Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2009







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 6, authorizes compensation for Members of Congress
“ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” Throughout American
history, Congress has relied on three different methods in adjusting salaries for Members. Stand-
alone legislation, the most frequently used method, 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 automatically unless
disapproved by Congress, was established in 1975. From 1975-1989, these annual adjustments
were based on the rate of annual comparability increases given to the General Schedule 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.
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
six times (scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2007).
In January 2009, Members received a 2.8% pay adjustment under the formula established by the
Ethics Reform Act, increasing their salary to $174,000. Members received a 2.5% adjustment in
pay in January 2008, resulting in a salary of $169,300. According to the formula, Members
originally were scheduled to receive a 2.7% annual adjustment, increasing their salary to
$169,700. This figure was automatically revised downward to 2.5% to match the increase in base
pay given employees under the General Schedule. By law, Members may not receive an increase
greater than the increase in the base pay of GS employees.
Members previously received a pay adjustment in January 2006, when they received a 1.9%
annual adjustment based on the formula under the annual adjustment procedure, increasing their
salary to $165,200 per annum. According to the formula, Members originally were scheduled to
receive a 2.0% annual adjustment in January 2007, increasing their salary to $168,500. This
figure was automatically revised downward to 1.7% to match GS base pay. Members voted to
delay and then prohibit a pay adjustment for 2007. Pay in 2007 remained $165,200.
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. This commission was preceded by
the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries. Although the Citizen’s
Commission was to have convened in 1993, it did not and has not met since then. There is no
current plan to use the procedure.






Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Most Recent Developments.............................................................................................................1
January 2009 Member Pay Increase of 2.8%............................................................................1
January 2008 Member Pay Increase of 2.5%............................................................................2
January 2007 Member Pay Increase Denied.............................................................................3
January 2006 Member Pay Increase..........................................................................................4
January 2005 Member Pay Increase..........................................................................................5
Source of Member Pay Appropriations...........................................................................................7
Application of the 27th Amendment to the Annual Adjustments.....................................................7
Congressional Votes........................................................................................................................8
1990 ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Stand-Alone Adjustments...................................................................................................8
Annual Adjustments............................................................................................................8
1991 ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Stand-Alone Adjustments...................................................................................................9
Annual Adjustment.............................................................................................................9
1992 ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................10 th
Recognition of Ratification of 27 Amendment to the Constitution................................10
1993 ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................10
1994 .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Stand-Alone Adjustment....................................................................................................11
Annual Adjustment............................................................................................................11
1995 ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Stand-Alone Adjustment...................................................................................................12
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................12
Pay of Members During a Federal Government Shutdown..............................................12
1996 ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................13
1997 ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................13
1998 ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................15
1999 ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................16
Proposed 0.97% Reduction in Member Pay.....................................................................17
2000 ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................17
2001 ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................19
2002 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................20
2003 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................21

2004.........................................................................................................................................22





Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................22
2005 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................23
2006 ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................24
2007 ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................25
2008 ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................26
2009 ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Annual Adjustment...........................................................................................................26
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................27
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 27






The automatic annual adjustment for Members of Congress is determined by a formula using a 1
component of the Employment Cost Index, which measures rate of change in private sector pay.
The adjustment automatically 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 Members are paid the lower rate. In any case, Members may 2
not receive an annual pay adjustment greater than 5%.
This adjustment formula was established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.3 Votes on the annual
adjustments since 1990 are contained in this report.

Under the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act, Members received a pay adjustment in 4
January 2009 of 2.8%, increasing salaries to $174,000. As noted above, Member pay adjustments 5
may not exceed the annual base pay adjustment of GS employees. The two pay adjustments may
differ because they are based on changes in different quarters of the Employment Cost Index
(ECI) or due to actions of Congress and the President. The 2.8% adjustment for Members, 6
however, was less than the projected 2009 base GS adjustment of 2.9%. The GS rate became

1 This report focuses on each of the actions taken by Congress since the implementation of the Ethics Reform Act of
1989. CRS Report 97-1011, Salaries of Members of Congress: A List of Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2008,
by Ida A. Brudnick, contains specific dollar amounts and statutory authority for each pay adjustment since 1789. Both
reports examine the overall adjustment process.
2 P.L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410, Oct. 13, 1994.
3 §704(a)(2)(B) of P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1769, Nov. 30, 1989.
4 The annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private industry
wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending December
31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 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 IndexDecember 2007 (Washington:
January 31, 2008), pp. 2, 15.
5 2 U.S.C. 31(2)(B).
6 The base pay projection is based upon a number of events. Under the formula established in the Federal Employees
Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA, P.L. 101-509, Nov. 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%. This 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 2007, 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% for federal civilian employees, including those
covered by the General Schedule (P.L. 110-329, Division A, §142(a), Sept. 30, 2008). For additional information on
the GS adjustments, see CRS Report RL34463, Federal White-Collar Pay: FY2009 Salary Adjustments, by Barbara L.
Schwemle.





final on December 18, 2008, when President Bush issued an Executive Order adjusting rates of 7
pay.
Under the annual pay adjustment procedure, Members originally were scheduled to receive a

2.7% increase in January 2008, based upon the formula set forth in the Ethics Reform Act of 8


1989. 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 General Schedule (GS) employees.
The scheduled January 2008 across-the-board increase in the base pay of GS employees under the 9
annual adjustment formula was 2.5%. A scheduled GS annual pay increase may be altered only 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% 10
adjustment (providing an average 3.0% overall adjustment). 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 allocating this overall 11
percentage between base and locality pay on January 4, 2008. 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.
On June 27, 2007, the House took action potentially 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 bill. 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 bill did not contain Member pay language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to
accept or reject a Member pay increase.

