Input:
	Member Pay: Constitutional Background, Source of Appropriations, and Current Rates

Article I, Section 6, of the U.S. Constitution, states that the compensation of Members of Congress shall be "ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States." Additionally, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution states, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." This amendment was submitted to the states on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments, 10 of which were ratified and became the Bill of Rights. It was not ratified until May 7, 1992.
Since FY1983, Member salaries have been funded in a permanent appropriations account.
The most recent pay adjustment for Members of Congress was in January 2009. Since then, the compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico has been $174,000. The only exceptions include the Speaker of the House ($223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate ($193,400).

		Selected CRS Products

This report provides historical tables on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789; details on enacted legislation with language prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustment since the most recent adjustment; the adjustments projected by the Ethics Reform Act as compared with actual adjustments in Member pay; and Member pay in constant and current dollars since 1992.
Additional CRS products also address pay and benefits for Members of Congress:
For information on actions taken each year since the establishment of the Ethics Reform Act adjustment procedure, see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2018 , by Ida A. Brudnick. Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are elected. Following their service, former Members of Congress may be eligible for retirement benefits, which are discussed in CRS Report RL30631, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress , by Katelin P. Isaacs. For information on health insurance options available to Members, see CRS Report R43194, Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated Congressional Staff: In Brief , by Ada S. Cornell. For an overview of compensation, benefits, allowances, and selected limitations, see CRS Report RL30064, Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief , by Ida A. Brudnick.

	Methods for Member Pay Adjustment

There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay.
Specific legislation was enacted to adjust Member pay prior to 1968. It has been used periodically since, most recently affecting pay for 1991.
The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant to recommendations from the President, based on those made by a quadrennial salary commission. In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries to recommend salary increases for top-level federal officials (P.L. 90-206). Three times (in 1969, 1977, and 1987) Congress received pay increases made under this procedure; on three occasions it did not. Effective with passage of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 ( P.L. 101-194 ), the commission ceased to exist. Its authority was assumed by the Citizens' Commission on Public Service and Compensation. Although the first commission under the 1989 act was to have convened in 1993, it did not meet.
The third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annual adjustments. Prior to 1990, the pay of Members, and other top-level federal officials, was tied to the annual comparability increases provided to General Schedule (GS) federal employees. This procedure was established in 1975 ( P.L. 94-82 ). Such increases were recommended by the President, subject to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or modification. Congress accepted 5 such increases for itself—in 1975, 1979 (partial), 1984, 1985, and 1987—and declined 10 (1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989).
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment is determined for Members and other senior officials. This procedure employs a formula based on changes in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless
1. Congress statutorily prohibits the adjustment; 2. Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or 3. The annual base pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than the scheduled adjustment for Members, in which case Members would be paid the lower rate.
Under this revised method, annual adjustments were
accepted 13 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) and denied 16 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019).
Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during consideration of annual appropriations bills, these bills do not contain funds for the annual salaries or pay adjustment for Members. Nor do they contain language authorizing an increase. The use of appropriations bills as vehicles for provisions prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustments for Members developed by custom. A provision prohibiting an adjustment to Member pay could be offered to any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill.

	January 2020 Potential Pay Adjustment

The maximum potential January 2020 Member pay adjustment of 2.6%, or $4,500, was known when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost Index (ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2017 to December 2018 on January 31, 2019.
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the General Schedule (GS) base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase.

	January 2019 Member Pay Adjustment Denied

The maximum potential January 2019 Member pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2016 to December 2017 on January 31, 2018.
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2019 GS base pay adjustment was 1.4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400.
The House-passed ( H.R. 5894 ) and Senate-reported versions ( S. 3071 ) of the FY2019 legislative branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision. Division B of P.L. 115-244 , enacted September 21, 2018, included the pay freeze provision.

	January 2018 Member Pay Adjustment Denied

The maximum potential January 2018 member pay adjustment of 1.8%, or $3,100, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2015 to December 2016 on January 31, 2017.
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The 2018 GS base pay adjustment was 1.4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400.
The House-passed ( H.R. 3162 ) and Senate-reported versions ( S. 1648 ) of the FY2018 legislative branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment. The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision.
Neither bill was enacted prior to the start of FY2018, and legislative branch activities were initially funded through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions (CRs) ( P.L. 115-56 , through December 8, 2017; P.L. 115-90 , through December 22, 2017; P.L. 115-96 , through January 19, 2018; P.L. 115-120 , through February 8, 2018; P.L. 115-123 , through March 23, 2018). P.L. 115-56 contained a provision, extended in the subsequent CRs, continuing "section 175 of P.L. 114-223 , as amended by division A of P.L. 114-254 ." This provision prohibited a Member pay adjustment in FY2017. Section 7 of the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 115-141 ) prohibited the adjustment for the remainder of the year.

	January 2017 Member Pay Adjustment Denied

The maximum potential January 2017 Member pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2014 to December 2015 on January 30, 2016.
Both the House-passed ( H.R. 5325 ) and Senate-reported ( S. 2955 ) versions of the FY2017 legislative branch appropriations bill—which would provide approximately $4.4 billion in funding for the activities of the House of Representatives, Senate, and legislative branch support agencies —contained a provision that would prohibit this adjustment. The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision. No further action was taken on H.R. 5325 or S. 2955 , but the pay prohibition language was included in the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 114-254 ).
Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base salaries for GS employees.

	January 2016 Member Pay Adjustment Denied

The maximum potential January 2016 Member pay adjustment of 1.7%, or $3,000, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2013 to December 2014 on January 30, 2015.
The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY2016 legislative branch appropriations bill ( H.R. 2250 ) both contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment.
The pay adjustment prohibition was subsequently included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ).
Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base salaries for GS employees.

	January 2015 Member Pay Adjustment Denied

The maximum potential January 2015 pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2012 to December 2013 on January 31, 2014.
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase.
The FY2015 legislative branch appropriations bill ( H.R. 4487 ), as reported by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by the House on May 1, 2014, contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment. This provision was continued in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of this bill, with no separate vote on the Member pay provision. No further action on this bill was taken, but the provision was subsequently included in Section 8 of Division Q of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which was enacted on December 16, 2014.
On August 29, 2014, President Obama issued an "alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees," which called for a 1.0% increase in base salaries for General Schedule employees. Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1.0% ($1,700) salary increase.

