 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 (340-
84, roll cal #140). The bil passed the House on May 13, 2013 (221-207, roll cal #142).
2011 and 2012
The projected 2011 adjustment of 0.9% was known when the BLS released data for the ECI
change during the 12-month period from December 2008 to December 2009 on January 29,
2010.32 This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600.
Under the ECI formula, Members could have received a salary adjustment of 1.3% in January
2012.33
Actions to Deny the Scheduled 2011 and 2012 Member Pay Increases
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 bil s that would prevent the scheduled 2011 pay adjustment were introduced in both the
House and Senate.34 These include S. 3244, which was introduced in the Senate on April 22,
2010, and agreed to by unanimous consent the same day.35 The bil was referred to the Committee
on House Administration and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Additional y, P.L. 111-322, which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prohibited 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 also was
frozen during this period.

32 T he annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the ECI (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 percenta ge increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2008 and December 2009, which was 1.4%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index —December 2009 (Washington: January 29,
2010), p. 2.
33 T he annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the ECI (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,” Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay,
Executive Order 13594, December 23, 2011, Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 247 (Washington, GPO: 2 011), pp. 80191-
80196.
34 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.
35 Congressional Record, April 22, 2010, p. S2544.
Congressional Research Service

10

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Salaries During a Lapse in Appropriations
The Senate passed S. 388 on March 1, 2011.36 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
have prohibited the disbursement of pay to Members of the House and Senate during either of
these situations.37 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 in the 112th Congress
 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.38 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.
2010
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%.39

36 Congressional Record, March 1, 2011, pp. S1051-1052.
37 Congressional Record, April 1, 2011, pp. H2239-2251.
38 Congressional Record, December 13, 2011, p. H8822.
39 T he annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the ECI (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 St atistics, Employment Cost Index—December 2008 (Washington: January 31,
2009), pp. 2, 17.
Congressional Research Service

11

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Actions to Deny the Scheduled 2010 Member Pay Increase
This adjustment was denied by Congress through a provision included in the FY2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, which was enacted on March 11, 2009. 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.”40
Had Congress not passed legislation prohibiting the Member pay adjustment, the 2.1% projected
adjustment would have been downwardly revised automatical y to 1.5% to match the 2010 GS
base pay adjustment.41
The provision prohibiting the 2010 Member pay adjustment was added to H.R. 1105 through the
adoption of the rule providing for consideration of the bil (H.Res. 184). The rule provided that
the provision, which was printed in the report accompanying the resolution,42 would be
considered as adopted. On February 25, 2009, the House voted to order the previous question
(393-25, roll cal #84) and agreed to the resolution (398-24, roll cal #85).43
2009
Under the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act, Members received a pay adjustment in
January 2009 of 2.8%, increasing salaries to $174,000.44
As noted above, Member pay adjustments may not exceed the annual base pay adjustment of GS
employees.45 The two pay adjustments may differ because they are based on changes in different
quarters of the ECI or due to actions of Congress and the President. The 2.8% adjustment for
Members, however, was less than the projected 2009 base GS adjustment of 2.9%.46 The GS rate

40 P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009.
41 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.
42 U.S. Congress, H.Rept. 111-20, Providing For Consideration Of The Bill (H.R. 1105) Making Omnibus
Appropriations For The Fiscal Year Ending Septem ber 30, 2009, And For Other Purposes, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
(Washington, GPO: 2009).
43 Congressional Record, February 25, 2009, pp. H2655-H2656.
44 T he annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the ECI (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 2.8% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index
between the quarters ending December 2006 and December 2007, which was 3.3%, and subtracting 0.5%. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index —December 2007 (Washington: January 31,
2008), pp. 2, 15.
45 2 U.S.C. 4501(2)(B).
46 T he base pay projection is based upon a number of events. Under the fo rmula established in the Federal Employees
Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA, P.L. 101-509, November 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1429-1431; 5 U.S.C. 5301-5303), the
annual across-the-board pay adjustment in January 2009 was projected to equal 2.9%. T his percentage, like that
adjusting Member pay, was determined based on changes in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), minus 0.5%. It reflects,
however, changes from September 2006 to September 2 007, rather than December 2006 to December 2007.
Additionally, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, enacted on
September 30, 2008, provided an overall average (base and locality) pay adjustment of 3.9% fo r federal civilian
employees, including those covered by the General Schedule (P.L. 110-329, Division A, §142(a), September 30, 2008).
For additional information on the GS adjustments, see CRS Report RL34463, Federal White-Collar Pay: FY2009 and
FY2010 Salary Adjustm ents, by Barbara L. Schwemle (out -of-print; available to congressional clients upon request).
Congressional Research Service

12

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

became final on December 18, 2008, when President George W. Bush issued an executive order
adjusting rates of pay.47
Actions to Alter the Automatic Annual Adjustment Procedure
In March 2009, the Senate considered a number of attempts to alter the automatic annual
adjustment procedure for Members of Congress. Senator David Vitter proposed an amendment
(S.Amdt. 621) to the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The amendment would have repealed
the provision of law that provides for the annual adjustments under the Ethics Reform Act. The
Senate agreed to a motion to table the amendment on March 10, 2009 (52-45, vote #95). Prior to
the vote, the Senate failed to agree to a unanimous consent request to consider S. 542, a bil
introduced by Senator Harry Reid which would have eliminated the automatic pay procedure
effective February 1, 2011.
On March 17, 2009, the Senate considered S. 620, a bil also introduced by Senator Reid, which
would have eliminated the procedure effective December 31, 2010. The Senate agreed to the bil
by unanimous consent.48 The bil was referred to the House Administration Committee and the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The following day, an identical bil , H.R. 1597, was introduced in the House by Representative
Jim Matheson. Additional bil s that would have affected congressional pay were also introduced
in both chambers.49 Member pay language was also included in Senate amendments intended to
be proposed to other bil s.50 No further action was taken.
2008
Under the annual pay adjustment procedure, Members original y were scheduled to receive a
2.7% increase in January 2008, based upon the formula set forth in the Ethics Reform Act of
1989.51 This increase would have raised their salaries to $169,700. The scheduled Member
increase was revised to 2.5%, resulting in a salary in 2008 of $169,300, due to factors related to
the increase in the base pay of GS employees.
The scheduled January 2008 across-the-board increase in the base pay of GS employees under the
annual adjustment formula was 2.5%.52 A scheduled GS annual pay increase may be altered only

