Lawmakers expensed millions under new program that doesn’t require receipts

The reimbursement scheme’s lack of receipt requirements is a “ridiculous loophole,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the good government group Public Citizen. “Clearly it becomes very difficult to tell whether or not it’s a legitimate payment and whether it’s proper,” Holman added.

The program has only a few strict rules: Lawmakers cannot be repaid for principal or interest on their mortgages, they can only get reimbursement for days they’re actually working or flying to D.C., and they can’t ask for more back than their actual expenses. They’re also subject to daily spending caps determined by the General Services Administration. Members are “strongly encouraged,” but not required, to keep records of their expenses, according to guidance issued by the House Committee on Administration.

The same rules apply to every member. But lawmakers’ reimbursements requests have varied widely, and because the program doesn’t require receipts or detailed public disclosure of what members are expensing, taxpayers have to take lawmakers’ word that they’re playing by the rules.

Of the 435 voting members of the House, 319 members — 153 Democrats and 166 Republicans — received reimbursement for some food or lodging expenses last year, alongside three delegates from U.S. territories. The other 116 members received no money from the reimbursement program, according to a Washington Post review of the first 11 months of data released by the House.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), the program’s overall top spender, was reimbursed for nearly $30,000 in lodging expenses and more than $10,000 for food in 2023. He was reimbursed for more than $4,000 for lodging in two different months and more than $3,000 in five different months.

A spokesperson for Gaetz said he was reimbursed for lodging expenses on days when the House was out of session but Gaetz remained in Washington on official business for depositions related to his post on the select committee on weaponization of the federal government.

“Rep. Gaetz has always complied with House rules regarding congressional reimbursements,” a spokesperson for Gaetz emailed in a statement. “In 2023, Rep. Gaetz dedicated significant time to his work on the Weaponization Subcommittee, requiring his presence to be in Washington, D.C., on days often when there were no votes, which incurred additional reimbursement expenses to conduct depositions.”

Other members of the weaponization committee expensed significantly less than Gaetz.

Some members of Congress who own homes in the Washington area, including Reps. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Mike McCaul (R-Tex.), have chosen not to participate in the program at all. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who owns a $1 million home in Virginia, was reimbursed less than $1,500 each month.

But other D.C. area homeowners, including Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), requested significantly higher reimbursements than Banks did for some months of 2023.

Mace, who co-owns a $1,649,000 Capitol Hill townhouse she purchased in 2021 with her then-fiancé, Patrick Bryant, expensed a total of $19,395 over the nine-month period ending on Sept. 30, 2023, an average of more than $2,000 a month. She expensed over $3,000 for lodging in January, March and May.

Swalwell, who purchased a $1,215,000 home in the Eckington neighborhood of Washington, was reimbursed nearly $19,000 for lodging expenses over 11 months in 2023. In May of that year, he received $2,838 in lodging reimbursement.

As homeowners, Mace and Swalwell aren’t allowed to ask taxpayers to cover their mortgage payments, and can only expense taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities and other ancillary costs.

“There’s nothing ‘average’ about having three children and a wife who are trying to live between two expensive areas,” Swalwell spokeswoman Cassie Baloue said in a statement. “The Congressman’s expenses reflect the actual cost of working in D.C. and are signed off by House Administration.”

Swalwell owed about $1,144 per month in taxes and insurance alone, according to figures provided by his spokeswoman, and incurred other home maintenance costs she declined to specify.

“Every month is different as to what maintenance costs Rep. Swalwell is reimbursed for,” she added. “Everything he does is allowable.”

Mace was told by people involved with her office finances that she could not justify claiming more than about $1,800 a month for expenses on the townhouse, according to two people familiar with the discussions, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations. One source showed The Post a document laying out Mace’s monthly expenses for the townhouse and calculating them as $1,726.

Mace instructed her staff to seek the maximum reimbursement each day the House was in session, regardless of her actual expenses, two former members of her staff and one other person familiar with the matter alleged to The Post. Mace denies that allegation.

Mace denied wrongdoing and declined to explain her expenses in detail. Her office did not answer questions about maintenance and other costs related to the house she co-owns with her ex-fiancé. Mace owns 28 percent of the home, according to the deed, but did not answer questions about what percentage of the bills she paid. She did not claim any expenses for the fourth quarter of 2023, but did not explain why.

“We follow all the rules for reimbursements,” said Gabrielle Lipsky, a spokeswoman for Mace, who said the office found $300,000 in other savings last year unrelated to the reimbursement program.

Mace has been at war with a group of her former staffers for months. Her former chief of staff, Daniel Hanlon, took steps this year to run against her in a primary. He later bowed out. Mace’s main opponent in a hotly contested June 11 primary is Catherine Templeton, a former South Carolina gubernatorial candidate who has accused Mace of flip-flopping “for fame.”

Misusing taxpayer funds under the members’ allowance could violate both House rules and federal law, said Kedric Payne, former deputy chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, who now serves as the vice president of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government watchdog group. Payne said that anyone who misuses the program could face corruption charges similar to those brought against Aaron Schock, a former congressman from Illinois who used government and campaign funds to remodel his Capitol Hill office in the style of the TV show “Downton Abbey.”

“The new travel reimbursement rules cover very specific expenses and have strict dollar limits,” said Payne. “Any member who violates these rules and submits false reimbursement claims can face civil and criminal penalties. The Office of Congressional Ethics frequently investigates members’ blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. Voters have a right to know that their elected officials aren’t using public funds for personal expenses.”

The member reimbursement program has been popular, but any perception of unfair enrichment could endanger it. Congress is already one of the least trusted government institutions, and 81 percent of Americans believe that members of Congress do a somewhat or very bad job at keeping their personal financial interests separate from their work in Congress, according to a September 2023 Pew Research poll.

The bipartisan House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress suggested the member reimbursement account program in 2022 as an alternative to raising members’ salaries. Defenders of the program have argued that it matches benefits offered to lawmakers’ counterparts in the private sector and executive branch and encourages diversity of representation.

Members of Congress make $174,000 per year, which is about twice the median U.S. household income, but they must usually maintain two households: one in Washington, an expensive metro area, and another in their home districts. Many commute long distances at great expense.

Some good-government and anti-corruption groups argue that higher lawmaker salaries would make public service more attractive to a wider array of Americans and discourage corruption. But members of Congress have not given themselves a raise since 2009, as voting to do so is considered politically unpalatable. Some lawmakers have turned to living in their own offices to defray the costs.

“I wish members would give themselves a raise that they probably deserve and then we’d all move on,” said a staffer involved with congressional accounting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program publicly. “But they don’t have the backbone to do that, so [they gave] members a raise through this backdoor way that allows for abuse because there is no record keeping and there’s no receipts.”

Leigh Ann Caldwell and Alice Crites contributed to this report.