	January 2014 Member Pay Adjustment Denied

The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1.2%, or $2,100, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2011 to December 2012 on January 31, 2013. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 ( P.L. 113-46 , enacted October 17, 2013), however, prohibited the scheduled 2014 pay adjustment for Members of Congress.
Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either
denied statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase. The scheduled January 2014 across-the-board increase in the base pay of GS employees under the annual adjustment formula was 1.3%. A scheduled GS annual pay increase may be altered only if the President issues an alternative plan or if a different increase, or freeze, is enacted. The President issued an alternate pay plan for civilian federal employees on August 30, 2013. This plan called for a January 2014 across-the-board pay increase of 1.0% for federal civilian employees, the same percentage as proposed in the President's FY2014 budget. Legislation was not enacted to prohibit or alter the GS adjustment, and Executive Order 13655, issued on December 23, 2013, implemented a 1.0% increase for GS employees. Had the Member pay adjustment not been prohibited by law, the GS base pay adjustment would have automatically limited a salary adjustment for Members of Congress to 1.0% ($1,700).

	January 2013 Member Pay Adjustment Delayed and Then Denied

The maximum potential 2013 pay adjustment of 1.1%, or $1,900, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2010 to December 2011 on January 31, 2012. The adjustment takes effect automatically unless (1) denied statutorily by Congress or (2) limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase.
The President's budget, submitted on February 13, 2012, proposed an average (i.e., base and locality) 0.5% adjustment for GS employees.

		Partial Year Pay Freeze Enacted

President Obama later stated in a letter to congressional leadership on August 21, 2012, that the current federal pay freeze should extend until FY2013 budget negotiations are finalized. Section 114 of H.J.Res. 117 , the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, which was introduced on September 10, 2012, extended the freeze enacted by P.L. 111-322 through the duration of this continuing resolution. H.J.Res. 117 was passed by the House on September 13 and the Senate on September 22. It was signed by the President on September 28, 2012 ( P.L. 112-175 ). A delay in the implementation of pay adjustments for GS employees automatically delays any scheduled Member pay adjustment.

		Executive Order Issued and Subsequent Pay Freeze Enacted

On December 27, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13635, which listed the rates of pay for various categories of officers and employees that would be effective after the expiration of the freeze extended by P.L. 112-175 . The executive order included a 0.5% increase for GS base pay, which automatically lowered the maximum potential Member pay adjustment from 1.1% to 0.5%.
As in prior years, schedule 6 of the 2012 executive order listed the pay rate for Members of Congress for the upcoming year. This executive order indicated that an annual adjustment would take effect after the expiration of the freeze included in P.L. 112-175 . As stated above, the annual adjustments take effect automatically if legislation is not enacted preventing them. The executive order, however, by establishing the GS pay adjustment at a lower rate than the scheduled Member pay adjustment, automatically lowered the Member pay adjustment rate since by law Member pay adjustments cannot be higher than GS pay adjustments.
Subsequently, a provision in H.R. 8 , the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was enacted on January 2, 2013 ( P.L. 112-240 ), froze Member pay at the 2009 level for 2013. The language was included in S.Amdt. 3448 , a substitute amendment agreed to by unanimous consent. The bill, as amended, passed the Senate (89-8, vote #251) and the House (257-167, roll call #659) on January 1, 2013. This freeze was subsequently reflected in Executive Order 13641, which was signed April 5, 2013.
This represented the second time, the first being in 2006, that Member pay was statutorily frozen for only a portion of the following year at the time of the issuance of the executive order. In both instances, the executive order listed new pay rates and indicated an effective date following the expiration of the statutory freeze. Pay adjustments in both years were further frozen pursuant to subsequent laws.

	January 2011 and January 2012 Member Pay Adjustments Denied

As stated above, projected Member pay adjustments are calculated based on changes in the ECI. The projected 2011 adjustment of 0.9% was known when the BLS released data for the ECI change during the 12-month period from December 2008 to December 2009 on January 29, 2010. This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600.
The 2011 pay adjustment was prohibited by the enactment of H.R. 5146 ( P.L. 111-165 ) on May 14, 2010. H.R. 5146 was introduced in the House on April 27 and was agreed to the same day (Roll no. 226). It was agreed to in the Senate the following day by unanimous consent. Other legislation was also introduced to prevent the scheduled 2011 pay adjustment.
Additionally, P.L. 111-322 , which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevents any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen during this period. If not limited by GS pay, Members could have received a salary adjustment of 1.3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula. Pay for Members of Congress remained $174,000.

	January 2010 Member Pay Adjustment Denied

Under the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act, Members were originally scheduled to receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%. This adjustment was denied by Congress through a provision included in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Section 103 of Division J of the act states, "Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 shall not take effect."
Had this provision not been enacted, the 2.1% projected adjustment would have been automatically reduced to 1.5% to match the 2010 GS base pay adjustment.

	Member Pay: Other Proposals and Actions by Congress

		116th Congress

As in previous Congresses, legislation was introduced in the 116 th Congress to
repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 751 and H.R. 1466 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution, passage of appropriations, or reaching the debt limit (for example, S. 39 , S. 44 , S. 949 , H.R. 86 , H.R. 102 , H.R. 129 , H.R. 236 , H.R. 298 , H.R. 834 , H.R. 1172 , H.R. 1178 , H.R. 1466 , H.R. 1612 , H.J.Res. 10 , and H.J.Res. 51 ); and prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S. 74 , S. 949 , H.R. 26 , H.R. 211 , H.R. 845 , and H.R. 1612 ).

		115th Congress

Legislation was introduced in the 115 th Congress to
prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 342 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 668 and H.R. 5946 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H.R. 429 , H.R. 536 , H.R. 646 , H.R. 1779 , H.R. 1951 , H.R. 2153 , H.R. 2665 , H.R. 3675 , H.R. 4512 , and H.R. 5946 , and S. 14 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 1786 and H.R. 5539 ); and prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 1789 , H.R. 1794 , H.R. 2214 , H.R. 4852 , H.R. 4870 , and S. 2327 ).

		114th Congress

Legislation was introduced in the 114 th Congress to
prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 109 and H.R. 302 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 179 , H.R. 513 , H.R. 688 , H.R. 1585 , and S. 17 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including the passage of a budget resolution or existence of a deficit (for example, H.Con.Res. 27 , S.Con.Res. 11 , H.R. 92 , H.R. 110 , H.R. 174 , H.R. 187 , H.R. 3757 , H.R. 4814 , H.R. 4476 , and S. 39 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 179 and H.R. 688 ); and prohibit or reduce pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S. 2074 , H.R. 3562 , H.R. 2023 , and H.R. 1032 ).

