One congressman is trying to reduce congressional pay and eliminate congressional pensions. Guess how many cosponsors he has. GovTrack.us Follow Jul 21, 2016 · 3 min read

Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS3) thinks members of Congress make too much money. He introduced two bills last January to reform that. Elected for the first time in 2010 as part of the Tea Party wave, the Republican thinks that reducing federal spending should start with themselves. But perhaps unsurprisingly, his colleagues aren’t exactly signing on in droves.

About the bill

The Termination of Lifelong Pensions for Members of Congress Act, H.R. 180, would eliminate the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) that members are automatically opted into with no option of opting out. Currently members with at least five years of service in Congress receive a lifelong pension, with the amount varying depending on length of tenure, but up to 80 percent of their final salary. Congressional pay is currently $174,000 per year, so pensions can be as much as $139,200 annually.

Yoder introduced the bill one year before he reached that five-year-of-service threshold, which he has since reached. The bill has zero cosponsors.

The Congressional Pay Reduction Act, H.R. 179, would cut pay for members of Congress by five percent, down from its current level to $165,300. It would also eliminate future cost-of-living adjustments in congressional pay. According to law members are supposed to receive this adjustment every year, but Congress has voted down its own pay raise every year since 2009 to express solidarity with those Americans facing difficult times. This bill has only one cosponsor: Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX14).

What supporters say

“Tough economic times require all of us to sacrifice in order to rebuild our country. Most Americans have seen stagnant wages for years, and certainly do not have lifelong pensions,” said Yoder in a statement introducing the legislation. “These bills allow Members of Congress to show real leadership in making those sacrifices to rebuild America again.”

There is precedent for Congress limiting its own pay. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1992, prohibits pay increases from taking effect until after the next election. That way, members run the risk of losing their next election and accidentally voting a pay raise for their ideological opponent. Members have also kept their wages stagnant or even decreased, especially during recessions. Their wages have been constant since 2009, and the last time they actually decreased their own pay was in 1933 as the Great Depression began.

What opponents say

But opposition isn’t just self-interest. Paying politicians more may increase the performance of legislatures because a broader diversity of the economic spectrum is encouraged to run for office. The argument is that even though “Low pay for those jerks in Congress!” sounds like an appealing idea, doing so effectively makes it such that only the rich can run for Congress. Indeed, considering that Washington, D.C. is one of the most expensive cities in the country, $174,000 — while certainly preventing one’s family from going hungry — is not as much as it may sound to constituents hearing that number in almost any other area of the country..

Both bills have been referred to the House Administration and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees, where neither bill has yet received a vote.

This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.