This report contains information on the pay procedure and recent adjustments. It also contains historical information on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789

Dwyer, Paul E.

Government and Finance Division

This report summarizes by what measures the Constitution requires Congress to determine its own pay, the annual payment adjustment procedure, changes in pay over time since 1789, and related legislation

UNT Digital Library

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 97-1011 GOVUpdated October 29, 2003Salaries of Members of Congress: A List ofPayable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2003Paul E. DwyerSpecialist in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionSummaryCongress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine itsown pay. Prior to 1969, Congress did so by enacting stand-alone legislation. From1789 through 1968, Congress raised its pay 22 times using this procedure.Congressional salaries initially were $1,500. By 1968, they had risen to $30,000.Stand-alone legislation may still be used to raise Member pay, as it was most recentlyin 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991, but two other methods are now also available, anautomatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process.In January 2004, Members are scheduled to receive a 2.2% annual adjustment,increasing their salary to $158,100. Neither house has modified or prohibited theadjustment. This report will be updated to reflect the most recent congressional actions.BackgroundThere are three basic ways to adjust Member pay. Stand-alone legislation hasfrequently and primarily been used to raise Member pay throughout most of U.S. history,1789 to the present. However, two other methods are also available.The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant torecommendations from the President, based on those made by a quadrennial salarycommission. In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative,and Judicial Salaries to recommend salary increases for top-level federal officials (P.L.90-206). Three times (in 1969, 1977, and 1987) Congress received pay increases madeunder this procedure; on three occasions it did not. Effective with passage of the EthicsReform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194), the commission ceased to exist. Its authority wasassumed by the Citizens’ Commission on Public Service and Compensation. Althoughthe first commission under the 1989 Act was to have convened in 1993, it did not meet.The third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annualadjustments. Prior to 1990, the pay of Members, and other top-level federal officials, wastied to the annual comparability increases provided to General Schedule (GS) federalCRS-21 Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added.2 The annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index(private industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage changereflected in the fourth quarter (ending Dec. 31) of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%. The2.2% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index between thequarters ending Dec. 2001 and Dec. 2002, which was 2.7%, and subtracting 0.5%.3 On Sept. 4, 2003, the House agreed (240-173, vote #463) to order the previous question on arule (H.Res. 351) providing for consideration of H.R. 2989, the FY2004 transportation andtreasury appropriations bill. By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent anamendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. Anamendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to thebill prohibiting a pay increase. Although H.Res. 351 was an open rule that allowed any germaneamendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been germane. Byagreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to consider an amendment to permit(continued...)Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congressemployees. This procedure was established in 1975 (P.L. 94-82). Such increases wererecommended by the President, subject to congressional acceptance, disapproval, ormodification. Congress accepted five such increases for itself — in 1975, 1979 (partial),1984, 1985, and 1987 — and declined 10 since this method was authorized (1976, 1977,1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989).The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustmentis determined for Members and other senior officials, based on a formula using changesin private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index. Underthis revised method, annual adjustments were accepted eight times (those scheduled forJanuary 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003) and denied five times(those scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999).The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless (1) Congress statutorilyprohibits the adjustment; (2) Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or (3) the annualbase pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than the scheduledincrease for Members, in which case Members would be paid the lower rate.1Pending January 2004 Member Pay IncreaseAccording to the formula, Members are scheduled to receive an automatic annualpay adjustment of 2.2% in