E-Newsletter

Debunking the Myths

While conducting Telephone Town Hall meetings in the Ninth District, I heard from constituents concerned about the retirement benefits and health care plans for Members of Congress. These are not uncommon questions. There is a good deal of information out there, some of which is misleading, that circulates around the Internet and pours into our email inboxes. Let’s look at the facts.

Myth or Fact? Members of Congress have exclusive retirement plans, which allow them to retire after one term.

Myth.

Contrary to popular belief, Members of Congress don’t get a retirement plan after serving one term. Since 1984, those elected to Congress are covered under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), the same retirement plan all other federal workers have received since that time. FERS is funded by a combination of employee and employer contributions. Under FERS, Members of Congress are not eligible (vested) for some pension benefits until serving at least 5 years. Like most pension plans, the longer you serve the more pension benefits you receive. The vast majority of Members of Congress cannot receive pension benefits before the age of 62.

Myth or Fact? Members of Congress have a special health care plan.

Myth.

You may have read that Members of Congress have special, premium health care plans. That is simply not true. Members of Congress are entitled to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under the same rules as other federal employees. I pay a portion of the premium, just like every other federal employee. This is the same type of plan that businesses have. I am thankful to have a health insurance plan, but I want to clarify that it is not a plan created solely for Members of Congress.

Myth or Fact? Members of Congress get large salaries.

Fact.

The salary is large, and while the cost-of-living is different throughout the country, Congress needs to cut back. That is why I have proposed a 10 percent pay cut (H.R. 335) for Members of Congress. This year, the House of Representatives cut office and committee budgets by about 6.4 percent. Last year’s cut was 5 percent. The House also recently voted to freeze pay for Members of Congress. While these are steps in the right direction, more can be done. For example, I am looking for ways to reduce the employee savings plan for Members of Congress and federal employees to make it more in line with plans offered by private businesses while saving taxpayers money.

The Rising Cost of Keeping the Lights On

Southwest Virginia families may have more trouble keeping their homes heated to healthy temperatures. Last week, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on the costs and impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new Utility MACT (maximum achievable control technology) rule. Strict regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants threaten to increase electricity rates and decrease the amount of power, hitting the pocketbooks of American families.

According to the EPA’s own estimates, the Utility MACT rule is estimated to cost $9.6 billion annually. These costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher electric bills. In terms of power supply, EPA predicted that the Utility MACT rules would cause 4,700 megawatts to be shut down. However, the final Utility MACT has not even been published in the Federal Register and American Electric Power (AEP) has announced a compliance plan that would shut down nearly 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation. Unfortunately, AEP’s announced closures include the Glen Lyn Plant (335 megawatts) and Unit 3 of the Clinch River Plant (235 megawatts) in Russell County. Over the next decade, AEP expects to spend between $6 and $8 billion complying with the Utility MACT rule. They have told me that they expect this will cause between a 10 and 15 percent increase in the cost of power in their service area. Can we really afford this increase on top of the steep rise in the cost of electricity over the past decade? I think not.

Another company, FirstEnergy, recently announced plans to shut more than 3,300 megawatts because of Utility MACT’s high costs. Between AEP and FirstEnergy, roughly 9,300 megawatts are expected to be retired. Between these two companies, that’s nearly double the lost power EPA estimated for the whole country. So, clearly the EPA estimates are flatly wrong or based on faulty standards. Expect more power plants to close, supply to be affected, and prices to rise.  Rising costs put a strain on working families and those on fixed incomes. Higher electric prices make it more expensive to manufacture goods in America. When American goods are more expensive, they are less competitive in the global economy. American jobs are at stake as a result of these rules.

Higher energy costs and fewer jobs make it hard to explain why the EPA insists on expensive and burdensome rules without a clear accounting of the consequences. They would argue health concerns, but why do the EPA’s estimates not take into account the health impacts of not being able to heat your home to a healthy temperature? 

As always, if you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my offices. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov.