There were also many omissions in the story that must be noted. While it is true that each House office receives an average of $1.4 million each year, that money must cover all office expenses: staff salaries; computers and other office equipment; supplies and postage; the Member’s travel to and from the district; and rent for district offices. On average, each House office has 15 Washington and district-based staffers who often are paid artificially low salaries for the first three quarters of the year in order to ensure that sufficient funds are available to operate the office and meet unanticipated expenditures. Members who exceed their budget allotment are personally responsible for the overage.

The Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has been studying Congress for over three decades, has done research showing that congressional staff as a whole are paid 30% to 40% less than their Washington-based counterparts in the executive branch or in the private sector. Unlike their counterparts in the federal government, congressional staffers have no uniform pay grades or civil service job protections. They are employed solely at the pleasure of the Member, who determines each staffer’s salary.

Finally, the article commingles bonuses paid to personal staff with those paid to committee staff. In most cases, committee staffers have specific educational and professional skill sets with expertise in their disciplines developed over years of congressional service – they could earn far more in the private sector.

Congress, and taxpayers, are fortunate that these dedicated personal and professional staffers are willing to work long hours under extremely stressful conditions to make sure the legislative branch functions. To give the impression, as this story does, that a year-end bonus is somehow inappropriate does a disservice to them. I can assure you that few, if any, are in it for the money.

Sincerely,

Beverly E. Bell
Executive Director
Congressional Management Foundation