International Travel by Congress: Legislation in the 111th Congress, Background, and Potential Policy Options

International Travel by Congress: Legislation in the 111th Congress, Background, and Potential Policy Options

International Travel by Congress: Legislation
in the 111th Congress, Background, and
Potential Policy Options
R. Eric Petersen, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
Terrence L. Lisbeth
Reference Assistant
Mabel Gracias
Library Technician Reference Assistant
Parker H. Reynolds
Analyst in American National Government
August 31, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41388
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Summary
International travel by Members of Congress and their staff is an issue of longstanding interest
among some members of the public, media outlets, and Members. Questions regarding the
purposes and destinations of international travel by Congress frequently arise, as do questions
about the ability to track the costs and benefits of such travel. There is no single source that
identifies all international travel undertaken by the House or Senate, and no means to identify the
number of trips taken, destinations visited, travelers, total costs, or costs paid for by funds
appropriated to government entities other than Congress. This report provides information and
analysis on the use of foreign currency expended in support of congressional travel to
international destinations that is paid for with appropriated funds and authorized by the House or
Senate; on measures related to international travel by Congress introduced in the 111th Congress,
and administrative actions related to international travel taken by the House; and on potential
options for Congress related to international travel by Members and staff. This report does not
provide data on travel costs borne by executive agencies that support congressional travel, as
those data are not publicly available.
Under current law the use of foreign currency in conjunction with international travel by
Congress must be disclosed. Those data were tabulated, and suggest that the number of
disclosures filed in both chambers and expenditures has grown since 1993, but not in a consistent
manner suggesting a readily identifiable pattern of activity. It cannot be determined from
available data whether the increase is attributable to increased travel or use of foreign currency,
decreased utilization of privately sponsored travel, or change in the manner in which the House or
Senate document their use of foreign currency through the disclosure process.
In the 111th Congress, legislation has been introduced to study and change the manner in which
such travel is authorized, funded, and disclosed. Measures include H.R. 3036, introduced by
Representative Walter B. Jones; H.R. 4983, sponsored by Representative Mike Quigley; and H.R.
4447 and H.R. 5957, introduced by Representative Timothy V. Johnson.
On May 14, 2010, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a restatement of rules regarding the authorization
by House committee chairmen of international and domestic travel by Members and staff of the
House.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Contents
Foreign Currency Disclosure Requirements................................................................................. 2
Foreign Currency Disclosure Data......................................................................................... 4
Costs..................................................................................................................................... 6
Trips and Destinations........................................................................................................... 7
111th Congress Legislation .......................................................................................................... 9
H.R. 3036 ............................................................................................................................. 9
H.R. 4447 ........................................................................................................................... 10
H.R. 4983 ........................................................................................................................... 10
H.R. 5957 ........................................................................................................................... 11
House Administrative Actions, 111th Congress........................................................................... 12
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 13

Figures
Figure 1. House and Senate Foreign Currency Use Disclosures Filed, 1993-2010 ....................... 4
Figure 2. House and Senate Foreign Currency Expenditures, FY1994-FY2010............................ 5

Tables
Table 1. House and Senate Foreign Currency Expenditures, FY1994-FY2010 ............................. 5
Table 2. Senate and House Disclosure of Foreign Currency Use, and Budget Authority
and Obligations, Congressional Use of Foreign Currency, Senate and House Accounts,
FY1994-FY2009...................................................................................................................... 6
Table A-1. Foreign Currency Travel Expense Disclosures Filed in the House and Senate,
1993-Present .......................................................................................................................... 15
Table A-2. Foreign Currency Travel Expenditures Reported by the House of
Representatives, FY1994-FY2010.......................................................................................... 16
Table A-3. Countries Visited by Members and Staff of the House of Representatives,
FY1994-FY2010.................................................................................................................... 17
Table A-4. Destinations Visited by Members of the House and House Staff in 15 or
More Years Since 1993 .......................................................................................................... 17
Table A-5. Destinations Visited by Members of the House and House Staff in 35 or
More Quarters Since 1993...................................................................................................... 19
Table A-6. Destinations to Which Members of the House or House Staff Have Travelled
at Least Once, 1993-2010....................................................................................................... 20
Table A-7. Countries that Were Not Listed in Foreign Travel Disclosures Filed in the
House Since 1993 .................................................................................................................. 22
Table A-8. Foreign Currency Travel Expenditures Reported by the Senate, FY1994-
FY2010.................................................................................................................................. 22
Table A-9. Countries Visited By Members and Staff of the Senate, FY1994-FY2009 ................ 23
Congressional Research Service

