115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2414

To limit the amount of expenditure on Presidential travel, and for
other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 11, 2017

Mr. Ted Lieu of California (for himself and Mr. Nadler) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of
the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To limit the amount of expenditure on Presidential travel, and for
other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Waste And Misuse by the
President Act of 2017'' or as the ``SWAMP Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Presidential travel to commercial entities owned in
whole or in part by the President or First Family results in
the American taxpayer effectively subsidizing the President's
businesses.
(2) Given current expenditures, President Trump is on track
to spend more during his first year of office than all eight
years of the Obama administration combined.
(3) It is unacceptable for the President to maintain an
interest in traveling to properties in which he has a direct
financial interest, as the U.S. Government is responsible for
renting space for personnel in said private commercial
entities.
(4) Every time the President travels to Mar-a-Lago, he
necessarily promotes his private business interests via free
press at the Government's expense.
(5) The State Department's recent promotion of Mar-a-Lago
on its official website raises serious ethics concerns.
(6) As of April 14, 2017, President Trump has cost the U.S.
taxpayer unprecedented amounts of money, including the
following estimated costs:
(A) For trips to Mar-a-Lago:
(i) Total cost for security in Palm Beach:
$3,700,000 (each trip).
(ii) Roundtrip flights from Joint Base
Andrews, Maryland, to West Palm, Florida:
$700,000.
(iii) Overtime for local law enforcement
during Trump's trips: $60,000/day.
(iv) Total golf cart rentals ordered by the
Secret Service ``for POTUS visit'': $35,185.
(v) Estimated loss of business due to
airport closure: $30,000/weekend.
(B) For Trump Tower:
(i) Request for additional Secret Service
funding to secure Trump Towers: $60,000,000.
(ii) New York Police Department security
costs: $127,000-$146,000/day.
(iii) ``Elevator services'' ordered by the
Secret Service: $64,000.
(iv) Air Force One flights to New York
City: $180,000/hour.
(7) The proposed 2017 Federal spending bill includes
reimbursements for millions of dollars spent by Florida and New
York to protect the President and First Family, and facilitate
their travel. While localities should be reimbursed, the
taxpayer should not be responsible for said reimbursement.

SEC. 3. REIMBURSAL FOR COSTS OF PROTECTION.

In the case of a person whom the United States Secret Service is
authorized to protect under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 3056(a) of
title 18, United States Code, if that person, while traveling for
official business or for personal purposes, stays in a hotel or other
establishment providing daily-rate accommodation in which that person
has an ownership or financial interest, that person shall reimburse to
the Treasury--
(1) any amount expended by the United States Secret Service
for the provision of such protection; and
(2) any amount expended for other costs incurred by the
Government pertaining to that stay.
<all>




H.R.2414 - SWAMP Act of 2017

......................................................................


Now my question is. If people were so upset about the 'extravagances' of Obama why are they not upset now?

because those people are hypocrites...that's why...

Because there are a lot of other things to be upset about and there's a finite amount of outrage that can be expressed at any one point in time before spontaneously combusting?

Because being upset about the "extravagances" of Obama (and many other presidents and government officials) led to absolutely nothing being done about it and they had to find something else to tickle their upset button to the same degree since building up a tolerance to "extravagances?"
People were upset at government expenditure over $200 toilet seats and $4,000 hammers. That's still happening too.

Other than that, who says they aren't upset? Just because it's not plastered all over the media?

If congress ever passed a bill like that, they know it wouldn't be long before their own expensives are scrutinized. So it will never happen. It's just a way for a couple of guys to dis the current prez.

I agree with you ...
but as far a using Obama and his ventures where lower ...
really just a comparison... I believe...


Totally think ...what a waste of $ Trump is using ...
but you said it ->wouldn't be long before their own expensive are scrutinized. So it will never happen...
and will not be doing anything about it ...

wonder if Nancy would vote 'Yeah' for this Bill?

The POTUS represents our Nation and should reflect the best of our lifestyles to the rest of the world. However, he also should represent our practical expression as well. He should have state of the art and current fashion but not exceedingly over-the-top. His representation should be in alignment with the national average in any place it does not affect his safety or our national security. He or She is not King of America but merely another citizen elected to represent all of us.

Salaries of any politician elected to any office should be established at the income average of the citizens they represent. Specific allowances for personal safety and their official security should be accurate to the threat potential.

One example of this (just an example) is the food.
On an average day the average American eats chicken or pork. Not caviar and lobster. We only have prime rib for dinner when we entertain guests or celebrate something. Likewise, the people that represent our nation should only have extravagance when entertaining foreign dignitaries or celebrating significant national events. What they do with their own money on their own time is not our concern.

Our national average is not extravagant so those that represent us should not be extravagant. The extravagance breaks the connection to the people they were elected to represent.

POTUS Current Salary:
$400,000.00 + $50,000.00 Tax Free Expense Account Annually

Current Average Salary of a United States Citizen:
$849 per week or $44,148 per year for a 40-hour work week.
No Tax Free Expense Account.

POTUS Salary should not exceed
$90,000.00 and should not get a Tax Free Personal Expense Account.

District of Columbia average median wage for citizens is currently
$32.63, an hourly rate of $32.63 equates to a weekly pay of $1,305, monthly pay of $5,656, and an annual salary of $67,870. Thus any representative of DC's salary should not exceed $75,000.00 annually.

On the other end of the scale, Mississippi's average is
$14.22, An hourly rate of $14.22 equates to a weekly pay of $569, monthly pay of $2,465, and an annual salary of $29,578.
Thus any representative of Mississippi salary should not exceed $35,000.00.

For an elected representative to gain a salary increase they must assure an increase in their people's salaries first.

Personal and Official money should be separate.

If the senator of Mississippi is called to Washington DC on official business, That cost is covered by the people of Mississippi. If he visits for personal reasons, the cost is covered by his own funds.

That's all it is. Maybe they should give up some of their perks as well.
Obama took pay as be president and Trump doesn't. Maybe that's the difference.

Well, no, that's not a fair assessment either. You're probably right, that a bill to rein in Presidents who are playing around on the taxpayer's dime, is most likely just posturing for effect. But Trump didn't earn a pass for misbehavior because he (allegedly) donated his salary. Especially since he pointedly refused to segregate his business profits from his role as President, and is making even more from those connections, than he would have, had he just taken his salary, and done as he should have, and got rid of his personal business ties.

The POTUS is a citizen. As long as his business ties don't influence his job at representing the citizens of the United Staes why should it matter?

Reguardless of the fact that I don't like Trump as a person, he had businesses before he ran for president. Why should he have to give up his businesses for a 4 year or 8 year term as ling as it does not interfere with the job we elected him to do?
As long as he isn't using public policy for personal profit his personal businesses should have no bearing.

The fact that he is POTUS may influence some of his business relations but other people also use their stardom to promote their own agendas. Noteriety is not a crime.

If he starts using policy to do personal business, like the Bush's did with oil, then it is a crime and should be punished.

The separation of personal and public is difficult to maintain but if Trump can do it, his citizenship gives him the right. I doubt he will tho.

The same goes for anyone in public office.