7 U.S. President (Bush),Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay, Executive Order 13483, Federal Register, vol. 73,
December 23, 2008, pp. 78587-78598.
8 The annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private industry
wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending December
31 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 2.7% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in
the Index between the quarters ending December 2005 and December 2006, which was 3.2%, and subtracting 0.5%.
9 The 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 the quarter ending September
30 for the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 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%.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33732, Federal White-Collar Pay: FY2008 Salary Adjustments, by
Barbara L. Schwemle.
10 U.S. President (Bush), “Text 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: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/
20071022-10.html, last visited on January 8, 2008.
11 U.S. President (Bush),Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay, Executive Order 13454, issued Jan. 4, 2008, Federal
Register, Jan. 8, 2008, vol. 73, pp. 1479—1492.





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 bill 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 12
increase if it was defeated.
Under the annual adjustment procedure, Members had originally been scheduled to receive a 13

2.0% salary increase, scheduled to take effect in January 2007. Based on a formula required 14


under the annual comparability pay procedure, General Schedule (GS) employees were 15
authorized to receive a base pay increase of 1.7% in January 2007. 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, 16
authorizing the average 2.2% pay adjustment. Members were automatically limited to a 1.7%
increase, which could have increased salaries to $168,000.
A series of votes in 2006 and 2007 prevented the 1.7% increase from taking effect. The
continuing resolution signed into law on December 8, 2006, postponed any increase until 17
February 16, 2007. The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, which became 18
law on February 15, 2007, further prevented the scheduled 2007 adjustment from taking effect.
Additionally, on March 8, 2006, the Senate voted (voice vote) to adopt an amendment (S.Amdt.
2934) requiring that Members of Congress who vote for an amendment (or against the tabling of
an amendment) to deny Members the annual comparability adjustment, are not to receive the
increase, if Congress allows the increase to take effect. This amendment was offered during 19
consideration of S. 2349, the 527 Reform Act of 2006.

12 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, Dec. 26, 2007).
13 The annual Member pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private
industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending
December 31 of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 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%.
14 The 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 the quarter ending September
30 of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 1.7% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in
the Index between the quarters ending September 2004 and September 2005, which was 2.2%, and subtracting 0.5%.
15 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost IndexSeptember 2005 (Washington: Oct.
28, 2005), pp. 2, 14.
16 U.S. President (Bush), “Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate,” Nov. 30, 2006; U.S. President (Bush), “Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay, Executive
Order 13420, Federal Register, vol. 71, Dec. 26, 2006, pp. 77569-77580.
17 P.L. 109-383, 120 Stat. 2679, Dec. 9, 2006.
18 P.L. 110-5, 121 Stat. 8, Feb. 15, 2007.
19 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, March 8, 2006, p. S1871.





One earlier House vote potentially relating to the January 2007 Member pay increase was taken
in 2006. On June 13, 2006, 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 bill. The House bill did not contain Member pay language, and the House did not
vote on an amendment to accept or reject a Member pay increase.
By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from
being offered. The vote brought the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the rule could 20
have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill prohibiting a pay increase.
Under the terms of H.Res. 865, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in
order. During floor debate, at least one Member indicated his intention to offer an amendment to
the rule to prohibit the increase, and spoke against the previous question so that his amendment 21
could receive a waiver to be considered.
Under the annual adjustment procedure, Members were scheduled to receive an increase of 1.9% 22
in January 2006. This increase became official when President Bush issued an executive order
on December 22, 2005, containing his allocation of a 3.1% pay increase for GS federal
employees, 2.1% for base pay and an average of 1.0% for locality pay. 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.
The 3.1% GS pay increase had been approved earlier by Congress as a provision in the FY2006
Transportation and Treasury 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.
During 2005, the House took action potentially relating to the January 2006 Member pay
increase, and the Senate voted against it.
On June 28, 2005, the House held a vote that, although not a direct vote to modify or deny the
increase, was depicted in some press accounts as a vote to accept a Member pay increase. The
House vote was held during consideration of the rule on H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation
and Treasury Appropriation bill. H.R. 3058, as brought to the floor, did not contain Member pay
language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to accept or reject a Member pay
increase.

20 Although H.Res. 865 was an open rule that allowed any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay
adjustment would not have been germane.
21 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, June 13, 2006, pp. H3820-H3821.
22 The annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private industry wages
and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending December 31 of
the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 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%.