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Table A-10. Destinations Visited by Senators or Senate Staff in 15 or More Years Since
1993 ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Table A-11. Destinations Visited by Senators or Senate Staff in 35 or More Quarters
Since 1993 ............................................................................................................................. 25
Table A-12. Destinations to Which Senators or Senate Staff Have Travelled at Least
Once, 1993-2009.................................................................................................................... 26
Table A-13. Countries That Were Not Listed in Foreign Travel Disclosures Filed in the
Senate Since 1993 .................................................................................................................. 27

Appendixes
Appendix. Foreign Currency Disclosure Data, 1993 - Present.................................................... 15

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 28
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 28

Congressional Research Service

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

nternational travel by Members of Congress and their staffs is an issue of longstanding
interest among some members of the public, media outlets, and Members. Questions
I regarding the purposes, destinations, and costs of international travel by Congress frequently
arise,1 as do questions about the ability to track the costs and benefits of such travel.2 Travel in
connection with official duties may be paid for with appropriated funds, or, in limited
circumstances, funded by a foreign government or private source, pursuant to statute or House or
Senate rules. Travel unrelated to official duties may be paid by the traveling Member or staff
member, or by a private source, subject to House or Senate rule or statute. In the 111th Congress,
legislation has been introduced to study and change the manner in which such travel is
authorized, funded, and disclosed. Members of Congress and their staff may travel abroad under a
number of circumstances which may be related or unrelated to official duties.
There are no requirements regarding the disclosure of international travel by Members of
Congress or their staffs that contain records of all international travel that might be taken. Some
congressional international travel is subject to disclosure if sponsored by a foreign government3
or private entity,4 or if foreign currency is used in conjunction with travel. This report provides
information and analysis on the use of foreign currency expended in support of congressional
travel to international destinations that is paid for with appropriated funds and authorized by the
House or Senate;5 on measures related to international travel by Congress introduced in the 111th
Congress, and administrative actions related to international travel taken by the House; and on
potential options for Congress related to international travel by Members and staff. This report
does not provide data on travel costs borne by executive agencies that support congressional
travel, as those data are not publicly available, or travel sponsored by a foreign government6 or

1 Brody Mullins and T.W. Farnam, “Congress’s Travel Tab Swells,” The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009, p. A1,
available at http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124650399438184235.html; Brody Mullins and T.W.
Farnam, “Lawmakers’ Travel Reports Understate True Cost,” The Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2009, p. A3, available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657931514989505.html; Brody Mullins and T.W. Farnam, “Lawmakers Keep the
Change: Cash Left Over From Official Trips Overseas is Often Used for Personal Expenses,” The Wall Street Journal,
March 2, 2010, p. A3; FactCheck.org, Pelosi’s Party Plane?, March 4, 2010, http://factcheck.org/2010/03/pelosis-
party-plane/.
2 Dear Colleague Letter from Representative Timothy V. Johnson, “Why the House Should STAY PUT in 2010,” April
27, 2010, http://e-dearcolleague.house.gov/details.aspx?36843; Dear Colleague Letter from Representative Mike
Quigley, “Support Unprecedented Government Transparency: Cosponsor H.R. 4983, the Transparency in Government
Act,” May 10, 2010, http://e-dearcolleague.house.gov/details.aspx?37885; Dear Colleague Letter from Representative
Walter B. Jones, “Cosponsor H.R. 3036 – Bring Sunshine to the Costs of Congressional Foreign Travel,” July 20,
2009, http://e-dearcolleague.house.gov/details.aspx?18831.
3 For an overview of rules, regulations, and statutes governing congressional international travel paid by a foreign
government, see U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 108th Cong., 1st sess., 2003
Edition, S.Pub. 108-1 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 49-52, available at http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/
manual.pdf; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual, 2008 Edition,
110th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 108-111, available at http://ethics.house.gov/Subjects/
Topics.aspx?Section=100; 5 U.S.C. 7342; 22 U.S.C. 2458.
4 For an overview of rules, regulations, and statutes governing congressional international travel paid by a private
entity, see Senate Select Committee on Ethics, “Senate Select Committee on Ethics’ (sic) Regulations and Guidelines
for Privately-Sponsored Travel,” available at http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/
regulations%20on%20privately%20sponsored%20travel_guidelines.pdf; House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, House Ethics Manual, pp. 88-103, available at http://ethics.house.gov/Subjects/Topics.aspx?Section=96.
5 Some of the data and other material presented here were originally developed in response to congressional requests,
and are used with the permission of those requesters.
6 The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct makes records of disclosures of foreign gifts filed by
Members and House staff available at the committee office. The contents of those disclosures are published annually in
the Federal Register. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual, pp. 109-110, 389-393.
Congressional Research Service
1

