Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2011

Ida A. Brudnick
Analyst on the 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. Standalone legislation was last used to provide increases in 1990 and 1991. It was the only method used by Congress for many years.

The second method, under which annual adjustments took effect automatically unless disapproved by Congress, was established in 1975. From 1975 to 1989, these annual adjustments were based on the rate of annual comparability increases given to the General Schedule 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 eight times (scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, and 2011).

In the 112th Congress, numerous bills have been introduced to alter this procedure, reduce the pay of Members of Congress, or prevent or delay pay in the event of a government shutdown. Previously, in the 111th Congress, the Senate passed legislation (S. 620) that would have eliminated the provision of the Ethics Reform Act that provides for future automatic annual pay adjustments, although no further action was taken.

Under the adjustment formula, Members were originally scheduled to receive a 0.9% pay adjustment in 2011. This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600. The pay adjustment was prohibited by P.L. 111-165 (H.R. 5146), which was enacted on May 14, 2010. Additionally, P.L. 111-322, which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevented any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percent adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percent adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen during this period.

Pay for Members of Congress in 2011 and 2012 will remain at the 2009 and 2010 level of $174,000.

A provision in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act prohibited any pay adjustment for 2010. Members were originally scheduled to receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%, although this would have been revised automatically to 1.5% to match the GS base pay adjustment. In January 2009, Members received a 2.8% pay adjustment under the formula established by the Ethics Reform Act. Members previously 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% adjustment in 2008, 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. Members voted to delay and then prohibit a pay adjustment for 2007. Pay in 2007 remained at the 2006 level of $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. Although the Citizens’ Commission should have convened in 1993, it did not and has not met since then.


Date of Report: September 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: 97-615
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Regulatory Reform Legislation in the 112th Congress

Curtis W. Copeland
Specialist in American National Government

In the 112th Congress, at least 22 bills have been introduced that would, if enacted, change current requirements in the federal rulemaking process. In the Senate, the proposed legislation includes (1) S. 128, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2011; (2) S. 299, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011; (3) S. 358, the Regulatory Responsibility for Our Economy Act of 2011; (4) S. 474, the Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act of 2011; (5) S. 602, the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act; (6) S. 817, which would make changes to the application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; (7) S. 1030, the Freedom from Restrictive Excessive Executive Demands and Onerous Mandates Act of 2011; (8) S. 1189, the Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act of 2011; (9) S. 1219, the Employment Impact Act of 2011; (10) S. 1338, the Regulatory Capture Prevention Act; (11) S. 1339, the Regulatory Information Reporting Act; and (12) S. 1438, the Regulation Moratorium and Jobs Preservation Act of 2011. In the House of Representatives, the bills include (1) H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011; (2) H.R. 213, the Regulation Audit Revive Economy Act of 2011; (3) H.R. 214, the Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis Creation and Sunset and Review Act of 2011; (4) H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2011; (5) H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011; (6) H.R. 1235, the Regulation Moratorium Act of 2011; (7) H.R. 1281, the Restoring Economic Certainty Act of 2011; (8) H.R. 1432, the Creating Sunshine, Participation, and Accountability for our Nation Act; (9) H.R. 2175, the Regulatory Balance Act; and (10) H.R. 2204, the Employment Impact Act of 2011.

This report describes each of these 22 regulatory reform bills, notes whether similar legislation has been introduced or acted upon in the past, summarizes the comments of those supporting and opposing the proposed legislation, and provides other relevant information. To put the bills in context, the report first summarizes the current rulemaking requirements (primarily statutes and executive orders) that the proposed legislation would amend, codify, or otherwise affect. The report ends with some concluding observations, noting similarities, differences, and broad themes in the legislative proposals. Those themes include (1) an expansion of current rulemaking requirements, (2) an expansion of those requirements to independent regulatory agencies, (3) an emphasis on retrospective reviews of existing rules, and (4) an increase in the role of Congress in overseeing the actions of regulatory agencies. Within each of these broad areas, however, the bills often take very different approaches. Some of the reforms would, if enacted, place new and potentially substantial responsibilities on federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, which may require additional resources and time to satisfy. Some of the bills may require clarification to ensure that they are enacted as Congress intended, and some may raise legal or policy concerns.


Date of Report: August 31, 2011
Number of Pages: 61
Order Number: R41834
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Nathan James, Coordinator
Analyst in Crime Policy

Jennifer D. Williams, Coordinator
Specialist in American National Government

John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

This report provides an overview of actions taken by Congress to provide FY2012 appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts.

On July 13, 2011, the House Committee on Appropriations marked up and reported the FY2012 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2596). The bill was introduced in the House on July 20, 2011. The bill would provide a total of $57.949 billion for CJS. The amount recommended by the committee is 10.9% less than the Administration’s FY2012 request for CJS and 5.3% below the FY2011-enacted level. The bill includes $7.161 billion for the Department of Commerce, $26.323 billion for the Department of Justice, $23.649 billion for the science agencies, and $814.8 million for the related agencies.

For FY2012, the Administration requests a total of $64.93 billion for the agencies and bureaus funded as part of the annual CJS appropriations bill. The FY2012 request is $3.839 billion, or 6.3%, more than the FY2011-enacted amount of $61.092 billion. The proposed reduction in overall funding for CJS is almost entirely attributable to the Administration requesting nearly $6.3 billion less for the Census Bureau because the 2010 decennial census is complete. The Administration’s FY2012 request includes $8.761 billion for the Department of Commerce, $28.68 billion for the Department of Justice, $26.498 billion for the science agencies, and $991.4 million for the related agencies.