			Linking Salaries to Passage of a Concurrent Resolution on the Budget

The House budget resolution for FY2016, H.Con.Res. 27 , included a policy statement that Congress should agree to a concurrent budget resolution each year by April 15, and if not, congressional salaries should be held in escrow (Section 819). The statement proposed that salaries would be released from the escrow account either when a chamber agrees to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day of the Congress, whichever is earlier. The House agreed to this resolution on March 25, 2015, and no further action was taken. The Senate agreed to its resolution on the FY2016 budget, S.Con.Res. 11 , on March 27, 2015, without this language. The conference report for S.Con.Res. 11 —agreed to in the House on April 30 and in the Senate on May 5, 2015—contains a "Policy Statement on 'No Budget, No Pay'" (Section 6216), which refers to actions by the House.

		113th Congress

Legislation was introduced in the 113 th Congress to
prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H.R. 54 , H.R. 243 , H.R. 636 , S. 18 , S. 30 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H.R. 134 , H.R. 150 , H.R. 196 , S. 65 , and H.R. 398 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H.R. 108 , H.R. 167 , H.R. 284 , H.R. 308 , H.R. 310 , H.R. 325 , H.R. 372 , H.R. 397 , H.R. 396 , H.R. 522 , H.R. 593 , H.R. 1884 , H.R. 2335 , H.R. 3234 , S. 18 , S. 30 , and S. 263 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 37 , H.R. 150 , H.R. 391 , H.R. 396 , H.R. 398 , and H.R. 1467 ); prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, H.R. 3160 , H.R. 3215 , H.R. 3224 , H.R. 3234 , and H.R. 3236 ); and apply any sequester to Member pay (for example, S. 436 , H.R. 1181 , H.R. 1478 , and H.R. 2677 ).

			Linking Salaries to Passage of a Concurrent Resolution on the Budget

H.R. 325 , which (1) included language holding congressional salaries in escrow if a concurrent resolution on the budget was not agreed to by April 15, 2013, and (2) provided for a temporary extension of the debt ceiling through May 18, 2013, was introduced on January 21, 2013. Salaries would have been held in escrow for Members in a chamber if that chamber had not agreed to a concurrent resolution by that date. Salaries would have been released from the escrow account either when that chamber agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day of the 113 th Congress, whichever was earlier. H.R. 325 was agreed to in the House on January 23, 2013, and the Senate on January 31, 2013. It was enacted on February 4, 2013 ( P.L. 113-3 ). Both the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution prior to that date, however, and salaries were not held in escrow.

			Linking Salaries to the Debt Limit

H.R. 807 , the Full Faith and Credit Act, was introduced in the House on February 25, 2013. The bill would have prioritized certain payments in the event the debt reaches the statutory limit. An amendment, H.Amdt. 61 , was offered on May 9, 2013, that would clarify that these obligations would not include compensation for Members of Congress. It was agreed to the same day. The bill passed the House on May 13, 2013. No further action was taken in the 113 th Congress.
The House-passed version of H.J.Res. 59 , the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, also contained a provision addressing actions by the Secretary of the Treasury in the event that the debt limit is reached and not raised. The provision (Section 138) would, in part, prohibit borrowing to provide pay for Members of Congress in the event that the debt reaches the statutory limit prior to December 15, 2014. The bill passed the House on September 20, 2013. It was enacted on December 26, 2013, without this section.

		112th Congress

Legislation was introduced in the 112 th Congress to
repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, S. 133 , S. 148 , H.R. 187 , H.R. 235 , H.R. 246 , H.R. 343 , H.R. 431 , H.R. 3673 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to other action or economic indicators (for example, H.R. 124 , H.R. 172 , H.R. 236 , H.R. 994 , H.R. 1454 , H.R. 3136 , H.R. 3565 , H.R. 3774 , H.R. 3799 , H.R. 3883 , H.R. 4036 , H.R. 6438 , S. 1442 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H.R. 204 , H.R. 270 , H.R. 335 , H.R. 1012 , H.R. 4399 ); otherwise alter or restrict pay for Members under certain conditions (for example, H.R. 6108 ); and freeze Member pay (for example, S. 1931 , S. 1936 , S. 2065 , S. 2079 , S. 2210 , H.R. 3858 , H.R. 6474 , H.R. 6720 , H.R. 6721 , H.R. 6722 ).

			Actions Related to Member Pay During a Lapse in Appropriations

Legislation was also introduced in the 112 th Congress that would have affected Member pay in the event of a lapse of appropriations resulting in a government shutdown. These included H.R. 819 , H.R. 1255 , H.R. 1305 , H.Con.Res. 56 , and S. 388 .
The Senate passed S. 388 on March 1, 2011. The bill would have prohibited Members of the House and Senate from receiving pay, including retroactive pay, for each day that there is a lapse in appropriations or the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because of the public debt limit. The House passed H.R. 1255 on April 1, 2011. The bill would have prohibited the disbursement of pay to Members of the House and Senate during either of these situations. No further action was taken on either bill.
On April 8, 2011, the Speaker of the House issued a "Dear Colleague" letter indicating that in the event of a shutdown, Members of Congress would continue to be paid pursuant to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which as stated above, states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened"—although Members could elect to return any compensation to the Treasury.

			Additional Legislation Receiving Floor Action but Not Enacted

Additional legislation to prohibit any Member pay adjustment in 2013 was introduced but not enacted in the 112 th Congress, including the following:
Section 5421(b)(1) of H.R. 3630 , as introduced in the House, would have prohibited any adjustment for Members of Congress prior to December 31, 2013. Section 706 of the motion to recommit also contained language freezing Member pay. On December 13, 2011, the motion to recommit failed (183-244, roll call #922), and the bill passed the House (234-193, roll call #923). The House-passed version of the bill was titled the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011." The Senate substitute amendment, which did not address pay adjustments, passed on December 17. It was titled the "Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011." The bill was enacted on February 22, 2012 ( P.L. 112-96 ), without the pay freeze language. H.R. 3835 , introduced on January 27, 2012, also would have extended the pay freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013. This bill passed the House on February 1, 2012. H.R. 6726 , introduced on January 1, 2013, would have extended the pay freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013. This bill passed the House on January 2, 2013.