47 U.S. President (Bush), “Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay,” Executive Order 13483, Federal Register, vol. 73,
December 23, 2008, pp. 78587-78598.
48 “Repealing Automatic Pay Adjustments for Members of Congress,” Congressional Record, March 17, 2009, S3149.
49 See, for example, H.R. 156, H.R. 201, H.R. 215, H.R. 282, H.R. 346, H.R. 395, H.R. 566, H.R. 581, H.R. 751, H.R.
1105, H.R. 1597, H.R. 4336, H.R. 4681, H.R. 4720, H.R. 4761, H.R. 4762, S. 102, S. 317, S. 542, S. 1808, S. 3071, S.
3143, and S. 3158. A discharge petition was filed for H.R. 581 on March 23, 2009.
50 “T ext of Amendments,” S.Amdt. 3730, an amendment intended to be proposed to S. 3217, Congressional Record,
April 26, 2010, p. S2663; and, “ T ext of Amendments,” S.Amdt. 3666, an amendment intended to be proposed to H.R.
4872, Congressional Record, March 24, 2010, p. S2040.
51 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 2.7% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage
increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2005 an d December 2006, which was 3.2%, and
subtracting 0.5%.
52 T he annual GS 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 th e quarter ending September
30 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he 2.5% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in
the Index between the quarters ending September 2005 and September 2006, which was 3.0%, and subtracting 0.5%.
Congressional Research Service

13

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

if the President issues an alternative plan or if Congress legislates a different increase. President
Bush did not issue an alternative plan for the annual pay adjustment, although he issued an
alternative plan for the locality pay adjustment on November 27, 2007, providing a 0.5%
adjustment (providing an average 3.0% overal adjustment).53 The Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008, which was enacted on December 26, 2007, provided a 3.5% average pay adjustment
for federal civilian employees. The President issued an executive order al ocating this overal
percentage between base and locality pay on January 4, 2008.54 Since the annual base portion of
the pay adjustment for GS employees was less than the scheduled Member increase, Member pay
was adjusted by the lower rate.
Actions to Modify or Deny the Scheduled 2008 Member Pay Increase
On June 27, 2007, the House took action potential y relating to the January 2008 Member pay
increase. The House agreed (244-181, vote #580) to order the previous question on the rule
(H.Res. 517) for consideration of H.R. 2829, the FY2008 Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations bil . By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent
an amendment to the rule from being offered and brought the rule to an immediate vote. The
House bil did not contain Member pay language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to
accept or reject a Member pay increase.
Under the terms of H.Res. 517, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in
order. An amendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment
to the bil prohibiting a pay increase. During floor debate, at least one Member spoke against the
previous question and indicated an intention to offer an amendment to the rule to prohibit the
increase if it was defeated.55
Vote Summary
 06/27/07—The House agreed (244-181, vote #580) to order the previous
question on the rule (H.Res. 517) for consideration of H.R. 2829, the FY2008
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil . 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 bil
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 517 was an open rule that al owed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, some
Members considered the vote to be against consideration of an amendment
prohibiting a pay raise. Had the House not agreed to a motion to order the
previous question, they argued, a Member could have offered an amendment to
the rule related to the pay adjustment. Under the terms of H.Res. 517, as adopted,
an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in order. During floor debate,

For additional information, see CRS Report RL33732, Federal White-Collar Pay: FY2008 Salary Adjustm ents, by
Barbara L. Schwemle (out of print; available to congressional clients upon request) .
53 U.S. President (Bush), “T ext of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate,” November 27, 2007. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-2007-book2/pdf/PPP-
2007-book2-doc-pg1500.pdf, last visited on January 8, 2008.
54 U.S. President (Bush), “Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay,” Executive Order 13454, issued January 4, 2008,
Federal Register, January 8, 2008, vol. 73, pp. 1479 -1492.
55 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, December 26, 2007).
Congressional Research Service

14

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

at least one Member spoke against ordering the previous question and indicated
that, if the motion was defeated, he intended to offer an amendment to the rule to
prohibit the pay increase.56
2007
Members did not receive the annual pay adjustment of 1.7% scheduled for January 1, 2007, as a
consequence of the votes Congress had taken in both 2006 and 2007. The salary of Members
remained at the 2006 level of $165,200.
Members initial y had been scheduled to receive a 2.0% annual adjustment in January 2007,
increasing their salary to $168,500.57 This increase was automatical y revised downward to 1.7%
to match GS base pay. Based on a formula required under the annual comparability pay
procedure,58 GS employees were authorized to receive a base pay increase of 1.7% in January
2007.59 The percentage was confirmed when the President issued an alternative plan for the
locality pay adjustment, but not base pay, on November 30, 2006, and then an executive order
issued on December 21, 2006, authorizing the average 2.2% pay adjustment for GS employees.60
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2007
A series of votes in 2006 and 2007 prevented the scheduled adjustment. The continuing resolution
enacted on December 8, 2006 (P.L. 109-383), postponed any increase until February 16, 2007.
The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, which became law on February 15,
2007 (P.L. 110-5), further prevented the scheduled 2007 adjustment from taking effect.
On March 8, 2006, the Senate voted to change the application of the annual comparability
adjustment for Members by denying an increase for those Members who voted against receiving
one. On June 13, 2006, the House ordered the previous question on the rule for consideration of
the FY2007 Treasury appropriations bil . This action prevented amendments to the rule, including
those related to Member pay, from being considered.
Congress subsequently voted to delay the scheduled January 2007 pay increase until February
2007. Congressional action, however, blocked any pay increase in 2007. After the relative
increases in congressional pay as compared to the federal minimum wage became a campaign
issue, Congress delayed any increase until February 16, 2007.

