This bill, called the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Resolution," reduces the Members' Representational Allowance for each House member by $100,000 for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, using the 2025 allowance as the baseline.
Aaron Bean
Representative
FL-4
This bill, also known as the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Resolution," reduces the Members' Representational Allowance for each House member by $100,000 for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, relative to the 2025 allowance.
The "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Resolution" directly impacts how House members can run their offices. Starting in fiscal year 2026, this bill slashes $100,000 from each Representative's annual office budget—known as the Members' Representational Allowance (MRA)—and keeps it that way through 2027 (SEC. 2).
This resolution is pretty straightforward: it reduces the MRA for each House member by a flat $100,000 relative to their 2025 allowance. The MRA covers everything from staff salaries to office supplies and district office expenses. So, what does a $100,000 cut actually mean for how a Representative can operate?
For a city worker, this might be like your boss cutting the budget for your team's project resources by a significant chunk. Imagine a marketing team suddenly having less for campaigns or a construction crew facing cuts to their materials budget. For House members, it could mean fewer staff, reduced travel back to their districts, or less money for constituent outreach. For example, a Representative from a sprawling rural district might have to cut back on town halls or mobile office hours that help them stay connected with folks spread across a large area. A Member representing a densely populated urban area may need to reduce staff, impacting constituent services like casework assistance.
While this move might look like a step toward fiscal responsibility, the real question is how it will affect Representatives' ability to do their jobs. Will this lead to leaner, more efficient offices, or will it strain the resources needed to serve constituents effectively? And practically speaking, could some members try to shift costs elsewhere or find other funding sources to make up the difference? It's also worth considering whether this reduction might hit some Representatives harder than others—especially those representing larger or more remote districts where costs might already be higher.