On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10). The act provided a total of $61.092 billion for agencies and bureaus funded as a part of the annual appropriation for CJS for FY2011. The $61.092 billion provided by the act includes $7.578 billion for the Department of Commerce, $27.281 billion for the Department of Justice, $25.315 billion for the science agencies, and $917.9 million for the related agencies.

The source for the FY2011-enacted amounts, the FY2012-requested amounts, and the House Committee on Appropriations-recommended amounts is H.Rept. 112-169.


Date of Report: August 29, 2011
Number of Pages: 62
Order Number: R41721
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Lame Duck Sessions of Congress, 1935-2010 (74th-111th Congresses)

Richard S. Beth
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

A “lame duck” session of Congress occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the term of the current Congress ends. Under present conditions, any meeting of Congress after election day in November, but before the following January 3, is a lame duck session. Prior to 1933, when the 20th Amendment changed the dates of the congressional term, the last regular session of Congress was always a lame duck session. Today, however, the expression is used not only for a separate session of Congress that convenes after a sine die adjournment, but also for any portion of a regular session that falls after an election.

A lame duck session can occur in several ways. (1) Congress has usually provided for its existing session to resume after a recess spanning the election. (In 1954, only the Senate returned in this way, while the House adjourned sine die.) (2) In 1940, 1942, and 2002, at least one house continued meeting in intermittent, or pro forma, sessions during the period spanning the election (in 2008, the Senate used this means to forestall recess appointments). (3) Congress can reconvene after an election pursuant to contingent authority granted to the leadership in a recess or adjournment resolution (the House followed this course in 1998 and 2008). Two other possibilities have not been realized: (4) Congress could set a statutory date for a new session to convene after the election, then adjourn its existing session sine die. (5) While Congress is in recess or sine die adjournment, the President could call it into extraordinary session at a date after the election.

Congress has held 18 lame duck sessions from 1940 through 2010. In these years, election breaks usually have begun by mid-October, and typically lasted between one and two months. Congress has typically reconvened in mid-November and adjourned before Christmas, so that the lame duck session lasted about a month. Yet election breaks have begun as early as August 7 or as late as November 3, and ended as early as November 7 or as late as December 31. Lame duck sessions have ended as early as November 22 and as late as January 3, and have extended over as few as one, and as many as 145, calendar days. Usually, however, each house has actually met on 8-24 days during these lame duck sessions (including pro forma sessions), and from 1994 on, each house has usually met for fewer than 12 days.

Some lame duck sessions were held largely for pro forma reasons (e.g., 1948), on a standby basis (1940, 1942), or to deal with a single specific matter (1954, 1994, 1998, 2008). Some deferred major matters to the next Congress (e.g., 1944, 1982, 2004), especially when the same party would have an increased majority. The President has sometimes presented an extensive agenda to a lame duck session, often with success when it was controlled by his own party (e.g., 1950, 2002, 2004), but less so under conditions of divided government, when he has often vetoed measures (e.g., 1970, 1974, 1982). In recent years, as well, most lame duck sessions have had to complete action on appropriations and the budget. In 1974, 1980, 1982, 2000, and 2004, this effort was at least partially successful, but in 1970, 2002, 2006, and 2010 a final resolution was largely left to the next Congress. This report will be updated after any additional lame duck session occurs.


Date of Report: August 30, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: RL33677
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Omnibus appropriations acts have become a significant feature of the legislative process in recent years as Congress and the President have used them more frequently to bring action on the regular appropriations cycle to a close. Following a discussion of pertinent background information, this report reviews the recent enactment of such measures and briefly addresses several issues raised by their use.

For nearly two centuries, regular appropriations acts were considered by the House and Senate as individual measures and enacted into law as freestanding laws. In 1950, the House and Senate undertook a one-time experiment in improving legislative efficiency by considering all of the regular appropriations acts for FY1951 in a single bill, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950. The following year, the House and Senate returned to the practice of considering the regular appropriations acts individually.

During the 26-year period covering FY1986-FY2011, a total of 310 regular appropriations bills were considered and enacted into law. Of these measures, 191 (62.6%) were enacted as freestanding measures and 119 (38.4%) were enacted in omnibus legislation. On average, each year over seven (7.3) regular appropriations acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures and nearly five (4.9) were enacted into law in omnibus legislation.

During this period, 16 different omnibus measures were enacted into law for 14 different fiscal years (two separate omnibus appropriations acts were enacted for both FY2001 and FY2009). Each of the measures funded between 2 and 13 regular appropriations acts, on average funding over 7 (7.3) of them.

Twelve of the omnibus measures were bills or joint resolutions carrying the designation “omnibus,” “consolidated,” or “omnibus consolidated” appropriations in the title; four were continuing appropriations acts (FY1986, FY1987, FY1988, and FY2009); and one was the VAHUD Appropriations Act for FY2001, which also included the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2001.

In addition to the customary concern—of sacrificing the opportunity for debate and amendment for greater legislative efficiency—that arises whenever complex legislation is considered under time constraints, the use of omnibus appropriations acts has generated controversy for other reasons. These include whether adequate consideration was given to regular appropriations acts prior to their incorporation into omnibus appropriations legislation, the use of across-the-board spending cuts, and the inclusion of significant legislative (rather than funding) provisions.


Date of Report: August 29, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL32473
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.