Good Vs. Bad Travel

A Reform Plan For Preserving Legitimate Trips

Questionable foreign travel by members of Congress is in the news these days with the guilty pleas by lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon to corruption charges involving travel gifts. But the issue is nothing new; it comes up every few years. Perhaps, though, the latest scandal will convince us that we need to solve this problem once and for all.

And so we should -- but in doing so we must take care not to end or sharply curtail legitimate foreign travel. Given U.S. international responsibilities, it's more vital than ever for our legislators to be as well-informed about the rest of the world as possible. And in this regard, there is no substitute for seeing conditions firsthand and meeting foreign leaders and citizens in person. Members of the House and Senate learn things that no newspaper, staff memo or Capitol Hill hearing can possibly convey.

There's another important benefit here for the country and our politics. Foreign travel provides one of the few opportunities for members from different parties to get to know their colleagues as human beings, not adversaries. When overseas, they tend to see each other as being on the same American team -- not as Republican or Democratic partisans. The mutual respect and friendship born on trips abroad can help bridge the partisan divide at home. And that's needed more than ever in the wake of recent partisan outbursts.

For all these reasons, I think it's a real shame that the lax standards of a few have caused all congressional travel to be suspect. But the current controversy also provides us with a chance to reform the system. I have some suggestions.

We should establish an independent Congressional Travel Commission, organized as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation with a distinguished membership drawn from people who have served in the past as secretaries of state and defense, U.S. trade representative and as congressional leaders. This approach would avoid the mistrust that would greet any attempt to solve the problem "in house" through, say, the House or Senate ethics committees.

The commission's first order of business would be to draft strict standards for determining whether a proposed congressional trip is substantive, serves legitimate official purposes and is properly financed. The draft standards should undergo thorough scrutiny, with full public hearings to guarantee credibility.

With standards in place, the sponsor of a proposed trip could elect voluntarily to submit a request to the commission for prior certification of compliance with the standards. The request would disclose details of the trip, including the itinerary, agenda and financing. Commission staffers would evaluate requests and certify compliance, with a right to appeal any denials to a bipartisan panel of commissioners.

After a trip, a report would be filed with the commission verifying that what had been approved had occurred, or explaining any variance. All trip documentation and commission proceedings would be open to the public. Funding for the commission would come from a filing fee and from foundations and others interested in reforming the system. If the legitimacy of a trip was challenged, the commission's certification would stand in rebuttal and provide political protection.

This would all be completely voluntary, but in short order it would become a political necessity. And the value and respectability of legitimate foreign travel would be preserved.

The writer, a former Democratic representative from Colorado (1987-99), is executive director of the Center for Democracy & Citizenship program at the Council for Excellence in Government.