	Reference and Historical Information and Explanation of Tables

 Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress since 1789. For each salary rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are provided.
 Table 2 provides information on pay adjustments for Members since 1992, which was the first full year after the Ethics Reform Act that Representatives and Senators received the same salary. The table provides the projected percentage changes under the formula based on the Employment Cost Index and the actual percentage adjustment. The differences between the projected and actual Member pay adjustments resulted from
the enactment of legislation preventing the increase (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019); limits on the percentage increase of Member pay because of the percentage increase in GS base pay (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019); and a combination of the above. In some years, the percentage adjustment for Member pay would have been lowered to match the percentage adjustment in GS base pay if Congress had not passed legislation denying the adjustment (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019).
If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the 2 U.S.C. §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained unchanged, the 2019 salary would be $210,900.
 Table 3 lists the laws which have previously delayed or prohibited Member pay adjustments, the dates these laws were enacted, and the text of the provision. While many of the bills in this list are appropriations bills, a prohibition on Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill.
 Figure 1 , which follows, shows the salary of Members of Congress in current and constant (inflation adjusted) dollars since 1992. It shows that Member salaries, when adjusted for inflation, decreased 15% from 2009 until 2019.

Output:
Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay. In the past, Congress periodically enacted specific legislation to alter its pay; the last time this occurred affected pay in 1991. More recently, pay has been determined pursuant to laws establishing formulas for automatic adjustments.
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established the current automatic annual adjustment formula, which is based on changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The adjustment is automatic unless denied statutorily, although the percentage may not exceed the percentage base pay increase for General Schedule (GS) employees. Member pay has since been frozen in two ways: (1) directly, through legislation that freezes salaries for Members but not for other federal employees, and (2) indirectly, through broader pay freeze legislation that covers Members and other specified categories of federal employees.
Members of Congress last received a pay adjustment in January 2009. At that time, their salary was increased 2.8%, to $174,000. A provision in P.L. 111-8 prohibited any pay adjustment for 2010. Under the pay adjustment formula, Members were originally scheduled to receive an adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%, although this would have been revised downward automatically to 1.5% to match the GS base pay adjustment. Members next were scheduled to receive a 0.9% pay adjustment in 2011. The pay adjustment was prohibited by P.L. 111-165. Additionally, P.L. 111-322 prevented any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay was also frozen during this period. If not limited by GS pay, Member pay could have been adjusted by 1.3% in 2012. The ECI formula established a maximum potential pay adjustment in January 2013 of 1.1%. P.L. 112-175 extended the freeze on GS pay rates for the duration of this continuing resolution, which also extended the Member freeze since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in GS base pay. Subsequently, Member pay for 2013 was further frozen in P.L. 112-240. The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1.2%, or $2,100, was denied by P.L. 113-46. The maximum potential January 2015 Member pay adjustment was 1.6%, or $2,800. President Obama proposed a 1.0% increase in the base pay of GS employees, which would automatically have limited any Member pay adjustment to 1.0%. P.L. 113-235 contained a provision prohibiting any Member pay adjustment. The maximum potential January 2016 pay adjustment of 1.7%, or $3,000, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase. Member pay for 2016 was frozen by P.L. 114-113. The maximum potential January 2017 pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase. Member pay for 2017 was frozen by P.L. 114-254. The maximum potential January 2018 pay adjustment of 1.8%, or $3,100, was automatically limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen by P.L. 115-141. The maximum potential January 2019 pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was automatically limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen at the 2009 level by P.L. 115-244. The maximum potential January 2020 pay adjustment is 2.6%, or $4,500.
If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the 2 U.S.C. §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained unchanged, the 2019 salary would be $210,900. When adjusted for inflation, Member salaries have decreased 15% since the last pay adjustment in 2009.
Both the automatic annual adjustments and funding for Members' salaries are provided pursuant to other laws (2 U.S.C. §4501)—not the annual appropriations bills—and a provision prohibiting a scheduled adjustment could be included in any bill, or introduced as a separate bill.


Input:
	Background

Global defense posture is an enabler of U.S. defense activities and  military operations overseas and is a central means of defining and  communicating U.S. strategic interests to allies, partners, and  adversaries. It is driven by a hierarchy of national-level and DOD-specific  guidance, which includes the National Defense Strategy and the National  Military Strategy. Under DOD Instruction 3000.12, global defense posture  includes three elements:
Forces: forward stationed or rotationally deployed forces, U.S.  military capabilities, equipment, and units (assigned or allocated).
Footprint: networks of U.S. foreign and overseas locations,  infrastructure, facilities, land, and prepositioned equipment.
Agreements: treaties and access, transit, support, and status- protection agreements and arrangements with allies and partners that  set the terms regarding the U.S. military’s presence within the territory  of the host country.
EUCOM is one of six geographic combatant commands and is  responsible for missions in all of Europe, large portions of Asia, parts of  the Middle East, and the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans (see figure 1).  EUCOM evaluates the adequacy of posture in Europe to support relevant  plans and achieve military objectives. EUCOM shares responsibility with  the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of  Defense for U.S. military relations with allies and partners in Europe and  the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The number of U.S. military sites located in EUCOM’s area of  responsibility and the number of military personnel assigned to Europe  have decreased substantially since the end of the Cold War, and two  heavy combat brigades had been deactivated by the end of fiscal year  2014. As of May 2016, EUCOM supported one airborne infantry brigade  and one Stryker brigade, as well as approximately 62,000 military  personnel across approximately 250 sites.
Since 2009, we have reported on issues related to DOD’s efforts to  estimate and report on the total cost of its global defense posture. In  2009, we identified weaknesses in DOD’s approach for adjusting its  global defense posture and recommended, among other things, that DOD  issue guidance for estimating total costs for global defense posture and  modify its annual report to Congress to include the total cost to complete  each planned posture initiative. In February 2011, we reported that  EUCOM lacked comprehensive cost data in a key posture planning  document and that therefore decision makers lacked critical information  that they needed to make fully informed posture decisions. We  recommended that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revise the  Joint Staff’s posture planning guidance to include direction on how the  combatant commands should analyze costs and benefits when  considering changes to posture and to require that posture plans include  comprehensive cost estimates. DOD agreed with the recommendations in  both reports and subsequently took steps to implement them.
In June 2012, we reported that DOD did not fully understand the cost  implications of two posture initiatives in Europe—including its decision to  return two heavy brigades from Europe to the United States—and that  key posture planning documents did not completely and consistently  include cost data. We recommended that DOD fully estimate the cost  implications of these two initiatives, clarify components’ roles and  responsibilities for estimating costs, and develop a standard reporting  format for cost data. DOD generally agreed with our recommendations  and has taken steps to implement two of them.
Following the President’s June 2014 announcement of ERI, EUCOM  identified five lines of effort that it would pursue under ERI, as described  in table 1.
Three of ERI’s lines of effort are expected to enhance DOD’s posture in  Europe. For example, DOD is using ERI to increase the forces present in  Europe by rotating an armored brigade combat team and elements of a  combat aviation brigade to Europe every nine months. DOD also plans  to enhance its footprint in Europe by using ERI funding to make  infrastructure improvements and establish locations for prepositioned  equipment. Finally, in order to implement ERI’s lines of effort and support  U.S. activities, DOD is partnering with the State Department to negotiate  host nation agreements that, among other things, establish protections for  U.S. military personnel and provide DOD the authority to improve host  nation installations and infrastructure. DOD is also supporting additional  exercises and training to improve interoperability with partner countries  while providing them with the capability and capacity to defend  themselves, but these efforts are not expected to affect DOD’s long-term  posture in Europe.