56 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 27, 2007, pp. HH7278 -H7283.
57 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 of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he 2.0% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage
increase in the Index between the quarters ending December 2004 and December 2005, which was 2.5%, and
subtracting 0.5%.
58 T he annual GS pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Em ployment Cost Index (private industry
wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending September
30 of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he 1.7% adjustment was determined by taking the percent age increase in
the Index between the quarters ending September 2004 and September 2005, which was 2.2%, and subtracting 0.5%.
59 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index —September 2005 (Washington:
October 28, 2005), pp. 2, 14.
60 U.S. President (Bush), “T ext of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate,” November 30, 2006; U.S. President (Bush), “Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay,” Executive
Order 13420, Federal Register, vol. 71, December 26, 2006, pp. 77569 -77580.
Congressional Research Service

15

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Vote Summary
 06/13/06—The House agreed (249-167, vote #261) to order the previous
question on the rule (H.Res. 865) for consideration of H.R. 5576, the FY2007
Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bil . 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 bil
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 865 was an open rule that al owed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, some
Members considered the vote to be against consideration of an amendment
prohibiting a pay raise. Had the House not agreed to a motion to order the
previous question, they argued, a Member could have offered an amendment to
the rule related to the pay adjustment. Under the terms of H.Res. 865, as adopted,
an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in order. During floor debate,
Representative Jim Matheson made known his intention to offer an amendment
to the rule to prohibit the increase, and spoke against the previous question so
that his amendment could receive a waiver to be considered.61
 12/8/06—Section 137 of P.L. 109-383 (120 Stat. 2679), which amended the
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, delayed any increase in Member pay until
February 16, 2007.
 02/15/07—The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, became
law (P.L. 110-5, 121 Stat. 12). Section 115 stated that the adjustment in Member
pay scheduled for 2007 shal not take effect.
Actions to Deny Adjustments or Benefits for Certain Members
In 2007, both the House and Senate took action on bil s that would target the adjustments or
benefits of Members under certain circumstances. Neither of these provisions became law.
 1/18/07—The Senate passed (96-2, vote #19) S. 1, the Honest Leadership and
Open Government Act of 2007. The bil contained a provision (§116) that would
deny an annual pay adjustment to Members of Congress who vote for an
amendment to prohibit an annual adjustment for Members, or who voted against
the tabling of an amendment to prohibit the increase. This language was not
included in the House amendment or in the final version of the bil , which
became P.L. 110-81.
 1/23/07—The House passed (431-0, vote #49) H.R. 476. The bil would have
denied pension benefits to Members of Congress if an individual is convicted of
committing certain offenses while a Member of Congress. The bil was referred
to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and no
further action was taken.

61 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, June 13, 2006, pp. H3820-H3821.
Congressional Research Service

16

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

2006
Members received a pay adjustment of 1.9% in January 2006, increasing their salary to $165,200
from $162,100.62
This increase became official when President Bush issued an executive order on December 22,
2005, containing his al ocation of a 3.1% pay increase for GS federal employees, 2.1% for base
pay and an average of 1.0% for locality pay.63 By setting the GS base pay component at a rate
(2.1%) greater than the scheduled 1.9% Member pay increase, Members were able to receive the
full 1.9% adjustment.
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2006
In 2005, during consideration of the January 2006 adjustment, the House held one vote
potential y relating to the pending January 2006 increase, and the Senate voted to deny the
adjustment.
The House vote occurred June 28, 2005, when it agreed to a rule providing for consideration of
H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bil . Special waiver
language was needed in the rule to permit House consideration of an amendment that would
prohibit the scheduled January 2006 pay increase. In the absence of such language, a pay
amendment was out of order.
This action was considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect of
not al owing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bil . They argued
that if nongermane amendments had been al owed, one could have been offered to modify or
deny the scheduled 1.9% Member pay increase.
Others, however, expressed interest in introducing other nongermane amendments on unrelated
issues. As a consequence, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have
voted to deny a pay increase if they had been given an opportunity.
The Senate agreed October 18, 2005, to an amendment, by a vote of 92 to 6, to prohibit the
scheduled January 2006 Member pay adjustment.64 The prohibition did not apply to the 1.9%
increase scheduled for other top-level federal officials in the executive and judicial branches. The
amendment was struck in conference.
Vote Summary
 03/08/06—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to an amendment denying an annual
pay adjustment to Members of Congress who vote for an amendment to prohibit
an annual adjustment for Members, or who voted against the tabling of an
amendment to prohibit the increase. The amendment (S.Amdt. 2934) was offered

62 T he 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 quarter ending December 31 of
the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he 1.9% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the
Index between the quarters ending December 2003 and December 2004, which was 2.4%, and subtracting 0.5%.
63 T he 3.1% GS pay increase had been approved earlier by Congress as a provision in the FY2006 T ransportation and
T reasury Appropriation Act, signed into P.L. 109-115 on November 30, 2005. Congress did not specify an allocation
between base and locality pay in the act, since the President makes that determination.
64 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, no. 132, October 18, 2005, pp. S11458- S11460.
Congressional Research Service

17

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

by Senator James Inhofe during consideration of S. 2349, the 527 Reform bil .
The bil was not enacted into law.
 06/28/05—The House agreed (263-152, vote #327) to order the previous
question on the rule (H.Res. 342) for consideration of H.R. 3058, the FY2006
Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bil . 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 bil
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 342 was an open rule that al owed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, some
Members considered the vote to be against consideration of an amendment to
permit a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed to a
motion to order the previous question, they argued, a Member could have offered
an amendment to the rule related to the pay adjustment. Under the terms of
H.Res. 342, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in
order. During floor debate, Representative Jim Matheson made known his
intention to offer an amendment to the rule to prohibit the increase, and spoke
against the previous question so that his amendment could receive a waiver to be
considered.65
 10/18/05—The Senate agreed (92-6, vote #256) to an amendment prohibiting the
2006 annual federal pay adjustment for Members of Congress only. It did not
apply to top-level executive and judicial branch officials. The amendment
(S.Amdt. 2062), was offered by Senator Jon Kyl during consideration of H.R.
3058, FY2006 Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bil . The Senate
provision was dropped in conference.
2005
Members received a pay adjustment of 2.5% in January 2005, increasing their salary to $162,100
from $158,100.
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2005
One vote potential y relating to the Member pay adjustment scheduled for January 2005 was held
in 2004. On September 14, the House agreed to a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5025,
the FY2005 Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bil . Special waiver language was needed
in the rule to permit House consideration of an amendment that would prohibit the scheduled
January 2005 pay increase. In the absence of such language, a pay amendment was not in order.
This House action, however, was considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote
had the effect of not al owing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bil .
They argued that if nongermane amendments had been al owed, one could have been offered to
modify or deny the scheduled 2.2% Member pay increase.
Alternatively, however, a few Members expressed interest in introducing other nongermane
amendments on entirely different issues. As a consequence, it cannot be said with any degree of

65 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, no. 88, June 28, 2005, p. H5279.
Congressional Research Service