January 2004.2Action to Modify or Deny the Scheduled Member Pay Increase. Twovotes were taken this year that related to the January 2004 Member pay increase. The firstwas a House vote on September 4, 2003, that although not a direct vote to modify or denythe increase, was reported in some press accounts as a vote to accept a Member payincrease.The House vote was held during consideration of the rule on H.R. 2989, the FY2004transportation and treasury appropriation bill. H.R. 2989, as brought to the floor, did notcontain Member pay language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to accept orreject a Member pay increase. However, action taken by the House on vote #463 (240-173) is considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect ofnot allowing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bill.3 TheyCRS-33 (...continued)a pay raise prohibition to be offered. Had the House not agreed to a motion to order the previousquestion, a Member could have offered an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote insome form. Under the terms of H.Res. 351, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the payraise was not in order.4 The Senate version, pending full committee approval, also contains a 4.1% GS increase.5 See summary of the President’s pay plan issued on Aug. 27, 2003, on the website of the Officeof Personnel Management at [http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/update.asp].6 The amendment, offered by Senator Byron Dorgan, was adopted by voice vote on October 23,2003 by voice vote. Earlier in debate, the Senate failed to table the amendment (vote #405, 36-59).Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congressargue that if nongermane amendments had been allowed, one could have been offered tomodify 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 othernongermane amendments on entirely different issues. As a consequence, other Membersbelieve that it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have votedto accept a pay increase if they had been given an opportunity.Some press accounts also stated that Members voted themselves a 4.1% increase.H.R. 2938, as reported and passed, contained language (Title VI, section 740(a))providing for a 4.1% increase for GS federal employees. The increase was not applicableto Members of Congress and other top-level federal officials.The second vote related to Member pay took place in the Senate on October 23,2003, when the majority of Senators voted to table an amendment to prohibit the pendingMember pay adjustment (vote #406, 60-34). The amendment was offered by SenatorRussell Feingold to the Senate version of H.R. 2989, the FY2004 transportation andtreasury appropriation bill, which passed the same day.Possible Impact of An Increase in Federal Employee Pay on thePending Member Pay Increase. By approving a 4.1% GS federal employee payincrease, the House and Senate actions, if signed into law, ensure that Members ofCongress will receive their scheduled 2.2% increase.4 That is because the base payallocation of the 4.1% increase would most likely be greater than 2.2%, probably about3.1%. By law, Members may not receive an increase greater than the annual rate ofincrease in the base pay of GS employees.However, if the 4.1% GS pay increase provision is not signed into law, thePresident’s pending pay plan for GS employees would become effective in January 2004.The President’s plan provides for a 2.2% increase, with 1.5% allocated for base pay and0.5% for locality pay.5 As a result, Member pay would increase by 1.5%, and not 2.2%.It is possible that H.R. 2989 may not be signed into law but rather vetoed by thePresident. This is because the Senate version of H.R. 2989 contains language to prohibitthe enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba6 to which the President objects. Thisscenario assumes that conferees on H.R. 2989 would retain the Senate’s travel banamendment. Should Congress not override the President’s veto, and not approve a 4.1%CRS-4Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressGS pay increase in other legislation before adjournment of this session, Members wouldreceive the President’s proposed 1.5% increase in January 2004.Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-2003. Foreach salary rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are indicated. From1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to whichMembers were entitled. This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorizedpursuant to the annual comparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on severaloccasions Congress did not appropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salaryincreases mandated by P.L. 94-82. Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are thepayable rates, the salaries actually paid to Members of Congress.Table 1. Salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-2003Payable Salarya Effective Date Statutory Authority$1,500b March 4, 1789 1 Stat. 70-71(September 22, 1789)$1,500b March 4, 1795 1 Stat. 70-71(September 22, 1789)$1,500b March 3, 1796 1 Stat. 448(March 10, 1796)$1,500 December 4, 1815 3 Stat. 257(March 19, 1816)$1,500b March 3, 1817 3 Stat. 345(February 6, 1817)$2,000b March 3, 1817 3 Stat. 404(January 22, 1818)$3,000 December 3, 1855 11 Stat. 48(August 16, 1856)$3,000c December 23, 1857 11 Stat. 367(December 23, 1857)$5,000 December 4, 1865 14 Stat. 323(July 28, 1866)$7,500 March 4, 1871 17 Stat. 486(March 3, 1873)$5,000 January 20, 1874 18 Stat. 4(January 20, 1874)$7,500 March 4, 1907 34 Stat. 993(February 26, 1907)$10,000 March 4, 1925 43 Stat. 1301(March 4, 1925)$9,000 July 1, 1932 47 Stat. 401(June 30, 1932)$8,500 April 1, 1933 48 Stat. 14(March 20, 1933)CRS-5Payable Salarya Effective Date Statutory AuthorityCongressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress$9,000d February 1, 1934 48 Stat. 521(March 28, 1934)$9,500 July 1, 1934 48 Stat. 521(March 28, 1934)$10,000 April 4, 1935 49 Stat. 24(February 13, 1935)$12,500 January 3, 1947 60 Stat. 850(August 2, 1946)$22,500 March 1, 1955 69 Stat. 11(March 2, 1955)$30,000 January 3, 1965 78 Stat. 415(August 14, 1964)$42,500 March 1, 1969 81 Stat. 642(December 16, 1967)$44,600 October 1, 1975 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$57,500 March 1, 1977 81 Stat. 642(December 16, 1967)$60,662.50 October 1, 1979 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$69,800December 18, 1982 forRepresentatives; July 1,1983 for Senators96 Stat. 1914(December 21, 1982)97 Stat. 338(July 30, 1983)$72,600 January 1, 1984 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$75,100 January 1, 1985 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$77,400 January 1, 1987 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$89,500 February 4, 1987 81 Stat. 642(December 16, 1967)$96,600e(Representatives)February 1, 1990 103 Stat. 1767-1768(November 30, 1989)$98,400e(Senators) February 1, 1990103 Stat. 1767-1768(November 30, 1989)$125,100(Representatives)January 1, 1991 103 Stat. 1768-1769(November 30, 1989)$101,900(Senators) January 1, 1991103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$125,100(Senators)August 14, 1991 105 Stat. 450(August 14, 1991)$129,500(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 1992103 Stat.1769(November 30, 1989)CRS-6Payable Salarya Effective Date Statutory AuthorityCongressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress$133,600(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 1993103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$136,700(Reps. and Sens.)January 1, 1998 103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$141,300(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 2000103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$145,100(Reps. and Sens.)January 1, 2001 103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$150,000(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 2002103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$154,700(Reps. and Sens.)January 1, 2003 103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)a. From 1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members wereentitled. This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annualcomparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82). However, on several occasions Congress did notappropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salary increases mandated by P.L. 94-82.Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are the payable rates, the salaries actually paid toMembers of Congress.b. Per diem rates have been converted to per annum rates based on a hypothetically possible 250-daysession. From 1789 to 1856, Senators and Representatives received a per diem pay rate whileCongress was in session, except for the period December 1815 — March 1817, when they received$1,500 a year. First established at $6 a day in 1789 ($7 for Senators from March 4, 1795 — March3, 1796), the per diem was raised to $8 in 1818 and remained there until 1856, when Members ofCongress were placed on annual salaries.c. In 1857, Congress provided for pay at the rate of $250 per month while in session, or a maximum of$3,000 per annum.d. The Act authorized the restoration of pay as of February 1, 1934, and the restoration of pay as of July1, 1934.e. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1767-1768) increased pay for Representatives and Senatorsat different rates. The pay of Representatives was increased to reflect the previously denied 1989 and1990 pay adjustments (4.1% and 3.6%), compounded at 7.9%, effective February 1, 1990. The Actfurther provided for a 25% increase in Representatives’ pay, effective January 1, 1991. As a result,the pay of Representatives increased from $89,500 to $96,600 on February 1, 1990, and increasedto $125,100 on January 1, 1991.The pay of Senators was increased to reflect the previously denied 1988, 1989, and 1990comparability pay adjustments (2%, 4.1%, and 3.6%), compounded at 9.9%, effective February 1,1990. As a result, the pay of Senators increased from $89,500 to $98,400 on February 1, 1990. TheEthics Act did not provide for any other pay increase for Senators, as it did in providing a 25%increase for Representatives. The reason is that Senators elected to deny themselves the 25% increasewhile retaining the ability to receive honoraria. Subsequently, the Senate voted to increase its pay rateto that of Representatives and to prohibit receipt of honoraria by Senators, effective August 14, 1991.As a result, Senate pay increased from $101,900 to $125,100 per annum.