	DOD Has Expanded ERI’s Objectives and Funding, Contributing to Enhancements in Its Posture in Europe

Since 2014, DOD has expanded ERI’s objectives, increased its funding,  and planned enhancements to posture in Europe. In fiscal years 2015  and 2016, ERI’s objective was to provide short-term reassurance to allies,  and the initiative had little funding for long-term enhancements to posture.  DOD focused its efforts on bolstering the security and capacity of NATO  allies and partners by funding training, conducting exercises, and  temporarily rotating Army and Air Force units to Eastern Europe. In fiscal  year 2017, DOD expanded ERI’s objectives to include deterring Russian  aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible  combined force should deterrence fail.
Recognizing that ERI’s expanded objectives would require DOD to alter  its posture in Europe, DOD has requested increased ERI funding. DOD  will have requested approximately $4.5 billion in ERI funding for posture  enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017; about $3.2 billion of  this was requested for use in fiscal years 2017. During the time of our  review, EUCOM had identified a need for additional funding over the next  several years for additional posture enhancements in Europe. Specific  details about EUCOM’s future posture plans and funding requirements  were omitted because they are classified.
DOD has requested increased funding to support planned enhancements  to all three posture elements—forces, footprint, and agreements—in  Europe:
Force deployments to Eastern Europe: In fiscal years 2015 and  2016, the Army deployed armored brigade combat teams to Eastern  Europe to provide short-term reassurance to allies and partners,  which DOD officials said included Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and  Poland, among other countries. These short-duration deployments  were intermittent and focused on demonstrating U.S. commitment to  allies and partners. Additionally, the Air Force deployed air units on 4- month rotations to help protect allies’ and partners’ air space. In the  fiscal year 2017 budget justification materials provided to Congress,  as ERI’s objectives expanded, DOD requested funding to retain Air  Force fighter units in Europe. It also began deploying a rotational  armored brigade combat team so that one such brigade would be  present in Europe at all times (see figure 2). The first deployment, in  January 2017, included approximately 4,000 personnel, 90 Abrams  tanks, 90 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicles, and 112 supporting  vehicles. Additionally, DOD began procuring and prepositioning  equipment for two planned armored brigades in Europe, one of which  will include modernized tanks, as an additional deterrent. According to  Army officials, these force enhancements in Europe give the Army the  ability to quickly deploy a substantial ground force in the event of a  conflict. As of April 2017, DOD was still evaluating force  enhancements in Europe as part of its fiscal year 2018 budget  submission. Specific details were omitted because they are classified.
New locations and improvements to infrastructure: Since ERI was  announced in 2014, DOD has established new enduring locations in  Europe. An enduring location is designated by DOD and is a  geographic site that DOD expects to access and use to support U.S.  security interests for the foreseeable future. During our review, DOD  had not yet determined whether additional enduring locations would  be needed to support ERI.
In addition to establishing new enduring locations, DOD plans to improve  installations and infrastructure. From fiscal years 2015 through 2017,  DOD requested funding in its budget justification submissions to  Congress for major military construction projects in nine European  countries and to improve support infrastructure—such as roads,  railheads, and airbasing—at these locations. Major military construction  projects are those projects specified in National Defense Authorization  Acts. During the time of our review, DOD was considering addition  improvements to existing infrastructure, specific details of which are  classified. According to DOD and State Department officials, DOD is also  working with U.S. allies and partners to determine what infrastructure  improvements to roads, railroads, and bridges need to occur outside  enduring locations to allow rapid response to a conflict.
New host nation agreements: Since ERI was announced, DOD and  the State Department have completed host nation agreements with  six European nations in support of ERI efforts:
Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland, implementing previous  agreements, in order to facilitate U.S. construction on installations  and areas in the host country (June and July 2015 and June  2016).
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, providing an overarching  framework for protections for U.S. personnel and U.S. access to  installations in host nations (January 2017).

	DOD Does Not Prioritize Posture Initiatives Funded Under ERI against Those in Its Base Budget, Estimate Their Sustainment Costs, or Communicate Future Costs to Congress

DOD is using a separate process instead of its established posture  planning process to plan for ERI’s posture initiatives because of the  emergent nature of ERI requirements and their having been funded  through the OCO budget. DOD has established global defense posture  management and base budget development processes that plan for  posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to  establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy  and policy. As a result of its not using its established processes, DOD is  not prioritizing posture initiatives funded under ERI against posture  initiatives funded through its base budget, estimating these initiatives’  long-term sustainment costs, or communicating their future costs to  Congress.