18

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

certainty that Members would have voted to deny a pay increase had they had been given an
opportunity.
Vote Summary
 09/14/04—The House agreed (235-170, vote #451) to order the previous
question on a rule (H.Res. 770) providing for consideration of H.R. 5025, the
FY2005 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bil . 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 bil
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 770 was an open rule that al owed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, some
Members considered the vote to be against consideration of an amendment to
permit a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed to a
motion to order the previous question, they argued, a Member could have offered
an amendment to the rule related to the pay adjustment. Under the terms of
H.Res. 770, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in
order.
2004
Members received a pay adjustment of 2.2% in 2004, increasing their salary to $158,100 from
$154,700. 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, which provided an average 4.1% GS
pay increase, Members received the full 2.2% pay increase, with 0.7% retroactive to the first pay
period in January 2004.66
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2004
Two potential y related votes related to the scheduled January 2004 adjustment. Action taken by
the House on vote #463 (240-173) was considered by some to be approval of an annual increase
since the vote had the effect of not al owing Members to offer and consider nongermane
amendments to the bil . They argued that if nongermane amendments had been al owed, one
could have been offered to modify or deny the scheduled 2.2% Member pay increase.
While some Members have characterized this as a vote for the raise, some Members expressed
interest in introducing other nongermane amendments on entirely different issues. As a
consequence, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have voted to
deny a pay increase if they had been given an opportunity.
On October 23, 2003, the Senate voted to table an amendment to prohibit the scheduled
adjustment.

66 P.L. 108-199; January 23, 2004; 118 Stat. 359.
Congressional Research Service

19

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Vote Summary
 09/04/03—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 bil . 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 bil
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 351 was an open rule that al owed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, some
Members considered the vote to be against consideration of an amendment to
permit a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed to a
motion to order the previous question, they argued, a Member could have offered
an amendment to the rule related to the pay adjustment. Under the terms of
H.Res. 351, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in
order.
 10/23/03—The Senate agreed (60-34, vote #406) to a motion to table an
amendment offered by Senator Russel Feingold to H.R. 2989, the FY2004
Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bil , to block the pending January
2004 salary increase for Members. The amendment did not apply to other top-
level federal officials.
2003
Members received a pay adjustment of 3.1% in January 2003, increasing their salary to $154,700
from $150,000.
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2003
Members original y were scheduled to receive a 3.3% adjustment under the formula.67 By law,
however, they were limited to the rate of increase in the base pay of GS employees (3.1%), also
effective in January 2003.
Both houses held votes related to the scheduled January 2003 annual adjustment for Members.
On July 18, 2002, the House agreed to a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5120, the
FY2003 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bil . Special waiver language was
needed in the rule to permit House consideration of an amendment that would prohibit the
scheduled January 2003 pay increase. In the absence of such language, a pay amendment was out
of order.
On November 13, 2002, the Senate voted to table an amendment to prohibit the scheduled
January 2003 annual adjustment from taking effect for Members of Congress. The amendment
was offered to H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

67 T he 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 quarter ending Decembe r 31 of
the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he 3.3% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the
Index between the quarters ending December 2000 and December 2001, which was 3.8%, and subtracting 0.5%.
Congressional Research Service

20

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Vote Summary
 07/18/02—The House agreed (258-156, vote #322) to order the previous
question on a rule (H.Res. 488) providing for consideration of H.R. 5120, the
FY2003 Treasury Appropriations bil . 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 bil prohibiting a pay
increase. Although H.Res. 488 was an open rule that al owed any germane
amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been
germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to
consider an amendment to permit a pay raise prohibition amendment 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 related to the pay
adjustment. Under the terms of H.Res. 488, as adopted, an amendment seeking to
halt the pay raise was not in order. The vote to order the previous question (and
not al ow any amendment to the rule) was seen by some as a vote to accept a pay
adjustment.
 11/13/02—The Senate agreed (58-36, vote #242) to a motion to table an
amendment offered by Senator Russel Feingold to H.R. 5005, the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, to block the pending January 2003 salary increase for
Members. The amendment did not apply to other top-level federal officials.
2002
Members received a pay adjustment of 3.4% in January 2002, increasing their salary to $150,000
from $145,100.
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2002
In 2001, the House held one vote potential y related to the scheduled pay adjustment, and the
Senate twice considered the germaneness of Member pay adjustment amendments.
The House, on July 25, 2001, agreed to a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2590, the
FY2002 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bil . Special waiver language was
needed in the rule to permit House consideration of an amendment that would prohibit the
scheduled January 2002 pay increase. In the absence of such language, a pay amendment was out
of order.
The Senate presiding officer, on October 24, sustained a point of order against an amendment to
the FY2002 foreign operations appropriations bil to block the 2002 increase because the
amendment was not germane under Senate Rule 16. On December 7, the Senate sustained (33-65)
a point of order that an amendment to prohibit Members from receiving the January 2002
increase was not germane, and the amendment fel . The amendment was offered during Senate
consideration of H.R. 3338, the FY2002 Department of Defense appropriation bil .
Vote Summary
 07/25/01—The House agreed (293-129, vote #267) to order the previous
question on a rule (H.Res. 206) providing for consideration of H.R. 2590, the
FY2002 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bil .
H.Res. 206 was an open rule that al owed any germane amendment; an
Congressional Research Service

21

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment, however, would not have been
germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to
consider an amendment to permit a pay raise prohibition amendment 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 related to the pay
adjustment. Under the terms of H.Res. 206, an amendment seeking to halt the
pay raise was not in order. The vote to order the previous question (and not al ow
any amendment to the rule) was seen by some as a vote to accept a pay increase.
 10/24/01—The Senate sustained a point of order against an amendment, offered
by Senators Russel Feingold and Max Baucus, to block the pending January
2002 salary increase. The Senate sustained the point of order because the
amendment was not germane under Senate Rule 16. The action was taken during
consideration of H.R. 2506, the FY2002 foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs appropriations bil .
 12/07/01—The Senate rejected (33-65, voted #360) a claim that an amendment
offered by Senator Russel Feingold to prohibit Members from receiving the
January 2002 increase was germane, and the chair then sustained a point of order
that the amendment authorized legislation on an appropriation bil . The
amendment was offered during floor consideration of H.R. 3338, the FY2002
Department of Defense Appropriations bil .
2001
Members received a January 2001 annual pay adjustment of 2.7%, which increased their salary to
$145,100 from $141,300.
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2001
Under the Ethics Reform Act, Members original y were scheduled to receive a January 2001
annual pay adjustment of 3.0%. This adjustment automatical y was revised downward to 2.7% to
match the GS base pay increase.68
On July 20, 2000, the House agreed to the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4871, the
FY2001 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bil . Special waiver language was
needed in the rule to permit House consideration of an amendment that would prohibit the
scheduled January 2001 pay increase. In the absence of such language, a pay amendment was not
in order.
On September 9, 2000, the Senate rejected the conference report on H.R. 4516, the FY2001
Legislative Branch Appropriations bil , in part because Senators had not previously had a chance
to introduce an amendment prohibiting the scheduled January 2001 pay increase.

