Washington, D.C. - I am pleased to join Chairman Hastings in welcoming our colleagues, the witnesses, and the public to this hearing regarding possible changes in the House rules governing privately sponsored travel.
Whatever the final outcome of the pending lobbying reform legislation, this Committee will continue to take seriously its responsibilities concerning Congressional travel. That is why last month we issued the Advisory Memorandum establishing an interim process for voluntary certification of privately sponsored travel, and why we are holding today's hearing.
Most of the Committee's activities must necessarily be undertaken outside of the public’s purview, in order to encourage Members and employees to freely seek the Committee's advice, and to encourage the dispassionate review of allegations of misconduct without regard to considerations of partisan political gain.
So when an occasion presents itself when we can throw open our doors, seek outside recommendations, and provide some public insight into what we are thinking, I am pleased to do so. Transparency in the conduct of the public's business is certainly to be encouraged.
On the subject of Congressional travel, my view is this: it is vitally important that members of the legislative branch of the most powerful nation on earth get out of Washington D.C. and see for themselves problems that need to be addressed and the impact that our laws have on our own people and on people around the world. But we will have little hope of convincing the public of the importance of travel unless we state forthrightly here and now that we will not defend the indefensible:
- The solicitation of trips (or other gifts) by members and staff from persons with interests before the House;
- Travel that is substantially recreational in nature;
- The misuse of non-profit organizations as pass-throughs for funds earmarked by lobbyists who are barred from paying for Congressional travel.
These are all violations of the current rules. The evidence suggests that we need to strengthen our enforcement of those rules. Testimony today may suggest that the substantive rules themselves should be revised. I am open to all such suggestions. I would also welcome suggestions as to how to address the conundrum posed by members who claim to have receivedss Committee approval for trips when in fact they have not. Many times I have wondered why good reporters have failed to ask to see those approval letters. While the Committee is bound by confidentiality, members claiming our approval certainly are not.
I believe that we must devote serious attention to the reform of our travel rules and procedures for enforcing them because I also strongly believe that we must preserve the ability of members to travel. Members of Congress and their staffs should be able to attend substantive policy seminars where, absent the partisanship of Washington, they can study and debate issues of national and international interest. They should be able to take part in panels, discussions and conferences with industry and labor leaders, policy experts, and foreign officials away from Washington. They should be able to give speeches at conventions and convocations. They should be able to talk with those who are affected by the policy they create and the laws they write. They should hear many perspectives.
We live in ¡V as they say ¡V interesting times. There are great threats and challenges from abroad: terrorism, global warming, dependence on foreign oil, increased drug trafficking, bird-flu and other communicable diseases, and many others. To think that we should be sealed away from first- hand observation of the world is to countenance ignorance.
We are surely able to distinguish between trips in which the educational opportunities provided are the main event, with lodging and meals incidental; as opposed to trips where the lodging, meals, and entertainment are the focus, with education and information being incidental. I believe we can create a process which will eliminate the latter and permit us to maintain the salubrious effect that travel can have on American policymaking.