Salaries of Members of Congress: A List of Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2003

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 97-1011 GOVUpdated December 1, 2003Salaries of Members of Congress:  A List ofPayable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2003Paul E. DwyerSpecialist in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance DivisionSummaryCongress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine itsown pay.  Prior to 1969, Congress did so by enacting stand-alone legislation.  From1789 through 1968, Congress raised its pay 22 times using this procedure.Congressional salaries initially were $1,500.  By 1968, they had risen to $30,000.Stand-alone legislation may still be used to raise Member pay, as it was most recentlyin 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991, but two other methods are now also available, anautomatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process.  In January 2004, Members are scheduled to receive a 2.2% annual adjustment,increasing their salary to $158,100.  It is possible that Members will receive a 1.5%increase instead, if Congress does not approve the conference report on an omnibusspending bill by the end of 2003.  This report will be updated to reflect the most recentcongressional actions.BackgroundThere are three basic ways to adjust Member pay.  Stand-alone legislation hasfrequently and primarily been used to raise Member pay throughout most of U.S. history,1789 to the present.  However, two other methods are also available.The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant torecommendations from the President, based on those made by a quadrennial salarycommission.  In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative,and Judicial Salaries to recommend salary increases for top-level federal officials (P.L.90-206).  Three times (in 1969, 1977, and 1987) Congress received pay increases madeunder this procedure; on three occasions it did not.  Effective with passage of the EthicsReform Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194), the commission ceased to exist.  Its authority wasassumed by the Citizens’ Commission on Public Service and Compensation.  Althoughthe first commission under the 1989 Act was to have convened in 1993, it did not meet.CRS-21 Base pay is the pay rate before locality pay is added.2  The annual pay adjustment was determined by a formula using the Employment Cost Index(private industry wages and salaries, not seasonally adjusted), based on the percentage changereflected in the fourth quarter (ending Dec. 31) of the two preceding years, minus 0.5%.  The2.2% adjustment was determined by taking the percentage increase in the Index between thequarters ending Dec. 2001 and Dec. 2002, which was 2.7%, and subtracting 0.5%.3  On Sept. 4, 2003, the House agreed (240-173, vote #463) to order the previous question on arule (H.Res. 351) providing for consideration of H.R. 2989, the FY2004 transportation andtreasury appropriations bill.  By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent anamendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. Anamendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the(continued...)Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressThe third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annualadjustments.  Prior to 1990, the pay of Members, and other top-level federal officials, wastied to the annual comparability increases provided to General Schedule (GS) federalemployees.  This procedure was established in 1975 (P.L. 94-82).  Such increases wererecommended by the President, subject to congressional acceptance, disapproval, ormodification.  Congress accepted five such increases for itself — in 1975, 1979 (partial),1984, 1985, and 1987 — and declined 10 since this method was authorized (1976, 1977,1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989).The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustmentis determined for Members and other senior officials, based on a formula using changesin private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index.  Underthis revised method, annual adjustments were accepted eight times (those scheduled forJanuary 1991, 1992,  1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003) and denied five times(those scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996,  1997, and 1999).The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless (1) Congress statutorilyprohibits the adjustment; (2) Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or (3) the annualbase pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than the scheduledincrease for Members, in which case Members would be paid the lower rate.1Pending January 2004 Member Pay IncreaseAccording to the formula, Members are scheduled to receive an automatic annualpay adjustment of 2.2% in January 2004.2    Action to Modify or Deny the Scheduled Member Pay Increase.   Twovotes were taken this year that related to the January 2004 Member pay increase.  The firstwas a House vote on September 4, 2003, that although not a direct vote to modify or denythe increase, was reported in some press accounts as a vote to accept a Member payincrease.  The House vote was held during consideration of the rule on H.R. 2989, the FY2004transportation and treasury appropriation bill.  H.R. 2989, as brought to the floor, did notcontain Member pay language, and the House did not vote on an amendment to accept orreject a Member pay increase.  