Did the House Vote Itself a "Backdoor" Pay Raise?
The outgoing House Democratic majority last year gifted Members with help for their DC housing and meal expenses, later ratified by the GOP-controlled House Administration Committee.
One of the few genuinely bipartisan efforts in Congress recently was the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. And by all accounts, the now-expired committee did yeoman’s work.
It escaped notice outside of Washington because it dealt with largely mundane things, such as modernizing and streamlining House operations and constituent communications, transparency and accessibility, increasing office allowances, upping pay for staff (which needed to be done), telework policies, and more. In all, the Committee made 202 recommendations, with 45 being fully implemented. Another 87 were “partially” implemented.
That’s pretty good for a “commission-style” non-legislative committee. They did not touch the statutory $174,000 annual salary for Members of Congress and veered away from larger issues, which is unfortunate. That’s where the issues really exist and remain unresolved.
One of the “fully implemented” recommendations comes from Chapter 15 of their final recommendations, to align “the “treatment of Member travel-related expenses with the private sector and Federal agencies.”
Having spent 23 well-traveled years in the private sector and another seven as a staff member in the US House (including as a chief of staff), I know a thing or two about this. The Senate, too, where I spent another five years, including a couple as its Chief Financial Officer (Secretary of the Senate). The Committee’s work, however, dealt only with the House.
What escaped me was how the House implemented the recommendation. It started with the outgoing Democratic-controlled House Administration Committee implementing the recommendation in its waning days, just before the GOP took over in early January.
Not that it mattered. The new GOP-controlled House Administration Committee unanimously ratified their change on March 23, 2023, with a resolution to change the House Congressional Handbook, which guides the operations of House offices.
Here’s the new policy unanimously approved by the House Administration Committee, which under federal law has full jurisdiction on this matter - no House vote required.
“Ordinary and necessary expenses incurred by Members during official travel between their primary residence and Washington, D.C., as well as on official business in the Washington, D.C., area are reimbursable. These expenses include meals, incidentals, and lodging. Lodging reimbursements may include costs associated with hotels, rentals, or other housing expenses. Members may be reimbursed for official and necessary travel expenses incurred for meals, incidentals, and lodging on days the House is in session or when attending an official committee business meeting or hearing but not to exceed the daily rate for meals, incidentals and lodging as determined by the General Services Administration for the Washington, D.C., area.”
According to this Department of Defense website, daily lodging rates can be reimbursed up to $261 per night, depending on the season. Add another $79 per day in meals and incidental expenses, including up to $36 for dinner. That means Members who schlep with colleagues or sleep in their offices and shower in the House gym can opt for hotels during the 2-3 nights a week they’re in Washington, when in session, just like I used to do when making treks to DC to lobby. And they can take in a nice dinner - paid for by taxpayers - without having to endure a lobbyist droning on about food labeling or energy-efficient light bulb standards.
That’s also a lot of cans of Campbell Soup for Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Oh, wait, he’s not affected by this. At least yet. You can bet the Senate Rules Committee is paying careful attention, however. There is always pressure to ensure the Members of each chamber are treated as equitably as possible.
The New York Times and others estimated that the expanded reimbursement rules could add up to $34,000 a year for some Members of Congress. That’s probably high, and thus far, only one member has reached the $17,000 threshold through May of this year, according to the conservative Washington Free Beacon - the irrepressible champion of the taxpayer’s dollar, US Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) received the largest share of funds out of any lawmaker. The Florida Republican, who led the effort to oust former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in part due to his budgetary policies, has billed taxpayers nearly $17,000 from January through May to pay for his D.C. living expenses. Gaetz received an additional $6,200 to pay for his meals during the same timeframe, an average of over $1,250 per month.
Gaetz spends $1,250 per month on food while in DC? Wow, he must be shopping at Whole Foods or with Gordon Ramsay.
To be clear, this isn’t some new slush fund or a back-handed pay raise. House Members will reimburse themselves from their “Representational Allowance” (MRA for short), which includes over $1.4 million for staff and another pot of money for office expenses such as travel and whatnot at a rate (a minimum of $134,000 per year) depending on the distance from Washington, DC and geographic size of their jurisdictions (they pay no rent, utilities, or furniture for their Capitol offices but do pay for computer services and office and rental expenses for their districts).
House (and Senate) members are also allowed nearly $32,000 in “outside earned income” and unlimited amounts for “unearned income,” such as book royalties. The old, smarmy practice of honoraria - paying a Congressman to give a speech or make an appearance - is long gone and is now verboten. Thank God.