68 T he annual pay adjustment was determined by 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 of the
two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he scheduled January 2001 adjustment was originally 3.0%, and was determined by
taking the percentage increase in the Index between the quarter ending December 31, 1998, and the quarter ending
December 31, 1999, which was 3.5%, and subtracting 0.5%. However, Members were limited by l aw to the increase in
the base pay of GS employees, which was 2.7%.
Congressional Research Service

22

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Vote Summary
 07/20/00—The House agreed (250-173, vote #419) to order the previous
question on a rule (H.Res. 560) providing for consideration of H.R. 4871, the
FY2001 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bil .
H.Res. 560 was an open rule that al owed any germane amendment; an
amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment, however, would not have been
germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to
consider an amendment to permit a pay raise prohibition amendment 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 related to the pay
adjustment. Under the terms of H.Res. 560, as adopted, an amendment seeking to
halt the pay raise was not in order. The vote to order the previous question (and
not al ow any amendment to the rule) was seen by some as a vote to accept a pay
adjustment.
 09/20/00—The Senate rejected (28-69, vote #253) the conference report on H.R.
4516, the FY2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations bil ; the conference report
also contained the FY2001 Treasury and General Government Appropriations
bil . The Treasury bil had not been initial y considered and amended on the
Senate floor. The conference report was rejected, according to at least one
Member, in part because Senators had not had a chance to introduce an
amendment to the FY2001 Treasury bil to prohibit the scheduled January 2001
pay raise.69 Since Members customarily had offered amendments to prohibit
scheduled pay increases in the Treasury bil , some Senators felt that they were
denied an opportunity to introduce an amendment to block the scheduled January
2001 pay increase. Some Members also stated that they felt that they were denied
the opportunity to debate the merits of a raise and conduct a vote.70 On December
14, 2000, the text of the FY2001 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bil was introduced as H.R. 5658, which was not considered by
either house, but incorporated by reference in H.R. 4577, the FY2001 Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations bil (P.L. 106-554).
2000
Members received a scheduled January 1, 2000, annual pay adjustment of 3.4%, which increased
their salary to $141,300 from $136,700.71
Actions Related to the Scheduled Annual Adjustment for 2000
On July 14, 1999, several Members testified before the House Rules Committee seeking approval
to offer an amendment to H.R. 2490, the FY2000 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bil , that would block a pay increase for Members, while al owing an increase for

69 Sen. Paul Wellstone, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 146, September 19, 2000, pp. S
8739-S8741.
70 Ibid.
71 T he annual pay adjustment was determined by 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 of the
two preceding years, minus 0.5%. T he scheduled January 2000 adjustment of 3.4% was determined by taking the
percentage increase in the Index between the fourth quarter ending December 31, 1997 and the fourth quarter ending
December 31, 1998, which was 3.9%, and subtracting .5%.
Congressional Research Service

23

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

other federal employees. On July 15, the House agreed to the rule providing for consideration of
H.R. 2490. Special waiver language was needed in the rule to permit House consideration of an
amendment that would prohibit the scheduled January 2000 pay increase. In the absence of such
language, a pay amendment was not in order.
Although a subsequent appropriations bil , H.R. 3194, provided for a 0.38% across-the-board
rescission in discretionary budget authority for FY2000, H.R. 3194 did not contain language
reducing the pay of Members of Congress. H.R. 3194, the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations
Act, was signed into law on November 29, 1999 (P.L. 106-113).
Vote Summary
 07/15/99—The House agreed (276-147, vote #300) to order the previous
question on the rule (H.Res. 246) for consideration of H.R. 2490, the FY2000
Treasury and General Government Appropriations bil . H.Res. 246 was an open
rule that al owed any germane amendment; an amendment to prohibit the pay
adjustment, however, would not have been germane. By agreeing to order the
previous question, Members voted not to consider an amendment to permit a pay
raise prohibition amendment to be offered. Had the House not agreed to order the
previous question, Members could have offered an amendment to the rule related
to the pay adjustment. Under the terms of H.Res. 246, as adopted, an amendment
seeking to halt the pay raise was not in order. The vote to order the previous
question (and not al ow any amendment to the rule) was seen by some as a vote
to accept a pay adjustment.
Proposed Reduction in Member Pay Adjustment
On October 28, 1999, the House rejected a motion to recommit the conference report on an
appropriations bil , H.R. 3064, to instruct House managers to disagree with language in the report
reducing the scheduled 3.4% January 2000 Member pay adjustment by 0.97%. The conference
report on H.R. 3064, the FY2000 District of Columbia, Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations bil , also provided in separate language a government-
wide across-the-board rescission of 0.97% in discretionary budget authority for FY2000.
Although the House and Senate agreed to the conference report with the pay and discretionary
budget authority reduction provisions, H.R. 3064 was vetoed by the President on November 3,
1999.
 10/28/99—The House rejected (11-417, vote #548) a motion to recommit the
conference report on H.R. 3064, District of Columbia, Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bil , FY2000, with
instructions to House managers to disagree with pay language. Conference report
pay language reduced the scheduled 3.4% January 2000 Member pay adjustment
by 0.97% (H.Rept. 106-419, October 27, 1999, Division C (Rescissions and
Offsets), §1001(e)).
 10/28/99—The House agreed (218-211, vote #549) to the conference report on
H.R. 3064, which included language reducing the scheduled 3.4% January 2000
Member pay adjustment by 0.97%. H.R. 3064 was vetoed by the President on
November 3, 1999.
Congressional Research Service

