To nullify the pay raises afforded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (excluding those granted to justices and judges of the United States); to freeze rates of pay for justices and judges of the United States for the next 5 years; and to amend the Federal Salary Act of 1967 to eliminate quadrennial pay adjustments for Members of Congress and other Government officials under that Act.

Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 1993

Provides that the rate of pay of Members of Congress, judicial officers, and Executive Schedule positions shall be that in effect as of November 1, 1989, increased by 3.6 percent. States that nothing in this Act shall have the effect of reducing the pay of any individual whose compensation may not, under certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution, be diminished during such individual's continuance in office. Prohibits the pay of U.S. justices and judges from being increased to reflect any of the next five adjustments taking effect, beginning on or after the enactment of this Act. Amends the Federal Salary Act of 1967 to provide that recommendations of the President for pay adjustments for Members of Congress and other governmental officials shall be of an advisory nature only and shall have no force or effect.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. [D-IN-10] · D–IN

Committees

Judiciary Committee
Ways and Means Committee
Rules Committee
Post Office and Civil Service Committee
Committee on House Administration

15 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Feb 10, 1993
Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
Jan 5, 1993
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Jan 5, 1993
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Jan 5, 1993
Referred to the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
Jan 5, 1993
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Jan 5, 1993
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Jan 5, 1993
Introduced in House
Jan 5, 1993
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Jan 27, 1994 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.212 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.212, 103rd Congress: To nullify the pay raises afforded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (excluding those granted to justices and judges of the United States); to freeze rates of pay for justices and judges of the United States for the next 5 years; and to amend the Federal Salary Act of 1967 to eliminate quadrennial pay adjustments for Members of Congress and other Government officials under that Act.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/212

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1994-01-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr212/BILLS-103hr212ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:39:37Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.212 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.212 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.212, 103rd Congress: To nullify the pay raises afforded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (excluding those granted to justices and judges of the United States); to freeze rates of pay for justices and judges of the United States for the next 5 years; and to amend the Federal Salary Act of 1967 to eliminate quadrennial pay adjustments for Members of Congress and other Government officials under that Act.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/212

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1994-01-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr212/BILLS-103hr212ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:39:37Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.212 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.212 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.212, 103rd Congress: To nullify the pay raises afforded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (excluding those granted to justices and judges of the United States); to freeze rates of pay for justices and judges of the United States for the next 5 years; and to amend the Federal Salary Act of 1967 to eliminate quadrennial pay adjustments for Members of Congress and other Government officials under that Act.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/212

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1994-01-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr212/BILLS-103hr212ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:39:37Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.212 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.212 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.212, 103rd Congress: To nullify the pay raises afforded by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (excluding those granted to justices and judges of the United States); to freeze rates of pay for justices and judges of the United States for the next 5 years; and to amend the Federal Salary Act of 1967 to eliminate quadrennial pay adjustments for Members of Congress and other Government officials under that Act.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/212

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1994-01-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr212/BILLS-103hr212ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:39:37Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.212 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.