		DOD is Not Using Its Established Processes to Plan for and Fund ERI Posture Initiatives

DOD is planning ERI posture initiatives outside of its established  processes and is funding these enduring initiatives—including rotational  deployments and infrastructure projects—out of its OCO budget. We have  previously identified risks associated with DOD’s practice of completing  construction projects outside of its established processes. For example, in  September 2016 we reported that DOD had not issued implementing  guidance to establish a formal process for reevaluating ongoing  contingency construction projects when missions change and that as a  result DOD risked completing unnecessary construction projects. We  also found that DOD lacked visibility into the amount of funding it was  spending on operations and maintenance-funded construction projects in  U.S. Central Command and that this increased financial risk and  duplication risk for the department.
Like U.S. Central Command, EUCOM is using DOD’s OCO budget to  fund construction projects and is planning those projects outside of its  established processes. Based on our analysis, DOD plans to spend  approximately $503 million from fiscal year 2015 through the end of fiscal  year 2017 on ERI-related construction projects—about $279 million for  major military construction projects and $224 million for minor military  construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter,  minor construction and repair), as shown in table 2.
DOD has established global defense posture management and base  budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and  collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities,  evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy.  According to DOD Instruction 3000.12, DOD’s global defense posture  processes apply to DOD forces, footprint, and agreements that support  joint and combined global operations and plans in foreign countries.  According to the instruction, DOD’s components use these processes to  address planning for global defense posture, resource requirements, and  policy development, among other things. Further, it states that these  processes are overseen by an executive council that provides   recommendations, inputs, and expertise on global defense posture to key  national strategy products. DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting,  and Execution Process serves as the annual resource allocation process  for DOD and is intended to enable DOD to align resources to prioritized  capabilities; balance necessary warfighting capabilities with risk,  affordability, and effectiveness; and provide mechanisms for making and  implementing fiscally sound decisions in support of the national security  strategy and the national defense strategy.
DOD is using a separate and evolving process to plan ERI’s posture  initiatives—rather than following its established processes—because ERI  is being funded through DOD’s OCO budget. According to officials from  the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program  Evaluation, the department has recognized that the short-term planning  process used to develop DOD’s OCO budget can create problems when  it is used to plan for enduring initiatives. As a result, DOD has developed  a separate process to plan for ERI.
As part of the fiscal year 2018 planning process, EUCOM provided a  prioritized list of potential requirements and an estimate of its annual  costs by appropriation account to the Director for Cost Assessment and  Program Evaluation. According to officials from the Office of the Secretary  of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, DOD completed  its review and provided recommendations to DOD’s senior leaders for  approval in October 2016 and final decisions were made within DOD in  April 2017. The specific criteria by which DOD assessed EUCOM’s  potential requirements are classified.
DOD is requesting funds for ERI’s posture initiatives as part of its OCO  budget, which is generally intended to be short-term funding for ongoing  contingency operations. In February 2009, the Office of Management and  Budget, in collaboration with DOD, issued criteria to assist in determining  whether funding properly belonged in DOD’s base budget or in its OCO  budget. These criteria were updated in September 2010 and currently  indicate that funding requests should be for specific geographic areas  where combat or direct combat support operations occur (such as Iraq  and Afghanistan). Further, budget items must meet other criteria. For  example, OCO funding requests may be for constructing facilities and  infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support of combat  operations. In these cases, the level of construction should be the  minimum needed to meet operational requirements, and construction  completed at enduring locations must be tied to surge operations or major  changes in operational requirements.
In January 2017, we reported that DOD did not apply the OCO criteria to  ERI prior to deciding to budget for its requirements using its OCO budget.  We recommended that DOD, in consultation with the Office of  Management and Budget, reevaluate and revise the criteria for  determining what can be included in OCO budget requests. DOD  concurred with our recommendation and noted that it plans to propose  revised OCO criteria. As of May 2017, the department has not  implemented our recommendation.

		DOD Does Not Prioritize ERI Initiatives against Those in Its Base Budget, Estimate Long-Term Sustainment Costs, or Communicate Future Costs to Congress

DOD’s planning for ERI’s posture initiatives does not establish priorities  for ERI initiatives relative to those in the base budget, estimate long-term  sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, or  communicate future ERI costs to Congress.

			DOD Does Not Review and Prioritize Posture Initiatives Funded Under ERI Relative to Those in Its Base Budget

When planning ERI’s posture initiatives, DOD establishes priorities  among ERI’s initiatives but does not review posture initiatives funded  under ERI relative to those funded in the military services’ base budgets.  DOD’s posture management process is intended to establish priorities  among global posture elements and is overseen by a Global Posture  Executive Council. According to DOD Instruction 3000.12, the Executive  Council is responsible for reviewing, prioritizing, and endorsing across the  combatant commands key posture elements such as military construction  projects and international agreements. The Executive Council’s  endorsements inform the military services’ budget deliberations.
For the fiscal year 2017 ERI budget, EUCOM requested funding for  several posture initiatives, including the continuous, rotational deployment  of an armored brigade combat team and the establishment of  prepositioned equipment in Europe. Officials representing the Under  Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Director, Cost Assessment and  Program Evaluation said that as part of its planning process for ERI the  Deputy’s Management Action Group evaluated and prioritized posture  initiatives funded under ERI. However, DOD could not provide  documentation that it had established priorities relative to posture  initiatives funded through the base budget. Further, the Global Posture  Executive Council did not review or prioritize posture initiatives funded   under ERI relative to posture initiatives funded through DOD’s base  budget. Similarly, as DOD prepared the fiscal year 2018 ERI budget  request, the Global Posture Executive Council did not prioritize EUCOM’s  proposed ERI posture initiatives relative to initiatives funded through  DOD’s base budget. More detailed information about these proposals,  and their potential funding requirements, are classified.
According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Policy and the Joint Staff, DOD did not prioritize posture initiatives  funded under ERI against base-budget funded posture initiatives,  because ERI is funded through DOD’s OCO budget—which does not  directly affect the services’ base budgets. However, because it does not  prioritize ERI initiatives against other initiatives funded through the base  budget, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of  initiatives funded under ERI and may begin investing in projects that it  would not support in the absence of funding from DOD’s OCO budget.  For example, Army officials noted that if funding were to become  unavailable in DOD’s OCO budget, the Army is unsure how initiatives  funded under ERI would rank in importance relative to other posture  initiatives funded in its base budget. Consequently, the Army would be  forced to make critical—and potentially costly—decisions quickly and  without a clear idea of which posture initiatives were most important to the  department.

			DOD Does Not Estimate Long- Term Sustainment Costs for Some Posture Initiatives Funded Under ERI

In planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, EUCOM and the  military services have not fully estimated the long-term sustainment costs  of ERI’s posture initiatives to establish prepositioned equipment and  construct new facilities. DOD’s global defense posture guidance indicates  that, when evaluating potential changes to posture, the combatant  commands should work with the military services to estimate the full cost  of planned posture initiatives, including sustainment costs. DOD’s  guidance on economic analysis also notes the importance of  understanding both the size and timing of costs. Finally, our prior work  has demonstrated that comprehensive cost estimates of current and  future resource requirements are critical to making funding decisions and  assessing program affordability.
DOD leadership emphasized throughout the fiscal year 2018 budget  review process that the services would need to fund ERI posture   sustainment costs through their respective base budgets, but DOD did  not direct the services and EUCOM to estimate these costs as they would  have under their established processes. Officials from the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said  that DOD leadership emphasized that the military services would need to  fund all future sustainment costs for ERI projects from their base budgets.
Based on DOD’s approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs,  we determined that ERI sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment  and construction could be substantial. Army and Air Force officials said  that they were working to identify and incorporate these costs into future  base budget submissions. DOD officials said that we correctly applied  DOD’s approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual  costs may be lower than the estimated costs, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment. Additionally, officials said that  EUCOM is trying to negotiate burden sharing agreements with host  nations; however, it is unclear whether these negotiations will be  successful or how any resulting agreements would affect DOD’s future  costs.
Without comprehensive estimates of the sustainment costs for the  prepositioned equipment and major military construction projects in  Europe, DOD decision makers have been limited in their ability to  evaluate the affordability of these initiatives. Further, in the absence of  these estimates, the services have been limited in their ability to plan for  costs in future budgets, because they have an incomplete understanding  of the magnitude of those costs and of when they are likely to be incurred.

			DOD Does Not Communicate to Congress the Future Costs of Enduring ERI Activities Funded through OCO

The funding plan that DOD submits to Congress for ERI does not contain  information about ERI’s future costs. This is in contrast to the way DOD  submits its funding plan for its base budget, where DOD provides  Congress with cost projections over a 5-year period, by appropriation,  leaving Congress with a better understanding of how and when to  allocate resources. In reviewing the fiscal year 2018 ERI request, the  Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation assessed future  costs associated with posture initiatives funded under ERI. We previously  reported that DOD was not developing enduring requirements funded  through its OCO budget as part of its budget and programming process.  Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)  and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and  Program Evaluation told us that DOD has not been required to provide  estimates for future OCO costs for ERI to Congress previously. An official  from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us  that DOD does not plan to provide these future costs to Congress along  with its fiscal year 2018 ERI budget submission.
Additionally, in preparing its posture requirements, EUCOM did not  identify assumptions regarding host nation and NATO burden sharing.  For example, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Policy said that DOD has submitted a request to the NATO Security  Investment Programmé for $200 million in funding to build a facility in  Poland to store Army equipment. Officials told us that, as a result, this  construction project was identified as a lesser priority in EUCOM’s fiscal  year 2018 request for funding. A senior Army officer told us that  completion of a facility in Poland was critical to its plans in Europe.  Officials from the U.S. Mission to NATO told us that as of July 2016  NATO had approved funding to complete preliminary architectural and  engineering design for this project. Officials expect additional funding will  be made available in July 2017 to complete final design and site  preparation and the full cost of the project will be approved in early 2019.  However, these officials noted that additional funding beyond what has  been approved by NATO may be required to meet U.S.-specific  requirements. Similarly, EUCOM officials said that they are working to  identify opportunities to defray future costs through host nation   contributions, but it is unclear how much funding—if any—host nations  will provide moving forward.
Congress has expressed interest in knowing the future costs of enduring  activities being funded through DOD’s OCO budget. The Senate  Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying a bill for DOD’s fiscal  year 2015 appropriations stated that the committee does not have an  understanding of enduring activities funded by the OCO budget. The  committee further noted that there is a potential for risk in continuing to  fund non-contingency-related activities through the OCO budget. Both  GAO’s and other federal standards emphasize that agencies should  provide complete and reliable information on the costs of programs  externally, so that decision makers can make informed decisions when  allocating resources.
DOD has not provided Congress projections of future costs for posture  initiatives funded under ERI because it is reviewing those requirements  outside of its budget and programming processes, and DOD officials said  that the department is not required to provide this information. As a result,  DOD is limiting congressional visibility into the resources needed to  achieve ERI’s objectives. If DOD does not provide Congress with  projections of the future costs of posture initiatives funded under ERI and  information on its assumptions pertaining to host nation support and  burden sharing, it will continue to impede congressional visibility into the  resources that are needed to fully implement these initiatives.

	Conclusions

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent threat of further  aggression led DOD to establish and later expand ERI’s objectives and  enhance posture in Europe to support a new U.S. strategy toward Russia.  DOD has requested funding for these enhancements using its OCO  budget; however, the processes DOD uses to develop its OCO budget  were not designed to plan for and fund long-term, enduring initiatives  such as ERI. By following a separate planning process when funding ERI  with OCO, DOD is taking on risk by not reviewing and prioritizing ERI  posture plans against other posture initiatives, estimating the costs for  sustaining ERI initiatives, and providing Congress with estimates of ERI’s  future costs. DOD risks making decisions that lack a strategic vision in  comparison to other DOD priorities and may fund initiatives that cannot  be sustained over the long term. Furthermore, Congress is likely to face  challenges in assessing DOD’s estimated costs for ERI and the  affordability of initiatives funded under ERI over the long term.

	Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure that DOD can target resources to its most critical  initiatives and establish priorities across its base budget and overseas  contingency operations budget, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense prioritize posture initiatives under ERI relative to those funded in  its base budget as part of its established posture-planning processes.  (Recommendation 1)
To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of  posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for  the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure  projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term  costs in future budgets. (Recommendation 2)
To support congressional decision making, we recommend that the  Secretary of Defense provide to Congress, along with the department’s  annual budget submission, estimates of the future costs for posture  initiatives funded under ERI and other enduring costs that include  assumptions such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support  and burden sharing. (Recommendation 3)

