Post wrongly claims new House reimbursement policy circumvents Constitution | Fact check

Sudiksha Kochi, USA TODAY
·5 min read
4
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

The claim: Kevin McCarthy raised congressional pay by $30,000, circumventing the Constitution

A May 4 Facebook post (direct link, archive link) shows an image of Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy alongside an image of political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen.

"Kevin McCarthy has quietly implemented a pay raise for members that could be more than $30,000 per person," reads the post. "It circumvents the Constitution by instead reimbursing their rent, utilities, and meals. While COMPLAINING about the debt and voting to CUT veterans' benefits."

The quote is attributed to Cohen.

The post generated over 70 shares in less than a week. Cohen shared the same claim on his Facebook which generated over 4,000 shares before it was corrected. A Facebook post with the same claim from the left-wing account Occupy Democrats generated over 7,000 shares before it was corrected.

Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

Our rating: Partly false

The House implemented a new provision for members that allows them to be reimbursed for lodging, incidentals and meals during official business in Washington, D.C.. But the post misleads in several aspects: the provision is not a pay raise, and it doesn’t circumvent the Constitution, according to political experts. The post is correct, however, that members could be reimbursed for $30,000 or more.

New rule does not increase salary of House members or circumvent the Constitution

In 2022, the House Administration Committee, which was controlled by Democrats at the time, adopted a resolution to amend the Members' Congressional Handbook based on a bipartisan recommendation from the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The new guidelines allow House members to be reimbursed for lodging, incidentals and meals during official business in Washington, D.C., and during official travel to D.C. from their district.

In March, the new House Administration Committee − where majority party members are appointed by McCarthy − approved the adoption of the resolution, and the House finalized the new reimbursement plan in April, according to Politico.

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, however, said in an April 28 conference that the new provision is not a pay raise.

Daniel Schuman, a federal policymaking expert and government transparency advocate at the nonprofit Demand Progress, agreed that this change will not affect the salaries of House members, who earn $174,000 annually. House majority and minority leaders earn $193,400, and the House speaker earns $223,500, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

“Congress must enact legislation to increase or decrease pay for members of Congress, and per the 27th Amendment, no pay change can go into effect until the next Congress, which will be sworn in at the start of 2025,” Schuman said, noting that no such legislation has been implemented.

Fact check: No, a proposed bill does not allow elections to be overturned across Texas

Rather, the new guidelines change “what is reimbursable and where,” according to Andrew Ballard, an assistant professor of government at American University. They can now be reimbursed in the nation's capital but not in their district.

“Members will no longer be eligible for various reimbursements while in their district but are now eligible for reimbursements for things like rent, utilities, and meals while in D.C.,” Ballard said in an email. “The emphasis is important: members will no longer be eligible for various similar reimbursements while in their district except for travel from the district to D.C.”

The post’s claim that the move circumvents the Constitution is also wrong, according to Steven Smith, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution provides that "Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”

Smith said there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from reimbursing its members for business-related expenses.

“The new rule extends the range of expenses associated with traveling to and living in Washington, D.C," he said.

Members could get up to $30,000 or more in reimbursement

The post’s claim that a member could be reimbursed for $30,000 or more for their expenses is true, Smith said.

The House did not appropriate additional money to cover the expenses of the reimbursement, according to Ballard. Rather, House members will draw their reimbursement from an existing pool of money that's used to run their offices and fund costs such as plane tickets, Schuman said.

Fact check: No, RESTRICT Act doesn't allow government access to all communication

The New York Times reported that the provision could amount to a subsidy of about $34,000 per member based on an estimate from government reimbursement rates. But the amounts differ depending on whether a member qualifies for reimbursement and how much reimbursement they need, according to Schuman.

Chad Gilmartin, McCarthy's spokesperson, said the reimbursement is optional for members to use and that all finances will be disclosed publicly in statements of disbursement.

“This is reimbursement of expenses incurred in the same way every federal agency reimburses for expenses,” Gilmartin said. “It is capped based on (General Services Administration) rates and is taxable.”

USA TODAY reached out to the social media users who shared the claim for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

The Associated Press and PolitiFact also debunked the claim.

Our fact-check sources

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Post misleads on reimbursement policy for House members | Fact check