home > by publication type > op-eds > Congressional travel ban would do more harm than good
Email
| Author: | Nancy E. Roman |
|---|
February 2, 2006
Baltimore Sun
Congress is about to overreact to media and public disdain for excessive lobbying practices by banning all privately financed congressional travel. This is tantamount to reacting to a drive-by shooting with a federal law disallowing people to drive.
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty to offenses that deserved to be punished. And Congress is right to place restrictions on lobbying practices. But in a global era, when our relationships with other countries are ever more central to U.S. policy, members of Congress should be traveling more, not less.
Congressional travel not only allows members of Congress to gain a broader perspective on the many international issues before them, it also provides an increasingly rare opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to build relationships across the aisle that later serve the legislative process well.
On those grounds, I recommended in a Council on Foreign Relations report on bipartisanship that new members of Congress be required to take an introductory, bipartisan, leadership-backed (and government-paid) international trip to serve foreign policy and bipartisan ends.
Yet in an era when spending exceeds revenue and deficits run high, the voters aren’t likely to foot the bill for all congressional travel.
We the people certainly don’t want our representatives going on golfing junkets in Bermuda. But do we really want to stop nonprofit groups or even business organizations from taking a congressional delegation to, for example, India when Congress is grappling with whether to approve a nuclear deal with that country? When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is contemplating opening retail, information and defense sectors to foreign direct investment?
A business lobby might want members to witness firsthand intellectual property abuses in China. Of course those companies have an agenda. But let’s not forget that the Constitution protects the people’s right to petition their government.
The goal should not be to prevent members of Congress from petition or influence on the assumption that they are too weak to resist it; rather, it should be to elect members who can be subject to influence and still vote with balance and integrity.
Some reasonable limits should be considered. Congress might want to disallow travel paid for by a single company with a business interest pending in Congress. Congress might also want to set some financial limits on hotel stays and require members to fly economy class, which would increase the likelihood that the member is traveling to learn—not for the accommodations.
As the proposals are shaped, they will guarantee that the men and women who represent us in this international age will be less knowledgeable about the world.
Global Economy in Crisis
Expert Conversations on World Events
Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
