If We Want a Better Congress, We Should Pay Its Members More

Few things unite Americans as much as our shared disdain for Congress. It’s increasingly unproductive, superficial and quarrelsome, and its members are falling down on the job: neglecting core oversight and authorization responsibilities and ditching thoughtful lawmaking in favor of entertainment-style politics.

The Congress we have today is not reflective of the greatest nation on earth. We are simply not sending our best. And this is why we must pay its members significantly more.

We must also not add burdens to serving there. Recently a Senate committee advanced a ban on stock trading for members of Congress. House members are similarly considering such a move. It may make for good politics, but this only reinforces one of the biggest problems facing Congress: It is a miserable place to work. We need to make serving more attractive, not more onerous.

It is already illegal for members of Congress to make stock trades using insider information. In 2019, Christopher Collins, Republican of New York, resigned from the House and pleaded guilty to insider trading. He was sentenced to more than two years in prison. (President Trump pardoned him, but that is a whole other matter.)

And there is already a mechanism that makes it easy to identify questionable trades. Under the 2012 Stock Act, members’ transactions are made public for the world to see, for the press to cover and for political opponents to question. It may be appropriate to increase penalties for shirking deadlines for disclosure, but the trades themselves are not secret. Today you can even invest in an index fund tied to the trades made by members of Congress.

The push to ban stock trading outright is just the latest austere, populist measure targeting members of Congress to gain currency.

Late last year Congress voted to reject the annual pay increase that its members were due under a 1989 law. This sort of ritualized self-flagellation has become entrenched. Fearing political blowback, Congress has not allowed even a cost-of-living adjustment since 2009. With inflation taken into account, the long-frozen $174,000 salary has lost 32 percent of its value over that time.

No one needs to shed a tear over our representatives being stuck at salaries far above the median income of those they serve. And it is fair to argue that Congress has done little to earn more over that time, but this misses the point. We must stop treating the job as if it deserved our contempt; otherwise, that’s all we’ll continue to have for it.

Raising pay would attract and retain talent. Congress should be a place that accommodates people in all stages of life. Trying to persuade a capable, moral person with a young family to give up his or her career to join the circus in Washington is harder than ever. The upsides are less rewarding, while the downsides are becoming more depressing — and even scary. Today it appeals mostly to the older and wealthier or those simply hungry to have someone call them “representative” or “senator.”

The lifestyle is generally not pleasant. Members are expected to live in both their home state and Washington, one of the most expensive housing markets in America. They shuttle back and forth weekly, missing birthdays and Little League games. They also face a startling number of death threats and swatting calls. And if some of the proposed stock trading bans pass, they may soon be required to sell many types of holdings when they enter office or put them in a blind trust — for a job House members could lose in two years.

And all of this for what, exactly? With Congress doing less all the time, members have fewer opportunities to affect policy and make a meaningful difference for the people they serve. The structures of policymaking have collapsed, leaving most big decisions in the hands of party leaders. Those who are committed to being real legislators are drowned out by a chorus of demagogues.

It’s no wonder thoughtful lawmakers are heading for the exits.

To be clear, candidates should not run for Congress for the paycheck or the benefits. That’s what a sense of duty and service is for. And some sacrifices are unavoidable. In practice, however, the calculus to serve is increasingly not adding up for men and women with families and those who are not rich.

For two decades, my former boss Paul Ryan slept on a cot in his office, even when he was speaker of the House. He’s a thrifty guy, and it made for a good demonstration of fiscal responsibility. But today there are dozens of members of Congress who sleep in their offices because they can’t afford to rent a Washington apartment or because they see political benefit in proving their frugality. A system in which this is deemed necessary for any reason is a disgrace.

The House recently took a step toward fixing this problem with a rule change that allows its members to be reimbursed for travel costs when coming to Washington, including for housing. But that money must come from their office budgets, pitting it against other priorities like paying their staff members.

A better answer is to significantly increase the amount we pay our representatives and begin to turn around the battle for talent that we are losing. Do lawmakers need to make $300,000 like executives to do their jobs? No. Does one need to be able to trade stocks to be able to serve in Congress? Of course not.

But an increase in pay today is not a reward for the members we have now. It is an investment to attract better representatives in the future. It’s about making Congress a more appealing place to serve. Ask any corporate leader: Talent is everything. Our government can be only as good as the people who run for office in the first place.

We don’t need more insincere sacrifice. We need better representatives. There are many hard questions to answer about fixing broken incentives in Congress, but this one should be easy: Let’s start by doubling their salaries.

Brendan Buck, a communications strategist, was a counselor to Paul Ryan and a press secretary for John Boehner when they were speakers of the House.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.