24

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

1999
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1999, 3.1% pay adjustment. The salary for
Senators and Representatives remained $136,700.72
Actions on Annual Adjustment Scheduled for 1999
The conference version of H.R. 4104, the FY1999 Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations bil , with a pay increase prohibition, was incorporated in the FY1999
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-
277).
Vote Summary
 07/15/98—The House agreed (218-201, vote #284) to H.Res. 498, the rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 4104. The rule waived points of order against
language prohibiting a 1999 annual adjustment (§628 of the bil ) for failure to
comply with Rule XXI, Clause 2. The clause prohibits language in an
appropriation bil that changes existing law. The effect of the rule was to ensure
that the pay prohibition would not be procedural y chal enged on the floor during
debate on H.R. 4104. This did not preclude an amendment from being offered on
the floor to chal enge the prohibition.
 07/16/98—The House rejected (79-342, vote #289) an amendment that sought to
strike Section 628 of H.R. 4104, which prohibited the January 1999 annual pay
adjustment.
 07/16/98—The House passed (218-203, vote #293) H.R. 4104 with the pay
prohibition language.
 07/28/98—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment to S. 2312, the Senate
version of the FY1999 Treasury Bil , which made the pay prohibition language in
S. 2312 the same wording as the pay prohibition language in H.R. 4104. S. 2312,
as reported (S.Rept. 105-251), contained language prohibiting the January 1999
pay adjustment.
 09/03/98—The Senate passed (91-5, vote #260) H.R. 4104, amended, in lieu of
S. 2312, with the pay prohibition language.
 10/01/98—The House failed to agree (106-294, vote #476) to H.Res. 563, the
rule waiving points of order against consideration of the conference report on
H.R. 4104 (H.Rept. 105-592). As a result, the report was recommitted to
conference. The pay prohibition language was not discussed during consideration
of the rule.
 10/07/98—The House agreed (290-137, vote #494) to the conference report on
H.R. 4104, with the pay prohibition language (H.Rept. 105-790). The Senate

72 T he annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula based on the Employment Cost Index (the private industry,
wages and salaries component), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending December 31 for the
two years prior, minus .5%. T he scheduled January 1999 adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase
in the Index between the quarters October-December 1996 and October-December 1997, which was 3.9%, and
subtracting .5%, giving a 3.4% increase. However, by law, Members m ay not receive an annual adjustment which is a
greater percentage increase than the percentage increase of the base pay of GS employees (P.L. 103-356, 108 Stat.
3410, Oct ober 13, 1994). Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added. Since General Schedule employees were
limited to a 3.1% base pay increase in January 1999, Members were limited to 3.1%.
Congressional Research Service

25

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

failed to reach agreement on adoption of the report. Conference report language
was incorporated in H.R. 4328, the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bil .
 10/20/98—The House agreed (333-95, vote #538) to the conference report
accompanying H.R. 4328, the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations bil , with the pay prohibition language.
 10/21/98—The Senate agreed (65-29, vote #314) to the conference report
accompanying H.R. 4328, with the pay prohibition. H.R. 4328 was signed into
law as P.L. 105-277, on October 21, 1998.
1998
Members received the scheduled January 1, 1998, annual pay adjustment of 2.3%, increasing
their salary from $133,600 to $136,700.73
Actions on Annual Adjustment Scheduled for 1998
On July 17, 1997, the Senate adopted an amendment to prohibit the scheduled adjustment. The
amendment was offered to S. 1023, the FY1998 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bil . The amendment did not apply to other top-level federal officials.
The House version of the Treasury bil was silent on the issue. The House version, H.R. 2378,
was passed on September 17, 1997. Later that day, the Senate amended H.R. 2378 to include the
language of its version in the nature of a substitute and passed the bil . The bil , with the pay
prohibition, was then sent to the House.
On September 24, 1997, the House disagreed with the Senate substitute amendment and agreed to
a conference. After lengthy discussion on the merits of a Member pay adjustment, the House
voted to order the previous question on a pending motion to instruct conferees on an issue
unrelated to the pay issue. Because the House permits only one motion to instruct conferees, and
ordering the previous question precludes amendment to the pending question, this vote in effect
foreclosed the possibility of instructing conferees to omit the pay adjustment from the conference
report.
As a result of this House vote, H.R. 2378 was sent to conference by the House without
instructions to prohibit the pay adjustment. Subsequently, the Senate language denying the
increase was dropped in conference, and H.R. 2378 was signed into P.L. 105-61 on October 10,
1997, without the pay prohibition language.
Vote Summary
 07/17/97—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment prohibiting the
scheduled January 1, 1998, annual adjustment for Members of Congress. The
amendment was offered to S. 1023, the FY1998 Treasury and General
Government Appropriations bil .

73 T he 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 of the
two preceding years, minus .5%. T he scheduled adjustment of 2.9% was determined by takin g the percentage increase
in the Index between the quarters October-December 1995 and October-December 1996 which was 3.4% and
subtracting .5%. However, Members were scheduled to receive a lesser adjustment of 2.3% because by law they may
not receive an annual adjustment which is a greater percentage increase than the percentage increase of the base pay of
GS employees. T he base pay increase for the GS was limited to 2.3% by the President in August 1997.
Congressional Research Service

26

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

 07/22/97—The Senate passed (99-0, vote 191) S. 1023 with the provision
prohibiting the annual adjustment for Members of Congress.
 09/17/97—The Senate passed (voice vote) the House version of the FY1998
Treasury bil , H.R. 2378, after striking al after the enacting clause and
substituting the language of S. 1023 as amended to include the pay prohibition.
 09/24/97—The House voted (229-199, vote 435) to order the previous question
on a pending motion to instruct conferees on an issue unrelated to the pay issue.
Because the House permits only one motion to instruct conferees, and because
ordering the previous question precludes amendment to the pending question,
this vote in effect foreclosed the possibility of instructing conferees to omit the
pay adjustment from the conference report. As a result of this House vote, H.R.
2378 was sent to conference by the House without instructions to prohibit the pay
adjustment. Conferees dropped the Senate pay amendment and both houses
agreed to the conference report on September 24, 1997. H.R. 2378 was signed
into P.L. 105-61 on October 10, 1997.
1997
Members did not receive the annual pay adjustment of 2.3% scheduled for January 1, 1997, as a
consequence of the votes taken in 1996. The salary of Members remained $133,600.
Actions on Annual Adjustment Scheduled for 1997
The conference version of H.R. 3756 (the FY1997 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bil ), with a pay adjustment prohibition, was incorporated into the FY1997
Omnibus Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 3610, P.L. 104-208).
Vote Summary
 07/16/96—The House agreed (352-67, vote #317) to a floor amendment to H.R.
3756 prohibiting the 2.3% Member pay increase scheduled to take effect January
1, 1997. H.R. 3756 was the FY1997 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bil .
 07/17/96—The House passed (215-207, vote #323) H.R. 3756 with the provision
prohibiting the annual adjustment for Members.
 09/10/96—After H.R. 3756 was reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, with amendments (S.Rept. 104-330), and without the House-
passed pay prohibition provision, the Senate agreed by voice vote to a floor
amendment (S.Amdt. 5208) prohibiting the annual pay adjustment. By
unanimous consent, the Senate placed H.R. 3756 back on the calendar on
September 12, 1996.
 09/28/96—The House agreed (370-37, vote #455) to the conference report on
H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Continuing Appropriations bil , FY1997, which
contained a pay freeze provision.
 09/30/96—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to the conference on H.R. 3610, the
Omnibus Continuing Appropriations bil , FY1997, which contained a pay freeze
provision. H.R. 3610 was enacted (P.L. 104-208), on September 30, 1996.
Congressional Research Service