Action taken by the House on the rule, vote #327 (263-152), however, was considered by some to
be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect of not allowing Members to offer and 23
consider nongermane amendments to the bill. They argued that if nongermane amendments had
been allowed, one could have been offered to modify or deny the scheduled 1.9% Member pay
increase. This action, some believed, meant that most Members voted for the raise.
A few Members, however, expressed interest in introducing other nongermane amendments on
entirely different issues. As a consequence, other Members believe that it cannot be said with any
degree of certainty that Members would have voted to accept a pay increase had they had been
given an opportunity.
Implementation of the 2006 Member pay increase was in question for a few months because of a
move by the Senate to deny the increase. The Senate agreed on October 18, 2005, to an
amendment (# 2062), by a vote of 92 to 6 (vote # 256), offered by Senator Jon Kyl to forgo the 24
adjustment. The amendment was offered during consideration of H.R. 3058, the FY2006
Transportation and Treasury appropriations bill, and did not apply to top-level executive and
judicial branch officials. The House version of the bill did not include this provision. Conferees
struck the Senate provision from the bill.
Under the annual adjustment procedure, Members were scheduled to receive an increase of 2.5% 25
in January 2005. This increase became official when President Bush issued an executive order
on December 30, 2004, containing his allocation of a 3.5% pay increase for GS federal
employees—2.5% for base pay and 1.0% for locality pay. The 3.5% increase had been approved
earlier by Congress as a provision in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into
P.L. 108-447 on December 8, 2004. Congress did not specify an allocation between base and
locality pay.
Members could have received an increase less than 2.5% if the GS base pay had been lower than
2.5%. By law, Members are limited to an increase no greater than that of the base pay of GS
employees (P.L. 103-356). The base pay component of the GS annual pay adjustment had to be
2.5% because that is what annual adjustment law required. The percentage amount could have
been changed if the President had issued an alternative pay plan providing for a base pay increase

23 On June 28, 2005, the House agreed to order the previous question on the rule (H.Res. 342) providing for
consideration of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill. By ordering the previous
question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an
immediate vote. An amendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 342 was an open rule that allowed any germane amendment, an
amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question,
Members voted not to consider an amendment to permit a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed
to a motion to order the previous question, a Member could have offered an amendment to the rule permitting a pay
raise vote in some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 342, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was
not in order.
24 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, no. 132, Oct. 18, 2005, pp. S11458-60.
25 The annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private industry wages
and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending December 31 of
the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 2.5% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the
Index between the quarters ending December 2002 and December 2003, which was 3.0%, and subtracting 0.5%.





different from the legally required 2.5% increase. His plan specifying such a change had to be
sent to Congress by November 30, 2004.
The President did issue an alternative plan to Congress on November 30, 2004, but it did not
change the 2.5% base pay increase. He submitted an alternative plan solely because of a locality
pay issue. Although his plan did not contain a locality pay increase recommendation, the
President needed to issue an alternative plan because otherwise a higher locality pay percentage
would have automatically become effective. The higher locality pay percentage was required by
law and could have been changed only through an alternative plan and executive order.
The President’s plan of November 30, however, assured that Members would receive their
scheduled 2.5% annual adjustment because of the link between Member pay and GS base pay.
Members do not receive locality pay.
The President did not address the pending 3.5% increase (for base and locality pay combined) in
his November 30 plan because he had not yet received the legislation containing the increase
(H.R. 4818). He subsequently received and signed H.R. 4818 into law on December 8 (P.L. 108-

447). The President then was required to issue an executive order officially allocating the 3.5%


between base pay and locality pay. As a consequence of the President’s action, the base pay
increase was 2.5%, leaving 1% for locality pay.
In late fall of 2004, some press accounts led constituents to believe that Members voted to receive
a 3.5% increase in January 2005. This belief reflected a confusion with language approved in 26
H.R. 4818 providing for a 3.5% GS combined base and locality pay adjustment.
One vote potentially relating to the January 2005 Member pay increase was taken in 2004. On
September 21, the House held a vote that although not a direct vote to modify or deny the
increase was depicted in some press accounts as a vote to accept a Member pay increase.
The House vote was held during consideration of the rule on H.R. 5025, the FY2005
Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bill. H.R. 5025, as brought to the floor, did not contain
Member pay language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to accept or reject a Member
pay increase. Action taken by the House on vote #451 (235-170), however, is considered by some
to be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect of not allowing Members to offer and 27
consider nongermane amendments to the bill. They argue that if nongermane amendments had

26 Provision for a 3.5% increase is contained in the House version of the FY2005 transportation, treasury, postal
service, executive office, general government and related agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 5025, reported July 22,
2004 (H.Rept. 108-671) and passed September 22, 2004). The Senate Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and
General Government, Senate Committee on Appropriations, approved a 3.5% GS pay increase during markup of its
version of the FY2005 bill (S. 2806) on September 7.
27 On September 14, 2004, the House agreed to order the previous question on the rule H.Res. 770 providing for
consideration of H.R. 5025, the FY2005 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill. By ordering the previous
question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an
immediate vote. An amendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 770was an open rule that allowed any germane amendment, an amendment
to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, Members
voted not to consider an amendment to permit a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed to a
motion to order the previous question, a Member could have offered an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise
(continued...)





been allowed, one could have been offered to modify or deny the scheduled 2.2% Member pay
increase. This action, some believe, means that most Members voted for the raise.
It is important to note that a few Members expressed interest in introducing other nongermane
amendments on entirely different issues. As a consequence, other Members believe that it cannot
be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have voted to accept a pay increase had
they had been given an opportunity.

