House Members Receive $5.2 Million Reimbursement Without Requirement for Receipts

According to The Washington Post, a bipartisan taxpayer-funded program approved last year has paid out nearly $5.2 million to over 300 House lawmakers for food and lodging expenses related to official business. Surprisingly, these lawmakers are not required to provide receipts for these reimbursements.

The intent of the program, which was established by the House Administration Committee, was to help lawmakers cover the costs of maintaining homes in the District of Columbia and their congressional districts. However, the fact that receipts are not mandatory has raised concerns. Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, referred to this lack of oversight as a “ridiculous loophole.”

Under the program, lawmakers are only reimbursed for actual expenses incurred while working or traveling to D.C., and they are subject to daily spending caps set by the General Services Administration. Additionally, they cannot be reimbursed for mortgage payments, only for lodging and food expenses.

While 153 Democrats, 166 Republicans, and three delegates from U.S. territories received reimbursements for food and lodging last year, 116 members did not receive any funds, as reported by the Post after analyzing the first 11 months of data.

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida received the highest amount of reimbursement, with over $30,000 for lodging and more than $10,000 for food in 2023. Some members, like Reps. Patrick T. McHenry, Ro Khanna, and Mike McCaul, chose not to participate in the program, while others, like Rep. Jim Banks, received less than $1,500 per month in reimbursements.

Despite making $174,000 annually, members of Congress often maintain two households due to the high cost of living in D.C. Some groups advocate for higher lawmaker salaries to attract a broader range of individuals and prevent corruption, but Congress has not approved a raise for themselves since 2009.

A staffer involved in congressional accounting expressed frustration with the situation, stating that a salary increase would be preferable to the current reimbursement system that lacks oversight and record-keeping.