27

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

1996
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1996, annual 2.3% adjustment as a
consequence of the votes taken in 1995. The salary of Members remained $133,600.
Actions on Annual Adjustment Scheduled for 1996
P.L. 104-52, the FY1996 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, included
language prohibiting the adjustment.
Vote Summary
 08/05/95—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to an amendment to H.R. 2020
prohibiting the Member pay adjustment of 2.3% scheduled to take effect in
January 1996. The amendment did not apply to other top-level federal officials
scheduled to receive the same 2.3% adjustment in January 1996.
 08/05/95—The Senate passed (voice vote) H.R. 2020 with the pay prohibition
provision agreed to earlier in the day.
 09/08/95—The House approved (387-31, vote #648) a motion to instruct House
conferees on H.R. 2020 to agree to the Senate amendment prohibiting the annual
2.3% adjustment scheduled in January 1996 for Members. The House disagreed
to other Senate amendments and agreed to a conference.
 11/15/95—The House agreed (374-52, vote #797) to the conference on H.R.
2020 with a prohibition of the scheduled January 1996 pay increase.
 11/15/95—The Senate agreed (63-35, vote #576) to the conference on H.R. 2020
with a prohibition of the scheduled January 1996 Member pay increase. H.R.
2020 was signed into P.L. 104-52 on November 19, 1995.
1995
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1995, annual 2.6% adjustment as a
consequence of the votes taken in 1994. The salary of Members remained $133,600.
Actions on Annual Adjustment Scheduled for 1995
P.L. 103-329, the FY1995 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, included
language prohibiting the adjustment.
Vote Summary
 06/15/94—The House passed (276-139, vote #247) H.R. 4539 with a provision
denying the scheduled January 1, 1995, 2.6% annual adjustment. The pay
provision had been included in the bil reported by the House Appropriations
Committee (H.Rept. 103-534).
 09/27/94—The House agreed (360-53, vote #441) to the conference report on
H.R. 4539 with the provision denying the annual adjustment.
 09/28/94—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to the conference report on H.R. 4539
with the provision denying the annual adjustment. H.R. 4539 was signed into law
(P.L. 103-329) on September 30, 1994.
Congressional Research Service

28

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Pay Freeze Proposal
During consideration of the budget resolution, a seven-year pay freeze was proposed but not
adopted.
 05/25/95—The Senate passed a substitute amendment for the House-passed
version of the FY1996 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 67, 57-42, vote #232). The
Senate version of the resolution (S.Con.Res. 13), which was reported on May 15,
1995, and considered in the Senate from May 19 until May 25, assumed a freeze
on Member pay at $133,600 for seven years (S.Rept. 104-82). The conference
agreement (H.Rept. 104-159) did not contain this language.
Pay of Members of Congress During a Federal Government Shutdown
Legislation to prevent Member pay during a federal shutdown was considered but not enacted.
 09/22/95—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment to the Senate version
of the District of Columbia appropriations bil , FY1996 (S. 1244) providing that
Members not be paid during a government shutdown, nor receive retroactive pay.
The provision was also included in the Senate substitute amendment to H.R.
2546, the House version of the District of Columbia appropriations bil , on
November 2, 1995. The provision was deleted in the conference report from
January 31, 1996 (H.Rept. 104-455). Members were paid during the November
14-19, 1995, and December 16, 1995-January 5, 1996, shutdowns because their
pay is automatical y funded in a permanent appropriation.
 10/27/1995—The Senate accepted an amendment (S.Amdt. 3013) to S. 1357, the
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. This amendment would prohibit
pay for Members of Congress and the President during a lapse in appropriations.
 11/28/1995—The Senate accepted an amendment (S.Amdt. 3065) to S. 1396, the
Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. The language was
included in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2539, the House version of this bil ,
but not in the conference report.
 Numerous measures were introduced during the 104th Congress to prevent pay
for Members of Congress in the event of a shutdown (H.R. 2281, H.R. 2639,
H.R. 2658, H.R. 2671, H.R. 2373, H.R. 2855, H.R. 2828, H.R. 2882, S. 1220, S.
1428, S. 1480, and H.Con.Res. 113). These bil s were referred to committee, but
no further action was taken.
1994
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1994, 2.1% adjustment as a consequence of
votes taken in 1993 to prohibit the annual adjustment. The salary of Members remained
$133,600.
Actions on Annual Adjustment Scheduled for 1994
Votes to prohibit the scheduled January 1, 1994, annual adjustment were taken during
consideration of the Senate Committee Funding Resolution (S.Res. 71) and the Unemployment
Compensation Act (S. 382, H.R. 920).
Congressional Research Service