Some news editorials imply that the annual appropriations bill funding the U.S. Treasury—
currently the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill—contains funds for
the annual pay adjustment for federal employees, including Members. This bill, however, only
contains funds for the salaries of those employees on the payrolls of the agencies funded in the
bill. There are no provisions for funding the salaries of Members in the Financial Services bill.
Member salaries are funded in a permanent appropriations account of the legislative branch in the 28
Federal Budget.
Use of this appropriations bill as a vehicle to prohibit the annual pay adjustments for Members
developed by custom. A prohibition on Member pay could be offered to any bill, or be introduced
as a separate bill.


The 27th 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 29
Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”
The U.S. District and Appeals Courts determined in 1992 and 1994, respectively, that the
Amendment does not apply to the automatic annual adjustments for Members established by the 30
1989 Ethics Act, since Congress is considered to already have voted on future adjustments when
the automatic mechanism was established.

(...continued)
vote in some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 770, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in
order.
28 P.L. 97-51; 95 Stat. 966; Sept. 11, 1981.
29 U.S. Constitution, amend. 27.
30 See 809 F.Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1992) and 30 F.3d 156 (D.C.Cir. 1994).






Representatives’ pay was increased 7.9%, from $89,500 to $96,600, effective February 1, 1990, 31
pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The act restored the previously denied January 1989
and 1990 annual adjustments (4.1% and 3.6%), compounded. There were no votes regarding this
adjustment.
The Ethics 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%, 4.1%, and 3.6%), compounded. There were no votes
regarding this adjustment.
Later in 1990, the Senate voted to reduce Member pay in an amendment to S. 110, the Family
Planning Amendments bill. The House took no action. Vote summaries of Senate action follow:
• 09/26/90—The Senate adopted (96-1, vote #254) a Member pay amendment to
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources substitute amendment to S. 110.
The amendment reduced Member salary by an amount corresponding to the
percentage reduction of pay of federal employees who were furloughed or 32
otherwise had their pay reduced resulting from a sequestration order.
• 09/26/90—The Senate rejected (50-46, vote #256) a motion to invoke cloture
(limit debate) on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources substitute
amendment, which had been amended to reduce Member pay (vote #254 above).
A three-fifths majority vote (60 Senators) is required to invoke cloture.
Subsequently, S. 110 was pulled from further consideration on the Senate floor
by its sponsor.
Members did not receive the adjustment scheduled for January 1, 1990.33 No votes were held in

1990 to prohibit the 3.6% adjustment scheduled for January 1, 1991.



31 Ethics Reform Act of 1989, P.L. 101-194, 103 Stat. 1716, Nov. 30, 1989.
32 A sequestration order is a cancellation of part of a federal agencys 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.
33 In the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, Congress prohibited the annual adjustment scheduled for January 1, 1990.





Representatives received a 29.5% increase, effective January 1, 1991, reflecting a 25% increase
pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and a 3.6% annual adjustment increase, compounded 34
(from $96,600 to $125,100). No votes were taken prohibiting or altering either adjustment.
Subsequently, the Senate voted to increase its pay by 22.8% to the same salary as that of
Representatives ($125,100), in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, FY1992 (H.R. 2506).
The House agreed to this action.
• 07/17/91—The Senate adopted (53-45, vote #133) an amendment to H.R. 2506
increasing Senators’ pay from $101,900 to $125,100, the same as
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
adopted earlier (see Senate vote #133).
• 07/31/91—The House agreed (voice vote) to the conference report on H.R. 2506
with Senate pay provision (see Senate vote #133).
• 08/02/91—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to the conference report on H.R. 2506
with the pay provision (see Senate vote #133). H.R. 2506 was signed into law
(P.L. 102-90, 105 Stat. 450-451) August 14, 1991. The pay increase became
effective the same day.
Representatives and Senators received a 3.6% pay increase in January 1991. Senators’ pay
increased from $98,400 to $101,900, and Representatives’ pay increased from $96,600 to
$125,100. Representatives’ pay was adjusted by 3.6% and also by the 25% stand-alone
adjustment of January 1, 1991. No votes were held in 1991 on these adjustments.
No votes were held in 1991 to deny the scheduled January 1, 1992, annual adjustment of 3.5% for
Members.

34 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 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 one percent of a Senator’s salary, which would then result in prohibiting the acceptance of honoraria.





