House Members Are Warned Against Trying for ‘Backdoor’ Pay Raise

WASHINGTON —  A bipartisan group of House members is pressing the Republican and Democratic leadership to approve a daily allowance of $165 to help cover the costs of living in Washington, despite warnings from their leaders and public watchdogs that such a move could spark public outrage.

Though House leaders quashed the proposal last month, rank-and-file Democratic and Republican lawmakers are trying to revive it. The tax-free stipend, which would total nearly $25,000 a year for each member, would not require a formal vote or additional funds because lawmakers--if House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., agreed to allow them--could simply take it out of their office accounts, which they now use for staff salaries, equipment, supplies and other incidental expenses.

Proponents of the idea, who note that 44 state legislatures provide per diem payments to their members, argue that the $145,100 annual salary of House members is unable to cover the costs of maintaining homes in their districts and in Washington.

“We’re just talking about being treated like everybody else,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. “It’s a strain on me, trying to maintain two households.”

The issue of congressional pay has bedeviled lawmakers for years. While current law dictates that House members are entitled to an annual cost-of-living adjustment, a few fiscal conservatives usually derail it by forcing a floor vote on the issue. Last year, congressional leaders managed to head off such an effort and awarded members a 2.7% pay increase.

Aides say Hastert and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., oppose the idea as politically unpalatable, which means it is unlikely the lawmakers’ demands will be met. At a time when companies are laying off workers and politicians are touting the need to restrain federal spending, they argue, House members would be hard-pressed to justify tens of thousands of dollars in additional compensation. One GOP leadership aide called it “a PR disaster.”

Fred Wertheimer, president of the public watchdog group Democracy 21, suggested that the per diem would prompt a flood of protests from voters.

“It seems like absolute madness. If House members want a $25,000 salary increase, then they ought to vote on it,” Wertheimer said. “But the idea of using a backdoor way to sneak through a $25,000 pay increase would be the height of arrogance, and an extremely unaccountable act on the part of the House.”

The support for the proposed daily allowance highlights the growing financial pressures confronting many members of Congress, especially in the House. Lawmakers, many of whom could earn much more if they returned to private life, said Congress risks losing qualified members if the gap between public sector and private sector salaries continues to widen.

The cost of maintaining two homes, even if it means a modest apartment in the D.C. area, cuts into members’ take-home pay. Rep. Mark Edward Souder, a conservative Indiana Republican, said he would support a daily allowance because the annual $3,000 tax deduction for housing costs that he receives--which would be eliminated under the proposed change--barely covers three months’ rent for his Arlington, Va., efficiency.

“There isn’t any secret this is a real financial hit,” said California Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton. “It’s very important to talk about, because I don’t think we need a society of multimillionaires in the House.”

The idea is particularly popular among lawmakers from California and New York, whose state legislators receive a generous per diem when they travel to the state capital. Many of these House members also come from relatively safe seats, making them less nervous about the prospect of angering voters.