However, action taken by the House on vote #463 (240-173)  is considered by some to be approval of an increase since the vote had the effect ofnot allowing Members to offer and consider nongermane amendments to the bill.3   TheyCRS-33 (...continued)bill prohibiting a pay increase.  Although H.Res. 351 was an open rule that allowed any germaneamendment, an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment would not have been germane.  Byagreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to consider an amendment to permita pay raise prohibition  to be offered.  Had the House not agreed to a motion to order the previousquestion, a Member could have offered an amendment to the rule permitting a pay raise vote insome form.  Under the terms of H.Res. 351, as adopted, an amendment seeking to halt the payraise was not in order. 4 See summary of the President’s pay plan issued on Aug. 27, 2003, on the website of the Officeof Personnel Management at [http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/update.asp].Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congressargue that if nongermane amendments had been allowed, one could have been offered tomodify 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 othernongermane amendments on entirely different issues.  As a consequence, other Membersbelieve that it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Members would have votedto accept a pay increase if they had been given an opportunity.Some press accounts also stated that Members voted themselves a 4.1% increase.H.R. 2938, as reported and passed, contained language (Title VI, section 740(a))providing for a 4.1% increase for GS federal employees.  The increase was not applicableto Members of Congress and other top-level federal officials.The second vote related to Member pay took place in the Senate on October 23,2003, when the majority of Senators voted to table an amendment to H.R. 2989prohibiting the pending Member pay increase of 2.2% (vote #406, 60-34).  Theamendment was offered by Senator Russell Feingold to the Senate version of H.R. 2989,the FY2004 transportation and treasury appropriation bill, which passed the same daywith the 4.1% GS pay increase. Possible Impact of An Increase in Federal Employee Pay on thePending Member Pay Increase.   By approving a 4.1% GS federal employee payincrease, the House and Senate actions, if signed into law, ensure that Members ofCongress will receive their scheduled 2.2% increase.   That is because the base payallocation of the 4.1% increase would most likely be greater than 2.2%, probably about3.1%.  By law, Members may not receive an increase greater than the annual rate ofincrease in the base pay of GS employees.   However, if the 4.1% GS pay increase provision is not signed into law, thePresident’s pending pay plan for GS employees would become effective in January 2004.The President’s plan provides for a 2.2% increase, with 1.5% allocated for base pay and0.5% for locality pay.4  As a result, Member pay would increase by 1.5%, and not 2.2%.It is possible that the 4.1% GS pay increase provision might not be signed into lawbefore the beginning of January 2004.  This is because the language of H.R. 2989,containing the pay provision,  was incorporated in an omnibus appropriations bill, H.R.2673, and its conference report is pending House and Senate approval.  The House istentatively scheduled to consider the report on December 8, and the Senate the followingday.  However, there appears to be a chance the Senate will not vote on the report inCRS-45  There was an earlier threat to the pending 4.1% pay increase contained in the FY2004transportation and treasury appropriation bill, H.R. 2989.  The President threatened to veto H.R.2989 because the Senate version of the bill contained language to prohibit the enforcement of theban on travel to Cuba to which the President objected.  This scenario assumed conferees on H.R.2989 would retain the Senate’s travel ban amendment.  The language was subsequently deletedduring conference on H.R. 2989, removing the veto threat.  The amendment, offered by SenatorByron Dorgan, was adopted by voice vote on October 23, 2003 by voice vote.  Earlier in debate,the Senate failed to table the amendment (vote #405, 36-59)Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressDecember, but rather in early 2004.  If the report is not agreed to by both houses andsigned into law before January 2004, Members will receive a 1.5% increase.  If theomnibus bill is eventually signed into law in 2004, Members will receive a 2.2% payincrease retroactive to January 1, 2004.5  Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-2003.  Foreach salary rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are indicated.  From1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to whichMembers were entitled. This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorizedpursuant to the annual comparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82).  However, on severaloccasions Congress did not appropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salaryincreases mandated by P.L. 94-82.  Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are thepayable rates, the salaries actually paid to Members of Congress.Table 1.  