Under the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, Representatives and Senators received a second annual
adjustment of 3.5% on January 1, 1992, increasing their pay from $125,100 to $129,500. No
votes were held on this increase. No votes were held in 1992 to prohibit the scheduled January 1,

1993 annual adjustment of 3.2% for Members.



Both houses recognized ratification of the 27th Amendment, which provides that a pay increase 35
for Members of Congress shall not take effect until an intervening election has occurred.
• 05/20/92—The House adopted (414-3, vote #131) H.Con.Res. 320, recognizing th
ratification of the 27 Amendment.
• 05/20/92—The Senate adopted (99-0, vote #99) S.Con.Res. 120, recognizing
adoption of the amendment and adopted (99-0, vote #100) S.Res. 298, also
recognizing the amendment’s adoption.
On January 1, 1993, Members received an annual adjustment of 3.2%, increasing pay from
$129,500 to $133,600. No votes were held on this increase.
Votes were held in 1993 to prohibit the scheduled January 1, 1994, annual adjustment during
consideration of the Senate Committee Funding Resolution (S.Res. 71) and the Unemployment
Compensation Act (S. 382, H.R. 920).
Senate Committee Funding Resolution (S.Res. 71)
• 02/24/93—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment expressing the sense
of the Senate that Senators’ pay be frozen for eleven months in calendar year
1994. This non-binding 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.

35 The amendment had been certified officially on May 18, 1992, by the U.S. Archivist and published in the Federal
Register on May 19, 1992. The pay amendment was among five amendments proposed to the United States
Constitution and submitted to the States along with the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789. These proposed
amendments did not contain ratification deadlines. The 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.





• 02/25/93—The Senate agreed (94-2, vote #20) to S.Res. 71 with the non-binding
amendment freezing Senators’ pay for one year in calendar year 1994.
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act (S. 382; H.R. 920)
• 03/03/93—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment to
S. 382 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 with a provision 36
denying the scheduled 2.1% adjustment for Members on January 1, 1994.
• 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, Section 7).


The Senate rejected a move to reduce Member pay by 15% in S. 1935, the Congressional Gifts
Reform bill.
• 05/05/94—The Senate rejected (34-59, vote #103) an amendment to S. 1935
requiring Member pay to be reduced immediately by 15%.
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1994, 2.1% adjustment as a consequence of the
votes Congress had taken in 1993 to prohibit the annual adjustment.
Votes were taken to prohibit the scheduled January 1, 1995, 2.6% adjustment in floor debate on
H.R. 4539, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill, FY1995.
• 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 reported by the Appropriations Committee H.Rept. 103-

534(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, 108 Stat. 2424, September 30, 1994).

36 Before passage, the Senate substituted the language of S.382, as amended.





The Senate voted to freeze Member pay for seven years in the Budget Resolution, FY1996
(H.Con.Res. 67).
• 05/25/95—The Senate passed (57-42, vote #232) H.Con.Res. 67, with a freeze on
Member pay at the current level of $133,600 for seven years. The provision,
which was reported by the Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 104-82), was
dropped in conference.
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1995, annual 2.6% adjustment as a
consequence of the votes Congress had taken in 1994.
Congress prohibited the scheduled January 1, 1996, 2.3% adjustment in P.L. 104-52, Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, FY1996, H.R. 2020.
• 08/05/95—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to an amendment to H.R. 2020
prohibiting the annual pay adjustment of 2.3% scheduled to take effect in January
1996 for Members. 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.


The Senate voted to prohibit Member pay during a federal shutdown.
• 09/22/95—The Senate adopted (voice vote) an amendment to the Senate version
of the District of Columbia appropriations bill, FY1996 (S. 1244) providing that
Members not be paid during a government shutdown, nor receive retroactive pay.
The provision was deleted in conference. Members were paid during the
November 14-19, 1995, and December 16, 1995 - January 5, 1996, shutdowns
because their pay is automatically funded in a permanent appropriation. The
shutdowns occurred because Congress had neither passed regular appropriations





bills by the October 1, 1995, deadline, nor agreed to stop-gap funding in a
continuing resolution, nor agreed to lift the federal debt ceiling.
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1996, annual 2.3% adjustment as a
consequence of the votes Congress had taken in 1995.
Votes were taken by Congress to prohibit the scheduled January 1, 1997, annual 2.3% adjustment
during consideration of H.R. 3756, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill,
FY1997. The conference version of H.R. 3756, with a pay adjustment prohibition, was
incorporated into P.L. 104-208, the Omnibus Continuing Appropriations Act, FY1997 (H.R.

3610).


• 07/16/96—The House agreed (352-67, vote #317) to a floor amendment to H.R.
3756 prohibiting the 2.3% increase scheduled to take effect January 1, 1997, for
Members. H.R. 3756 was the FY1997 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bill.
• 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—The Senate agreed to a floor amendment to H.R. 3756 prohibiting the
annual pay adjustment of 2.3% for Members. H.R. 3756 was reported to the
Senate by the Committee on Appropriations on July 23, 1996 (S.Rept. 104-330)
without the House-passed pay prohibition provision. By unanimous consent, the
Senate placed H.R. 3756 back on the calendar on September 12, 1996.
Subsequently, conferees agreed to language prohibiting the scheduled January 1,

1997, 2.3% pay increase for Members.