29

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Vote Summary
 02/24/93—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment to the Senate
Committee Funding Resolution (S.Res. 71) expressing the sense of the Senate
that Senators’ pay be frozen for 11 months in calendar year 1994. This
nonbinding language in effect denied the scheduled 2.1% January 1994 annual
pay adjustment for Senators.
 02/24/93—The Senate adopted (98-0, vote #16) an amendment to the previous
amendment (see above) changing the pay freeze period to one year.
 02/25/93—The Senate agreed (94-2, vote #20) to S.Res. 71 with the nonbinding
amendment freezing Senators’ pay for one year in calendar year 1994.
 03/03/93—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment to S. 382, the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, denying the scheduled 2.1%
adjustment for Members on January 1, 1994.
 03/03/93—The Senate agreed (58-41, vote #23) to a motion to table an
amendment to S. 382 prohibiting adjustments for all federal employees.
 03/03/93—The Senate passed (66-33, vote #24) H.R. 920, the House version of
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, with a provision denying the
scheduled 2.1% adjustment for Members on January 1, 1994.74
 03/04/93—The House agreed (403-0, vote #54) to a motion to agree to the Senate
pay amendment to H.R. 920. H.R. 920 was signed into law (P.L. 103-6, 107 Stat.
35, March 4, 1993, §7).
Pay Reduction Proposal
The Senate considered two pay-related amendments to S. 1935, the Congressional Gifts Reform
bil . The bil passed the Senate, but no further action was taken.
 05/05/94—The Senate rejected an amendment (S.Amdt. 1680) to S. 1935
requiring Member pay to be reduced immediately by 15% (34-59, vote #103).
 05/06/94—An amendment (S.Amdt. 1682) stating, “It is the sense of the Senate
that any Member who voted May 5, 1994, to amend S. 1935 to reduce the pay of
Members of the Senate by 15 percent should return to the U.S. Treasury the full
amount of any pay that would not have been received had the amendment been
enacted into law and that such Members should provide evidence to the public on
an annual basis that they have done so,” was withdrawn.
1993
On January 1, 1993, Members received an annual adjustment of 3.2%, increasing pay from
$129,500 to $133,600. No votes were held in 1992 to prohibit the adjustment.
1992
Pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Representatives and Senators received an annual
adjustment of 3.5% on January 1, 1992, increasing their pay from $125,100 to $129,500. No
votes were held in 1991 to deny the scheduled adjustment.

74 Before passage, the Senate substituted the language of S. 382, as amended.
Congressional Research Service

30

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

Recognition of Ratification of Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution
The House and Senate both recognized ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the
Constitution, which provides that a pay adjustment for Members of Congress shal not take effect
until an intervening election has occurred.75
 05/20/92—The House adopted (414-3, vote #131) H.Con.Res. 320, recognizing
ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment.
 05/20/92—The Senate adopted S.Con.Res. 120 (99-0, vote #99), recognizing
adoption of the amendment and S.Res. 298 (99-0, vote #100), also recognizing
the amendment’s adoption.
1991
Representatives and Senators received a 3.6% pay increase in January 1991 pursuant to the
annual adjustment procedure established in Section 704 of the Ethics Reform Act (P.L. 101-194).
Pursuant to Section 703 of the Ethics Reform Act, Representatives’ pay was also adjusted by
25%. Representatives’ pay increased from $96,600 to $125,100,76 and Senators’ pay increased
from $98,400 to $101,900.
Subsequently, the Senate voted to increase its pay by 22.8% to equal the salary of Representatives
(from $101,900 to $125,100), in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bil , FY1992 (H.R. 2506).
The House agreed to this action.
Vote Summary
 07/17/91—The Senate adopted (53-45, vote #133) an amendment to H.R. 2506
increasing Senators’ pay to equal Representatives’ pay; banning honoraria for
Senators; and limiting their outside earned income to 15% of salary.
 07/17/91—The Senate passed (voice vote) H.R. 2506 with the pay provision.
 07/31/91—The House agreed (voice vote) to the conference report on H.R. 2506
with Senate pay provision.
 08/02/91—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to the conference report on H.R. 2506
with the pay provision. H.R. 2506 was signed into law (P.L. 102-90) August 14,
1991. The pay increase became effective the same day.

75 T he amendment had been certified officially on May 18, 1992, by the U.S. Archivist and published in the Federal
Register on May 19, 1992. T he pay amendment was among five amendments proposed to the U.S. Constitution and
submitted to the States along with the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789. T hese proposed amendments did not
contain ratification deadlines. T he five amendments had failed to be approved by the necessary three-fourths of the
States as provided by Article V of the Constitution, until the pay amendment was finally ratified in 1992.
76 Upon receipt of the salary increase, Representatives were prohibited from accepting honoraria and were limited to
15% of salary in other forms of outside earned income, effective January 1, 1991. Although not providing Senators
with an increase comparable to the 25% increase for Representatives, the Ethics Reform Act decreased permissible
1990 honoraria received by Senators from the 1989 limit of 40% to 27% of salary. Further, the act stipulated that future
Senate pay raises be accompanied by a dollar-for-dollar decrease in permissible honoraria until the honoraria limit was
less than or equal to 1% of a Senator’s salary, which would then result in prohibiting the acceptance of honoraria.
Congressional Research Service

31

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

1990
Section 702 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194) restored the previously denied
January 1989 and 1990 annual adjustments (4.1% and 3.6%), compounded, for Representatives.
Representatives’ pay was increased 7.9%, from $89,500 to $96,600, effective February 1, 1990.
Section 1101 of the Ethics Reform Act also adjusted Senators’ pay. Effective February 1, 1990,
pay was increased by 9.9%, from $89,500 to $98,400. This increase represented restoration of the
previously denied 1988, 1989, and 1990 adjustments (2.0%, 4.1%, and 3.6%), compounded.
Later in 1990, the Senate voted to reduce Member pay in an amendment to S. 110, the Family
Planning Amendments bil , although a cloture motion subsequently failed.
Vote Summary
 09/26/90—The Senate adopted (S.Amdt. 2884, 96-1, vote #254) a Member pay
amendment to the substitute amendment reported by the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources to S. 110. The amendment would have reduced Member
salary by an amount corresponding to the percentage reduction of pay of federal
employees who were furloughed or otherwise had their pay reduced resulting
from a sequestration order.77
 09/26/90—The Senate rejected (50-46, vote #256) a motion to invoke cloture on
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources substitute amendment, which
contained the Member pay provision. Subsequently, S. 110 was pulled from
further consideration on the Senate floor by its sponsor.

Author Information

Ida A. Brudnick

Specialist on the Congress

Acknowledgments
A previous version of this report was written by Paul E. Dwyer, formerly a Specialist in American National
Government at CRS, who has since retired.

77 A sequestration order is a cancellation of part of a federal agency’s budget, thereby reducing funds available for
expenditure by an agency. Sequestration is determined by the Office of Management and Budget under the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Congressional Research Service

32

Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2021

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
97-615 · VERSION 68 · UPDATED
33