Do congressional members get a per diem?
Executive summary
Members of Congress currently do not receive a routine federal “per diem” for living expenses while in Washington, D.C.; most House and Senate rules and longstanding practice bar routine per diems or housing reimbursements for members whose primary residence is near the Capitol (House guidance and CRS reporting) [1] [2]. A 2025 bill, H.R.2519, would create a per diem allowance for Members traveling from their designated residence to the Washington area to cast votes, tying the rate to GSA employee per diem rules — the measure was introduced but is separate from current practice [3] [4].
1. The current reality: members are not on a standard per diem regimen
Congressional resource guides and journalism repeatedly note that members do not get the same GSA-style per diem benefit that federal employees receive for official travel; CRS and explainer pieces say members “are not eligible for housing or per diem allowances for expenses incurred in Washington, D.C.” and House materials treat member travel subsistence differently than employee per diem codes [1] [5]. Reporting about internal House rules and the Members’ Congressional Handbook confirms members living within roughly a 50‑mile radius of the Capitol are generally not reimbursed for lodging, except in “extraordinary circumstances” [6].
2. Proposed change: H.R.2519 would create a member per diem tied to GSA rules
In 2025 Rep. Mike Rogers (R‑AL) introduced H.R.2519 to provide a per diem allowance for Members who travel from their designated residence to the Washington Metropolitan Area to cast votes. The bill specifies members whose primary residence is inside the Washington area would not be entitled to the allowance and ties the per diem amount to what the GSA would pay an employee under federal per diem regulations [3] [4].
3. Why the bill matters — practical and political context
If enacted, the bill would shift costs of lodging, meals, and incidentals away from members and potentially their offices or personal funds and instead create an explicit, administratively governed reimbursement stream tied to GSA rates. Sponsors frame such measures as correcting an inequity between members and executive-branch employees and as easing burdens for members who live far from D.C.; critics could say it institutionalizes additional pay-like benefits for already well‑paid officials (background on the rationale and debates is found in CRS reporting and advocacy/coverage) [2] [7].
4. How per diem normally works for federal employees — and the linkage in the bill
GSA sets per diem rates for lodging and meals for federal employees on official travel; local rates vary by locality and are updated regularly (GSA per diem pages explain methodology and local rate tables). H.R.2519 would not set a new rate schedule but would instead make members’ per diem equal to the amount “to which the Member would be entitled under regulations prescribed by the Administrator of General Services if the Member were an employee” [8] [4].
5. Conflicting claims and common social‑media misconceptions
Social posts often conflate congressional salary or office allowances with per diem or housing benefits; fact‑checks and explainer pieces emphasize members do not automatically get housing/per diem in Washington and that allowances primarily fund official office costs, staff, and travel between district and Washington — not personal living stipends [1] [2]. The H.R.2519 text directly contradicts blanket claims that members already receive such per diems by proposing a new statutory entitlement [4].
6. Institutional limits and where discretion remains
House guidance and the Statement of Disbursements note that “Member and Committees [are] not subject to per diem limitations” in the budget coding sense and that travel subsistence codes were removed in 2015; practical reimbursement for members has therefore been governed by internal rules, committee decisions, and ethics constraints rather than automatic per diem structures [5]. H.R.2519 would change that by establishing a statutory entitlement and an administrative mechanism tied to GSA rules [4].
7. What reporting does not address (limitations)
Available sources do not mention how H.R.2519 would be funded line‑by‑line in appropriations once enacted, or whether the allowance would affect Member Representational Allowance (MRA) calculations and office budgets; those budgetary consequences are not detailed in the bill text excerpts and are not covered in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting). The broader debate over whether per diems would change who can afford to serve — a recurring political argument — is discussed in advocacy and reporting but precise fiscal impacts require additional budget analysis beyond the supplied materials [7] [6].
Bottom line: under existing practice members do not receive routine per diems for living expenses in Washington; H.R.2519 would create such an allowance for members traveling from outside the Washington area and would peg payments to GSA per diem rules, but the bill remains a policy change that would need to clear Congress and appropriation steps before becoming binding [1] [4] [3].