• 09/28/96—The House agreed (370-37, vote #455) to the conference report on
H.R. 3610, Omnibus Continuing Appropriations bill, FY1997, with the
conference provisions of H.R. 3756, the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bill, FY1997. Included in the conference was the prohibition of
the 2.3% Member pay adjustment.
• 09/30/96—The Senate agreed (voice vote) to the conference on H.R. 3610, the
Omnibus Continuing Appropriations bill, FY1997, with the conference
provisions of H.R. 3756. Included in the conference report was the prohibition of
the scheduled 2.3% annual adjustment for Members of Congress. H.R. 3610 was
signed into P.L. 104-208, on September 30, 1996.
Members did not receive the annual pay adjustment of 2.3% scheduled for January 1, 1997, as a
consequence of the votes Congress had taken in 1996.





Although votes were taken in 1997 on the scheduled January 1, 1998, annual pay adjustment of 37
2.3%, Congress did not prohibit the adjustment. Salaries increased from $133,600 to $136,700
on January 1, 1998.
On July 17, 1997, the Senate adopted an amendment to prohibit the adjustment. The amendment
was offered to S. 1023, the FY1998 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill. The
amendment did not apply to other top-level federal officials.
The House version of the Treasury bill 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 bill. The bill, 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.


• 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 bill.
• 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 bill, H.R. 2378, after striking all 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

37 The 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%. The scheduled adjustment of 2.9% was determined by taking 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
General Schedule employees. The base pay increase for the General Schedule was limited to 2.3% by the President in
August 1997.





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.
Members received the scheduled January 1, 1998, annual pay adjustment of 2.3%, increasing
their salary from $133,600 to $136,700.
Congress prohibited the scheduled January 1, 1999, annual 3.1% adjustment 38 in H.R. 4104,
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill, FY1999. The conference
version of the bill, with the pay increase prohibition, was incorporated in P.L. 105-277, the 39
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY1999 (H.R. 4328).
• 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 (Section 628 of the bill) for
failure to comply with Rule XXI, Clause 2. The clause prohibits language in an
appropriation bill that changes existing law. The effect of the rule was to ensure
that the pay prohibition would not be procedurally challenged on the floor during
debate on H.R. 4104. This did not preclude an amendment from being offered on
the floor to challenge 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 Bill, which made the pay prohibition language in
S. 2312 the same wording as the pay prohibition language in H.R. 4104. S. 2312,

38 The 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%. The 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 may 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. 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%.
39 H.R. 4328 was the FY1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It became the
vehicle in conference for eight of the 13 regular appropriations bills, and other legislative matters, and was renamed the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, Oct. 21,
1998).





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. 105-294). 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
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 bill.
• 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 bill, 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
P.L. 105-277, on October 21, 1998.
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 1999, 3.1% pay adjustment.
Members did receive the scheduled January 1, 2000, annual pay adjustment of 3.4%, increasing 40
their salary to $141,300 from $136,700. On July 14, 1999, several Members testified before the
House Rules Committee seeking parliamentary approval to offer a legislative amendment to H.R.
2490, the FY2000 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill, that would block a pay
increase for Members, while letting it stand for all others. 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 out of order.
• 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 bill. H.Res. 246 was an open
rule that allowed any germane amendment; an amendment to prohibit the pay

40 The 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%. The 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%.





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, Rules Committee Democrats could have offered an
amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote in some form. Under the terms
of H.Res. 246, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in
order. In effect a vote to order the previous question (and not allow any
amendment to the rule) was a vote to accept the pay raise.
On October 28, 1999, the House rejected an attempt to recommit the conference report on an
appropriations bill, 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 bill, 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 bill, FY2000, with
instructions to House managers to disagree with pay reduction 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), Section 1001(e)).
• 10/28/99—The House agreed (218-211, vote #549) to the conference report on
H.R. 3064 (see description of bill in vote immediately above), 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.


Although a subsequent appropriations bill, 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, 113 Stat. 1501).
Members received a scheduled January 1, 2000, annual pay adjustment of 3.4%, which increased
their salary to $141,300 from $136,700.