And then there’s their ability to buy and sell stocks in individual companies that Members of Congress regulate, oversee, and benefit from insider or classified information about. More about that in a moment.
They have to take advantage of these expanded reimbursement policies out of their official taxpayer-funded office allowances. And per longstanding House (and Senate) policy, every expenditure is made public. That’s why we know about this, including how much Rep. Gaetz reimburses himself for his culinary talent while in Washington.
Why did the House Administration Committee do this, acting on the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress? Because too many Members of Congress find it difficult to afford their jobs, having to maintain two residences - one in their district, another in Washington, DC, despite an estimated 40-100 Members of Congress sleeping in their Capitol complex offices when they’re in DC (no one really knows how many), and shower the next morning in the House gym, which they pay for.
Having worked in all three House office buildings (and the Senate’s Russell Building and the Capitol), they’re not built for overnight accommodations (Union Soldiers during the outset of the Civil War notwithstanding). They have to coordinate with the overnight office cleaning crews. Some Democrats, in particular, are critical of the process and are working to stop it, claiming it’s unethical. We are also learning now that Democrats are wealthier than Republicans. But there are no rules against it.
Is there a better way?
Congress is in session about 90 days per year - it’s a fact that most Members keep their official residences and families back home in the district or state. It’s hard to justify paying 365 days of rent on a place you’re in, maybe, three months out of the year, especially if you have children in college or special needs kids. We also expect to see and hear from them in the districts they serve and represent, which on average, are home to more than 750,000 residents (a couple of single-state representatives have smaller constituencies, such as Wyoming and Delaware).
I’m also mindful of the salary. It’s hard, very hard, politically to justify pay increases when so many of us are angry at Congress’s performance, or lack thereof. Having said that, we expect a lot of them, and we hold them accountable every two years. Suppose you’re waiting for your passport to be renewed, are missing Social Security benefits or a military paycheck, or are seeking help with an immigration issue. In that case, they serve as welcome ombudsman in cutting through red tape. I know, I’ve done it. We also expect them to consider our views on legislative issues, and each office gets thousands of emails, letters, and calls every week. I’ve helped answer a few billion of those (it seems like it, anyway).
Reduce the size and scope of the federal government.
Given how much government has grown in size and intrusiveness, the demands are only growing and intensifying, sometimes by design. And therein lies the real solution - reducing the size and scope of the federal government by cutting, consolidating, and decentralizing its functions. I’m happy to see nearly all the GOP presidential candidates proposing that to varying degrees, but promises do not indicate future performance.
There’s a reason why four of the six wealthiest counties in the United States encircle Washington, DC., including Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun in northern Virginia - all reliably Democratic jurisdictions (my future home of Loudoun, less so).
Yes, raise Congressional pay.
The second option is coming up with a way to adjust Congressional salaries. Yes, upwards. You get what you pay for, and given the clownish behavior of a former school principal who pulls fire alarms or engages in petty shouting matches on the House floor, maybe we can entice better quality individuals to run - you know, people who’ve run successful businesses and entities, non-profit or otherwise, and have learned to behave like adults.
Given the long-overdue need to eliminate the ability of Members to engage in stock trades, maybe a pay increase would be a suitable trade-off for ending this sordid practice. There’s plenty of precedent for establishing commissions to reform congressional compensation. Feel free to include provisions withholding pay during government shutdowns to help make it more palatable.
I know this isn’t popular, given the animosity most of us have towards Washington and the people others elect. But if you want to attract better candidates, make it more attractive to run (no one runs for the salary, nor should, but it matters), especially if you’re eliminating the ability to own and trade stocks (other than mutual funds) and asking people to make huge financial sacrifices. You remember the words from the Declaration of Independence, don’t you?
Provide housing in Washington, DC, for Members of Congress.
Another option is providing housing for members of Congress in a dorm-like setting, equivalent to the Visiting Officers Quarters for a military installation. If there’s room, build something at Fort McNair, two miles from the Capitol and home of the Military Defense University (they could attend classes!), or better yet, find room at Fort Meyer, adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery across the Potomac River. They can spend their free time visiting the gravesites of our nation’s heroes or perhaps witnessing a changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier(s). Heck, they can even shop for discounted food at the commissaries on base and get to know members of the Old Guard (Third US Infantry Regiment) and their families.
Nothing fancy, but comfortable, and it would also help enhance the safety and security of Members of Congress. Wealthier members can opt for other living arrangements if they want to.