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of the classified report to DOD for review and  comment. DOD partially concurred with all three of our recommendations,  and we have reproduced DOD’s comments on the classified report in  appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation to use its  established posture-planning processes to prioritize ERI’s posture  initiatives relative to those funded in DOD’s base budget. In its comments,  DOD stated that it will continue to prioritize the negotiation of international  agreements supporting ERI through the Global Posture Executive  Council, and that an on-going Strategic Review will inform ERI and guide  both EUCOM and the services in their program planning efforts. These  are positive steps. DOD also stated it will adjudicate its ERI-funded force  requirements through its global force management process, adding that it  will continue to resource OCO funds for ERI requirements until there is a  sufficient increase in DOD’s base budget to do so. However, we continue  to believe, as noted in our report, that DOD could improve its planning for  posture initiatives funded under ERI, whether or not they are funded  through OCO, by using DOD’s established posture planning processes.  Although DOD’s global force management process directly affects  overseas military posture in the near term, this process is not designed to  evaluate long-term posture priorities. If DOD does not prioritize the forces  and infrastructure projects funded under ERI against those funded using  the military services’ base budgets, it will continue to lack an  understanding of the relative importance of the posture initiatives funded  under ERI. Without such an understanding, DOD increases the risk that  the services will need to make critical and potentially costly decisions  without a clear idea of which posture initiatives are most critical to the  department.
DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that EUCOM  and the military services develop estimates for future sustainment costs  and plan for these costs in future budgets. In its comments, DOD stated  that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for  prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD’s  annual program and budget review process. DOD also commented that  without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the  associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds.  However, as we noted in our report, neither the Army nor the Air Force  has fully estimated these potentially significant future costs, nor had either  service incorporated them into their future budgets. Using OCO funds  would mark a departure from DOD leadership’s emphasis that the  services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their  respective base budgets. Additionally, not developing robust estimates for  sustaining these initiatives could increase long-term fiscal risk for the  department if DOD shifts more ERI-associated enduring costs into its  OCO budget. In the absence of robust cost estimates and deliberate  planning to address those costs in future budgets, DOD will continue to  be limited in its ability to evaluate the affordability of posture initiatives  funded under ERI, and the military services may not plan adequate  funding to sustain posture investments in Europe.
DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation, to provide  Congress with estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded  under ERI and information on any underlying assumptions, such as those  pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing. In its  comments, DOD stated that it does not currently prepare a formal 5-year  Future Years Defense Program for OCO-related costs. Moreover, DOD  commented that it factors in host nation support and burden sharing when  preparing budget estimates for Congress. However, DOD does not state  whether it will begin to provide Congress future estimates and any  underlying assumptions with its budget submission. It is critical that DOD  increase congressional visibility into ERI’s future costs and its underlying  assumptions to facilitate congressional oversight and reasonably ensure  that initiatives can be sustained over the long-term.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander, U.S.  European Command. In addition, the report is available at no charge on  the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found   on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in Appendix III.

Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military Construction and Facilities Maintenance and Repair Projects Funded under the European Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017

The Army and Air Force identified approximately $224 million in  unspecified minor military construction and facilities maintenance and  repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair) that were  programmed or obligated for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in  fiscal years 2015 through 2017. This includes $157 million for minor  construction and repair projects identified by the Army and nearly $67  million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Air  Force. According to U.S. European Command officials, Navy and Marine  Corps construction projects funded under ERI were either major military  construction or exercise-related construction projects. The tables below  do not include Navy and Marine Corps exercise-related construction  projects. Using the data provided by the military services, we compiled  the programmed and obligated funding for these minor construction and  repair projects by fiscal year, country, location, and project name in tables  3 and 4. The information in these tables was provided by U.S. Army  Europe and U.S. Air Force Europe in response to our request for a list of  minor military construction and repair projects. The data provided did not  identify the appropriations used for each project. Accordingly, we have  not conducted a review to examine whether funds were appropriately  used for a given project.

Appendix II: DOD Comments

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill, Assistant Director;  Alex Winograd, Analyst-in-Charge; Scott Bruckner, Adrianne Cline, Martin  De Alteriis, Joanne Landesman, Jennifer Leotta, Carol Petersen, Michael  Shaughnessy, and Jena Sinkfield all made key contributions to this  report.

Output:
Why GAO Did This Study

In response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the President announced the ERI, to reassure allies in Europe of U.S. commitment to their security. This initiative has been funded using OCO appropriations, which Congress provides in addition to DOD's base budget appropriations.
The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, included a provision for GAO to review matters related to ERI. In this report, we (1) describe changes in ERI's objectives, funding under ERI, and DOD's posture in Europe since 2014 and (2) evaluate the extent to which DOD's planning processes for posture initiatives funded under ERI prioritize those initiatives, estimate their long-term costs, and communicate their estimated costs to Congress. GAO analyzed DOD strategy documentation, budget and cost analysis guidance, budget justification materials, and cost and obligations data. GAO also interviewed knowledgeable officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. European Command, the military services, and the State Department.

What GAO Found

Since 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded the European Reassurance Initiative's (ERI) objectives, increased its funding, and planned enhancements to European posture. DOD expanded ERI's objectives from the short-term reassurance of allies and partners to include deterring Russian aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible combined force should deterrence fail. With respect to funding, DOD will have requested approximately $4.5 billion for ERI's posture enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017 (about $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2017 alone), and in July 2016 EUCOM identified funding needs for future posture initiatives. The expansion of ERI's objectives has contributed to DOD's enhancing its posture in Europe. Specifically, DOD has increased the size and duration of Army combat unit deployments, planned to preposition Army equipment in Eastern Europe, added new enduring locations (e.g., locations that DOD expects to access and use to support U.S. security interests for the foreseeable future), improved infrastructure, and negotiated new agreements with European nations. As of April 2017, DOD was considering further force enhancements under ERI as part of the department's ERI budget request. DOD also was reviewing whether new enduring locations to support ERI were needed and was considering other improvements to existing infrastructure.
DOD's process for planning ERI has not established priorities among posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those in its base budget, nor estimated long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, nor communicated future costs to Congress. ERI is being planned using a separate process from DOD's established processes and is funded from DOD's overseas contingency operations (OCO) appropriations. GAO found several weaknesses:
Lack of prioritization : DOD establishes priorities among ERI posture initiatives but has not evaluated them against base budget initiatives using its posture management process. As a result, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of ERI initiatives and may be investing in projects that it will not continue should OCO funding become unavailable.
Lack of sustainment costs : EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term costs to sustain equipment and construction funded under ERI. Based on DOD's approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, GAO determined that these costs could be substantial. DOD officials said that GAO correctly applied DOD's approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment. In the absence of comprehensive estimates, DOD has been limited in its ability to assess affordability and plan for future costs.
Not communicating future costs : DOD limits Congress's visibility into the resources needed to implement ERI and achieve its objectives because it does not include future costs in its ERI budget request.
This is a public version of a classified report issued in August 2017. Information on specific posture planning, guidance, and budget estimates that DOD deemed to be classified have been omitted from this report.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD prioritize ERI posture initiatives against initiatives in its base budget, develop cost estimates for sustaining initiatives, and communicate future costs to Congress. DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendations. GAO continues to believe that these recommendations are warranted.