Members also received the scheduled January, 2001, annual pay adjustment (modified) of 2.7%, 41
which increased their salary to $145,100 from $141,300. On July 20, 2000, the House agreed to
the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4871, the FY2001 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bill. 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 out of order.
On September 9, 2000, the Senate rejected the conference report on H.R. 4516, the FY2001
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, in part because previously Senators had not had a chance
to introduce an amendment prohibiting the scheduled January 2001 pay increase.
• 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 bill.
H.Res. 560 was an open rule that allowed 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 permitting a pay raise vote
in some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 560, as adopted, an amendment seeking
to halt the pay raise was not in order. In effect a vote to order the previous
question (and not allow any amendment to the rule) was a vote to accept the pay
raise.
• 09/20/00—The Senate rejected (28-69, vote #253) the conference report on H.R.
4516, the FY2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill; the conference report
also contained the FY2001 Treasury and General Government Appropriations
bill. The conference report was rejected in part because Senators had not had a
chance to introduce an amendment to the FY2001 Treasury bill to prohibit the 42
scheduled January 2001 pay raise. Amendments were not allowed because the
Treasury bill was added to H.R. 4516 in conference before it could be considered
on the Senate floor. Since the Treasury bill is the legislation to which Members
customarily offer amendments to prohibit scheduled pay increases, some
Senators felt that they were denied an opportunity to introduce an amendment to
block the scheduled January 2001 pay increase. They also felt that they were 43
denied the opportunities to debate the merits of a raise and conduct a vote. On
December 14, 2000, the text of the FY2001 Treasury and General Government
Appropriations bill 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 bill (P.L. 106-554).

41 The 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%. The 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 law to the increase in
the base pay of GS employees, which was 2.7%.
42 Sen. Paul Wellstone, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 146, Sept. 19, 2000, pp.
S8739-S8741.
43 Ibid.





Members received a January 2001 annual pay adjustment of 2.7%, which increased their salary to
$145,100 from $141,300. Based on the formula used to determine the annual adjustment rate,
Members were scheduled to receive 3.0%, but were limited by law to the increase in the base pay
of GS federal employees, which was 2.7%.
In January 2002, Members received a pay adjustment of 3.4%, increasing their salary to $150,000
from $145,100. In 2001, there was one vote in each the House and Senate on the pending
increase, and a second Senate action in which the Senate presiding officer ruled as not germane
an amendment blocking the increase.
The House, on July 25, 2001, agreed to a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2590, the
FY2002 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill. 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 bill 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 fell. The amendment was offered during Senate
consideration of H.R. 3338, the FY2002 Department of Defense appropriation bill.
• 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 bill.
H.Res. 206 was an open rule that allowed 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 permitting a pay raise vote
in some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 206, as adopted, an amendment seeking
to halt the pay raise was not in order. In effect a vote to order the previous
question (and not allow any amendment to the rule) was a vote to accept the pay
raise.
• 10/24/01—The Senate presiding officer sustained a point of order against an
amendment, offered by Senators Russell 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, and as a result,
the amendment fell. The action was taken during consideration of H.R. 2506, the
FY2002 foreign operations, export financing, and related programs
appropriations bill.
• 12/07/01—The Senate rejected (33-65, voted #360) a claim that an amendment
offered by Senator Russell 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 bill. The
amendment was offered during floor consideration of H.R. 3338, the FY2002
Department of Defense Appropriations bill.
Members received a pay adjustment of 3.4% in January 2002, increasing their salary to $150,000
from $145,100.
In January 2003, Members received an adjustment of 3.1%, increasing their salary to $154,700 44
from $150,000. They were scheduled to receive a 3.3% adjustment. By law, however, they were
limited to the rate of increase in the base pay of General Schedule (GS) employees (3.1%), also
effective in January 2003.
The scheduled 3.1% base pay adjustment for GS employees could have been changed by the
President through August 31, 2002. Since the President did not implement an alternate increase, 45
the scheduled 3.1% was 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 bill. 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 bill.
• 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 bill. By ordering the previous question, the
House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from being offered, and to
bring the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the rule could have waived
points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill prohibiting a pay
increase. Although H.Res. 488 was an open rule that allowed any germane
amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been
germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to
consider an amendment to permit a pay raise prohibition amendment to be
offered. Had the House not agreed to a motion to order the previous question, a

44 The annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index (private industry wages
and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage change reflected in the quarter ending December 31 of
the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The 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%.
45 For language on alternative adjustments by a President, see 5 U.S.C. 5303.





Member could have offered an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote
in some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 488, as adopted, an amendment seeking
to halt the pay raise was not in order. In effect a vote to order the previous
question (and not allow any amendment to the rule) was a vote to accept a pay
increase.
• 11/13/02—The Senate agreed (58-36, vote #242) to a motion to table an
amendment offered by Senator Russell Feingold to H.Res. 5005, the homeland
security bill, to block the pending January 2003 salary increase for Members. The
amendment did not apply to other top-level federal officials.
Members received a pay adjustment of 3.1% in January 2003, increasing their salary to $154,700
from $150,000.
Two votes were held in 2003 that related to the scheduled January 2004 adjustment of 2.2%.
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 allowing Members to offer and consider
nongermane amendments to the bill. They argue that if nongermane amendments had been
allowed, one could have been offered to modify or deny the scheduled 2.2% Member pay
increase. This action, some believe, means that most Members voted for the raise.
Some Members, however, expressed interest in introducing other nongermane amendments on
entirely different issues. As a consequence, other Members believe that it cannot be said with any
degree of certainty that Members would have voted to accept a pay increase if they had been
given an opportunity.
On October 23, 2003, the Senate voted to table an amendment to prohibit the scheduled
adjustment.
• 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 bill. By ordering the
previous question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from
being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the
rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 351 was an open rule that allowed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, 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 argue, a Member could have offered
an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote in some form. Under the
terms of H.Res. 351, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was
not in order.