It used to be that Members of Congress brought their families with them and lived in Washington, DC, for six or so months every year, returning to their districts without the back-and-forth endless airline or train travel that Members force themselves to endure. Congressional leaders for decades have struggled to manage their legislative responsibilities with demands of Members and Senators to return home.
I’m reminded of the story of former New Jersey governor Tom Kean Sr., whose late father, US Rep. Robert Kean (R-NJ), was the ranking Republican of the House Ways and Means Committee. Kean reportedly tells the story, as a child, of hearing a knock on their Washington apartment door and running to answer it. “Uncle Wilbur!” he exclaimed, referring to then-Chairman Wilbur Mills (D-AR), visiting from down the hall to work out the next morning’s “markup” with his ranking Member. Families knew each other, and Members built relationships, spending less time in airplanes and trains.
They got stuff done.
These days, entire congressional careers come and go without House Members ever having met all or even most of their colleagues (or getting stuff done). Former US Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) made it a mission to meet with each of his 434 colleagues. It took him about six years - most of his career - but he did. He tells stories about how befuddled his colleagues were about why he wanted to meet with them.
Campaign finance reform.
Our congressional campaign finance laws, limiting what political parties and each individual or couple can give per election, make fundraising a time-consuming affair for challengers and incumbents alike. Most members spend their evenings while in Washington either doing fundraising receptions or dinners or attending those of their colleagues.
You can spot many Members walking to their respective party headquarters or campaign fundraiser’s offices on Capitol Hill on many afternoons to dial for dollars.
Even then, they’re often outspent by independent political action committees and other special interests. Changing the laws that 1) make it easier for candidates to be supported by their parties and financial contributors with 2) greater and faster transparency is one answer. It’s worth another post, but I’ve written about this already.
Rethink congressional schedules.
It’s probably asking too much for a return to the olden days of moving families to Washington for six months out of the year. But I’d rather legislators spend time legislating and fixing real problems ($34 trillion public debt? Impending Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy? China?) and getting to know their colleagues than whisking back and forth almost every week to their far-flung congressional districts on planes, trains, and automobiles. Talk about carbon footprints.
I’m tired of hearing, “You’ve got a problem? I’ve got a plane to catch.”
I recall the late Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) advocating for three weeks on, one week off, where Senators would stay in Washington while being allowed a whole week back in their states every month, plus the traditional August recess. Senators still mostly went home most weekends, and the press of more time in states proved too difficult for even the estimable Dole to overcome.
The Modernization Committee may be done, but it’s well past time for congressional leaders to establish a bigger reset on how they do their jobs. It won’t be easy, but we’d all be better served for it. And it starts with voters demanding it, starting with demanding less from our federal government.
I know, I know, good luck with that. But it’s got to start somewhere. It starts with us.
This is an excellent article. It does point to a problem on Capitol Hill that the salaries are too low for maintaining two households. Members of Congress cannot even deduct business expenses on their taxes like any other taxpayer can. They have not had a salary increase in 12 years - and that is thanks to the political committees who will roast anyone who votes for one. It is hard to explain why $174,000 isn't enough to your constituents who all mostly have family incomes under $100,000. But, regular cost of living adjustments like the law provides for, but the Members vote down, would prevent the House from only attracting professional politicians.
Thank you for bringing that insider insight to us.
Of course, my inclination is to reduce the burdens on the federal government -- it does, or tries to do -- way too much. It is not their job to run society. For the most part, Congress should get out of the way.
The putative reason behind the weekly trips back home is to stay in touch with their constituents. Does that really happen? Wouldn't they need down time, like other hard working people, on their weekends? Do they really have the opportunity to gauge the sensibilities of their constituencies in such brief visits? Yet if they stay away for extended periods, they're accused of being out of touch. Term limits would address that -- true residents of the places they represent on a brief sojourn to DC. Then resume life at home. The Articles of Confederation had that right, in concept. More than a very few years away, the honorables become part of DC society and culture. Whom then do they represent?
The counter argument is that they need time to build up expertise. I disagree, going back to my opening observation above. They're not there to be experts, they're there to convey and enact the wishes of their constituents in the context of national goals and conflicting desires from other places. That's hard enough of a challenge.
But it's hard for citizens to be too sympathetic to the demands on elected officials when there are always numerous applicants (candidates) for those jobs. They all work very hard for the opportunity to carry those burdens, which suggests some considerable level of desirability; it's their choice.
As an aside, it was a hoot reading about Mr Gaetz's profligate spending. Budgeting indeed!