Salaries of Members of Congress, 1789-2003Payable Salarya Effective Date Statutory Authority$1,500b March 4, 1789 1 Stat. 70-71(September 22, 1789)$1,500b March 4, 1795 1 Stat. 70-71(September 22, 1789)$1,500b March 3, 1796 1 Stat. 448(March 10, 1796)$1,500 December 4, 1815 3 Stat. 257(March 19, 1816)$1,500b March 3, 1817 3 Stat. 345(February 6, 1817)$2,000b March 3, 1817 3 Stat. 404(January 22, 1818)$3,000 December 3, 1855 11 Stat. 48(August 16, 1856)$3,000c December 23, 1857 11 Stat. 367(December 23, 1857)$5,000 December 4, 1865 14 Stat. 323(July 28, 1866)$7,500 March 4, 1871 17 Stat. 486(March 3, 1873)$5,000 January 20, 1874 18 Stat. 4(January 20, 1874)$7,500 March 4, 1907 34 Stat. 993(February 26, 1907)CRS-5Payable Salarya Effective Date Statutory AuthorityCongressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress$10,000 March 4, 1925 43 Stat. 1301(March 4, 1925)$9,000 July 1, 1932 47 Stat. 401(June 30, 1932)$8,500 April 1, 1933 48 Stat. 14(March 20, 1933)$9,000d February 1, 1934 48 Stat. 521(March 28, 1934)$9,500 July 1, 1934 48 Stat. 521(March 28, 1934)$10,000 April 4, 1935 49 Stat. 24(February 13, 1935)$12,500 January 3, 1947 60 Stat. 850(August 2, 1946)$22,500 March 1, 1955 69 Stat. 11(March 2, 1955)$30,000 January 3, 1965 78 Stat. 415(August 14, 1964)$42,500 March 1, 1969 81 Stat. 642(December 16, 1967)$44,600 October 1, 1975 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$57,500 March 1, 1977 81 Stat. 642(December 16, 1967)$60,662.50 October 1, 1979 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$69,800December 18, 1982 forRepresentatives; July 1, 1983for Senators96 Stat. 1914(December 21, 1982)97 Stat. 338(July 30, 1983)$72,600 January 1, 1984 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$75,100 January 1, 1985 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$77,400 January 1, 1987 89 Stat. 421(August 9, 1975)$89,500 February 4, 1987 81 Stat. 642(December 16, 1967)$96,600e(Representatives) February 1, 1990103 Stat. 1767-1768(November 30, 1989)$98,400e(Senators)February 1, 1990 103 Stat. 1767-1768(November  30, 1989)$125,100(Representatives) January 1, 1991103 Stat. 1768-1769(November 30, 1989)$101,900(Senators)January 1, 1991 103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$125,100(Senators) August 14, 1991105 Stat. 450(August 14, 1991)CRS-6Payable Salarya Effective Date Statutory AuthorityCongressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress$129,500(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 1992103 Stat.1769(November 30, 1989)$133,600(Reps. and Sens.)January 1, 1993 103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$136,700(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 1998103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989) $141,300(Reps. and Sens.)January 1, 2000 103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$145,100(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 2001103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$150,000(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 2002 103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)$154,700(Reps. and Sens.) January 1, 2003103 Stat. 1769(November 30, 1989)a.  From 1976 to 1983, the salary actually paid to Members was less than the salary to which Members wereentitled.  This was so because Members were entitled to salaries authorized pursuant to the annualcomparability pay procedure (P.L. 94-82).  However, on several occasions Congress did notappropriate funds to pay any or some of the new salary increases mandated by P.L. 94-82.Accordingly, the salaries shown in this table are the payable rates, the salaries actually paid toMembers of Congress.b.  Per diem rates have been converted to per annum rates based on a hypothetically possible 250-daysession.  From 1789 to 1856, Senators and Representatives received a per diem pay rate whileCongress was in session, except for the period December 1815 — March 1817, when they received$1,500 a year.  First established at $6 a day in 1789 ($7 for Senators from March 4, 1795 — March3, 1796), the per diem was raised to $8 in 1818 and remained there until 1856, when Members ofCongress were placed on annual salaries.  c.  In 1857, Congress provided for pay at the rate of $250 per month while in session, or a maximum of$3,000 per annum.d.  The Act authorized the restoration of pay as of February 1, 1934, and the restoration of pay as of July1, 1934. e.  The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1767-1768) increased pay for Representatives and Senatorsat different rates.  The pay of Representatives was increased to reflect the previously denied 1989 and1990 pay adjustments (4.1% and 3.6%), compounded at 7.9%, effective February 1, 1990.  The Actfurther provided for a 25% increase in Representatives’ pay, effective January 1, 1991.  As a result,the pay of Representatives increased from $89,500 to $96,600 on February 1, 1990, and increasedto $125,100 on January 1, 1991.The pay of Senators was increased to reflect the previously denied 1988, 1989, and 1990comparability pay adjustments (2%, 4.1%, and 3.6%), compounded at 9.9%, effective February 1,1990. As a result, the pay of Senators increased from $89,500 to $98,400 on February 1, 1990. TheEthics Act did not provide for any other pay increase for Senators, as it did in providing a 25%increase for Representatives.  The reason is that Senators elected to deny themselves the 25% increasewhile retaining the ability to receive honoraria.  Subsequently, the Senate voted to increase its pay rateto that of Representatives and to prohibit receipt of honoraria by Senators, effective August 14, 1991.As a result, Senate pay increased from $101,900 to $125,100 per annum.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc805656/

Salaries of Members of Congress: A List of Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2003

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library