• 10/23/03—The Senate agreed (60-34, vote #406) to a motion to table an
amendment offered by Senator Russell Feingold to H.Res. 2989, the FY2004
Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bill, to block the pending January

2004 salary increase for Members. The amendment did not apply to other top-


level federal officials.
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 their were initially limited because by law they may not receive an
annual adjustment greater than the increase in the base pay of GS federal employees. After the
passage of the FY2004 Consolidated 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 46
period in January 2004.
One vote potentially 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 bill. 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 out of order.
This House action, however, is considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote
had the effect of not allowing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bill.
They argue that if nongermane amendments had been allowed, one could have been offered to
modify or deny the scheduled 2.2% Member pay increase. This action, some believe, means that
most Members voted for the raise.
It is important to note that a few Members expressed interest in introducing other nongermane
amendments on entirely different issues. As a consequence, other Members believe that it cannot
be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have voted to accept a pay increase had
they had been given an opportunity.
• 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 bill. By ordering the
previous question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from
being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the
rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 770 was an open rule that allowed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, 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

46 P.L. 108-199; Jan. 23, 2004; 118 Stat. 359.





motion to order the previous question, they argue, a Member could have offered
an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote in some form. Under the
terms of H.Res. 770, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was
not in order.
Members received a pay adjustment of 2.5% in January 2005, increasing their salary to $162,100
from $158,100.
In January 2006, Members received an annual adjustment of 1.9%, increasing their salary to
$165,200 from $162,100.
In 2005, during consideration of the January 2006 adjustment, the House held one vote
potentially 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 bill. 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 is considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect of
not allowing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bill. They argue that
if nongermane amendments had been allowed, one could have been offered to modify or deny the
scheduled 1.9% Member pay increase. This action, some believe, means that most Members
voted for the raise.
Others, however, expressed interest in introducing other nongermane amendments on unrelated
issues, and, as a consequence, some Members believe that it cannot be said with any degree of
certainty that Members would have voted to accept a pay increase if they had been given an
opportunity.
The Senate agreed October 18, 2005, to an amendment, by a vote of 92 to 6, to forgo the 47
scheduled January 2006 Member pay adjustment. 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.
• 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.Res. 3058, the FY2006
Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bill. By ordering the previous
question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from being
offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the rule

47 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, no. 132, Oct. 18, 2005, pp. S11458-60.





could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 342 was an open rule that allowed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, 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 argue, a Member could have offered
an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote in some form. 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 48
considered.
• 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 bill. The Senate
provision was dropped in conference.
Members received a pay adjustment of 1.9% in January 2006, increasing their salary to $165,200
from $162,100.
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 bill. 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.
• 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
by Senator James Inhofe during consideration of S. 2349, the 527 Reform bill.
The bill was not enacted into law.

48 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, no. 88, June 28, 2005, p. H5279.





• 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.Res. 5576, the FY2007
Transportation and Treasury Appropriation bill. By ordering the previous
question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from being
offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the rule
could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 865 was an open rule that allowed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, 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 argue, a Member could have offered an amendment to the
rule permitting a pay raise vote in some form. 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 49
question so that his amendment could receive a waiver to be considered.
• 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.
Members did not receive the scheduled January 1, 2007, 1.7% pay adjustment. They initially had
been scheduled to received a 2.0% annual adjustment in January 2007, increasing their salary to
$168,500. This increase was automatically revised downward to 1.7%. Members subsequently
voted to prohibit the 2007 adjustment.
• 1/18/07—The Senate passed (96-2, vote # 19) S. 1. The bill contains a provision
(Section 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.
• 1/23/07—The House passed (431-0, vote # 49) H.R. 476. The bill would deny
pension benefits to Members of Congress if an individual is convicted of
committing certain offenses while a Member of Congress.
• 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 shall not take effect.
• 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 bill. By ordering the
previous question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from

49 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, June 13, 2006, pp. H3820-H3821.





being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the
rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill
prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 517 was an open rule that allowed
any germane amendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would
not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, 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 argue, a Member could have offered an amendment to the
rule permitting a pay raise vote in some form. Under the terms of H.Res. 517, as
adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the pay raise was not in order. During
floor debate, a number of Members spoke against ordering the previous question
and indicated that, if the motion was defeated, they intended to offer an 50
amendment to the rule to prohibit the pay increase.
Members received a 2.5% pay adjustment in January 2008, increasing their salary to $169,300.
According to the formula, Members originally were scheduled to receive a 2.7% annual
adjustment, increasing their salary to $169,700. This figure was automatically revised downward
to match the increase in base pay given employees under the General Schedule.
Members received a 2.8% pay adjustment in January 2009, increasing their salary to $174,000.

50 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 27, 2007, pp. HH7278-H7283.





Ida A. Brudnick
Analyst on the Congress
ibrudnick@crs.loc.gov, 7-6460

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