What is the base salary for US House of Representatives members?

1. Why everyone keeps repeating $174,000 — the simple consensus

Multiple analyses explicitly identify $174,000 as the standard annual salary for House members, and one source dated February 28, 2024, asserts that amount directly, establishing a clear baseline for the claim ^[1]. Additional reviews from 2024–2025 reiterate the same number while supplying context that the pay has not increased in nominal terms since a 2009 freeze, because Congress routinely votes down the automatic cost-of-living increase. That repeated citation across entries creates convergent corroboration within the provided dataset, and the consistency across entries increases confidence that $174,000 is the nominal base figure in the period covered by these analyses ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Leadership pay and exceptions — who gets more, and how much

Beyond the uniform base salary for rank-and-file representatives, analyses note higher pay for leadership roles: the Speaker, majority and minority leaders, and certain committee chairs earn elevated salaries. One analysis cites specific higher figures such as the Speaker at $223,500 and Senate leaders at $193,400, showing a differential between ordinary members and leaders ^[2]. These higher figures are presented alongside the base-salary claim, and their inclusion matters because public discussion about congressional pay often conflates base pay with these leadership supplements; drawing the distinction clarifies that $174,000 applies to ordinary House members, not to leadership positions ^[2].

3. The cost-of-living decision that froze pay — politics and procedure

Several items emphasize that Congress has repeatedly declined the automatic cost-of-living adjustment since around 2010, effectively freezing nominal congressional pay at the post-2009 level; analysts infer the $174,000 number from that policy history ^{[4] [3]}. This procedural note is crucial: it explains why the nominal dollar figure remains static despite inflation. The framing in the analyses implies a political choice, and different stakeholders use that fact to make competing arguments about fairness and fiscal discipline, though the provided material itself sticks to the procedural description rather than arguing normative conclusions ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Where the dataset shows gaps — missing or ambiguous source statements

Not all entries explicitly state the $174,000 figure; some analyses report that their particular source lacked the explicit number and therefore inferred it from broader reporting about COLA decisions and historical data ^{[5] [6] [7]}. These entries note that the explicit salary figure was absent from certain documents or that access limitations (paywalled data) prevented confirmation. The absence of a single, universally quoted primary source within this dataset creates a reliance on repeated inference, so while the consensus is strong, the provided material also contains explicit acknowledgements of incomplete source text in several instances ^{[5] [7]}.

5. Comparing viewpoints and possible agendas — why the framing matters

The provided analyses are largely factual and consistent, but they reflect different emphases: some pieces focus on the explicit salary number, others on the procedural history of COLA votes, and others on leadership differentials ^{[1] [4] [2]}. These emphases can shape public interpretation — focusing on the frozen COLA highlights congressional restraint or stinginess relative to inflation; focusing on the $174,000 headline highlights a comparatively high public salary. The dataset includes dated references (notably February 28, 2024, and August 11, 2025) which indicate that the $174,000 figure persisted across reporting windows ^{[1] [3]}. The collective picture is consistent: $174,000 is the base pay for House members in the covered period, with higher pay for leaders and an ongoing COLA freeze shaping the real-dollar trajectory ^{[1] [3] [2]}.