Rules for the Road

"I KNOW SOME of these leftist groups would love to isolate members of Congress so that we don't talk to Americans." That was House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) at his weekly news conference Wednesday, defending the usefulness of privately financed congressional travel. Good point. Imagine how out of touch Mr. DeLay would have been if he hadn't been able to stay in a $790-a-night "conservatory" room at the Four Seasons Hotel in London on a trip paid for by gambling interests. Or at the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel on Hawaii's Big Island, courtesy of the airline industry.

Self-serving as Mr. DeLay's argument may be, it contains a kernel of truth. Some of the lavish travel taken at private expense by lawmakers and their staff is abusive, unnecessary and -- frankly -- disgusting. But some privately financed trips give members and staff firsthand knowledge about issues -- an understanding that it's not certain they'd have if such travel were ruled off-limits. This can be especially helpful in educating officials about foreign affairs. After all, lawmakers have ample funds in their office budgets to return home and "talk to Americans," but many have limited experience with, and understanding of, foreign countries.

One solution would be for members of Congress and their staffs to pay for this legitimate travel out of their office or committee budgets, as many already do. They would gain the knowledge without being beholden, or appearing beholden, to any private interests. But public funds are limited, so prohibiting all privately financed trips could curtail some useful travel.

Travel rules could be rewritten to distinguish between trips underwritten by corporations and others with a direct interest in legislation, and travel financed by nonprofit groups. But as the stories about Mr. DeLay's excursions illustrate, this would produce a dicey and not entirely effective exercise in line drawing: What nonprofits, and what trips, would pass the test? If nonprofit groups receive corporate funding, as many do, does that taint their travel as much as if it had been funded by the corporation itself? What about lobbyists who are affiliated with the groups and go along on their trips? This is not a minor issue: A new study by PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks money in politics, found that of $16 million in privately funded travel taken by members of Congress since 2000, $8.8 million was from nonprofit groups.

What's clear is that it is once again time for lawmakers to take a serious look at the travel rules and to strengthen them significantly. At the very least, information about trips must be disclosed more reliably and in more detail. Current disclosure forms ask only for broad categories of expenses -- lodging, transportation and meals -- and for "good faith estimates," not actual costs. The forms offer little clue about what supposedly educational or fact-finding activities took place. Moreover, they're available only at the Capitol.

If Congress continues to permit privately financed trips, it should require that travelers provide comprehensive itineraries of what they did, whom they met, who accompanied them, where they stayed, where they ate, and at what cost -- and post the information promptly on the Internet. And it's well past time to end the distasteful practice of letting outside groups pick up the tab for spouses or children who come along.