Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4486, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4487, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I offered an amendment, a very modest one, to provide $25 a day to the Members in the form of a housing allowance for the days that we are in session--only the days we are in session. Now, we have been in session an average of 112 days per year recently, so that would have come out, not coincidentally, to exactly what our salaries would have been raised by, had there not been a freeze included in this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.
Frankly, it is an incentive for the Congress to be in session more days, but it is far more important than that. It would also have only applied to people who live more than 50 miles from Capitol Hill. I live 10 miles. In fact, it would not apply to any of us directly anyway because we can't raise our own salaries. It would only apply to future Congresses.
That is what this amendment is about. It is about the composition of this Congress, this institution, in the future, and that is why it is important.
I know it is not going to be popular among our constituents. When the word got out I suggested it in Mr. Cole's subcommittee and on full committee, we got hundreds of calls, all of them negative, most of them profane; but that doesn't mean that it is an issue that should not be discussed on the House floor.
We have denied pay increases to ourselves 11 times since I came into the Congress. There was a deal made a couple decades ago that said, if you don't receive money from speeches and honoraria, in return, the Congress will simply increase its pay by the cost of living each year, so it will be less politicized.
But what we did not only eliminated those outside sources of income, but we have in fact, politicized the issue by freezing our pay consistently. In fact, over the last 5 years, we have frozen our pay. This will be the sixth year in a row, and it is creating a serious problem, a problem that is only going to be exacerbated in the future.
I know the opinion of our constituents, but one of the things they may not be aware of is that the District of Columbia has one of the highest rental costs in the Nation. It is about $27,000 a year right now for a very modest rental apartment, and it goes up each year.
At the same time, since I came into the Congress, congressional pay has gone down by one-fifth. We are paying ourselves one-fifth less than we were in 1992, so it is very difficult for many Members to afford to live here.
This is the first time that this pay freeze has been included in a Legislative Branch appropriations bill. It sets a precedent, and it is a precedent that is going to be very difficult to reverse. I don't think either party is going to take it upon themselves to try to change this. It is going to become obligatory in each successive Legislative Branch appropriations bill.
So I suspect, 5, 10, 15 years from now, it is still going to be the same; and what is the result of that?
Well, it means that the Congress is probably going to be composed of two types of Members. One will be those Members who come in for one, two, three terms and then, frankly, cash out, go into the private sector, take advantage of that experience, albeit limited, in the Congress, and then provide well for their families.
The second class of Member is likely to be those who are independently wealthy, who, in fact, as some do, could afford to give back their salaries because they don't need it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MORAN. I thank the Member.
So what does that mean? It means those people who are in their thirties, and early forties, who have young families, who, in fact, have home mortgages, who have unpaid student loans, who are small business owners, they are all going to be less likely to represent our constituencies who are most represented by those folks who have difficulty meeting their costs day after day.
I think this is very dangerous. It is a dangerous precedent. We should be able to discuss it. And that is all we ask for. I didn't expect a positive vote, but I expected a discussion of a very important issue as to how this Congress is going to be represented in the future.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source