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

private entity.7 Consideration of domestic travel within the continental United States or travel to
U.S. territories is also excluded, unless a trip included a domestic destination in conjunction with
onward travel to an international destination.8
Foreign Currency Disclosure Requirements
22 U.S.C. 1754 provides that foreign currency “owned by the United States ... shall be made
available to Members and employees of the Congress for their local currency expenses” when
traveling overseas on official duties. The measure requires the chairs of each House, Senate, and
joint committee who authorize foreign travel to prepare a quarterly consolidated report itemizing
the amounts and U.S. dollar equivalent of the foreign currencies spent by committee Members
and staff who travel overseas on committee business. Members or staff who are authorized to
travel abroad on official duty by the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate,
or the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, are also required to disclose their use of
foreign currency.
The disclosures are required to state the purposes of expenditures for travel for each traveler in
four categories, including
• per diem (costs of meals and lodging);
• transportation;
• other purposes; and
• the total of each category by traveler.
Travel disclosures filed pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1754 appear to represent the largest, publicly
available component of official congressional international travel expenditures paid for with
appropriated funds. The resulting data, however, may be of limited utility because they cover a
narrow range of expenditures for international travel by Congress. Among the expenses that are
not included in the foreign currency disclosures are the expenses borne by executive agencies in
support of congressional travel. In addition to that challenge, the explanatory capacity of the data
may be further limited because the House and Senate file foreign currency disclosures differently.
Numerous reports filed in the House since 1998 report no expenditures of funds during a
specified reporting period. In some cases, this may be because no travel took place. In other
instances, some House disclosures reported travel to a specific destination, but did not indicate an
expenditure of foreign currency. There are no reports filed in the Senate that list no expenditures.
Other examples of data challenges, and some of the potential consequences, include the
following:
• Some disclosures list expenditures grouped by individual trips, while others list
expenditures by individual travelers. This impairs the ability to use the data to
identify the number of trips taken, or the number of travelers on certain trips.

7 Some data regarding international and domestic travel paid by private sponsors for Members and staff of the House
are available at http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/giftTravel.html. Similar information for the Senate is available from
the Senate Office of Public Records.
8 For example, some of the disclosures that form the data discussed below listed travel to Asia or Australia and
included stops in Hawaii. Disclosures that listed travel solely to destinations in the United States are excluded.
Congressional Research Service
2

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

• Some disclosures provide expenditures by individual disbursements, but do not
provide total per diem, transportation, and other expenditures. This precludes a
means of checking the accuracy of the reported data, and raises the possibility of
inaccuracy when combining the reported expenditures.
• Some disclosures identify annual expenditures, rather than quarterly for an entity,
as is required by 22 U.S.C. 1754. This precludes the ability to identify patterns of
travel within years.
• Some disclosure forms do not clearly identify the entity for which they were
filed, destinations visited (including unofficial or partial names for destinations9)
or currencies expended, if any. This precludes the ability to identify the number
of times individual destinations have been visited.
• Some disclosures contain typographical or mathematical errors. Any inaccuracy
in individual-level data reduces the overall accuracy of an aggregated set of data,
or could call into question the explanatory capacity of other data.
Taken together, these factors might raise questions about the accuracy of reported destinations,
participants, or expenditures. Consequently, these factors may reduce the suitability and
reliability of these data as indicators of a number of typical measures of travel, including the
number of trips taken; number of congressional travelers; destinations, and the number times a
destination was visited; purposes of travel; benefits of travel; or the extent of expenditures for
congressional travel.

9 E.g., numerous trips to “Korea,” “West Indies,” “Holland,” or “Congo,” or the listing of cities (London, Brussels) or
provinces, regions, or constituent elements of a country or territory (England, Abu Dhabi, Ascension Island).
Congressional Research Service
3

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Foreign Currency Disclosure Data
Since 1993,10 3,003 foreign currency
Figure 1. House and Senate Foreign
disclosures related to international travel have
Currency Use Disclosures Filed,
been filed in the House and Senate.11 1,994 of
1993-2010
those disclosures were filed by House entities.
160
Of the House disclosures, 243 reported no
140
d
expenditures of foreign currency. House data
120
ile
100
s F
presented below are based on the remaining
re
80
su
lo
60
1,751 disclosures that contained expenditure
isc
40
D
information. Senate data are based on
20
0
expenditures reported in 1,009 disclosures
93
5
7
99
1
5
07
9
19
199
199
19
200
2003
200
20
200
filed in the chamber. Figure 1 charts the
House
Senate
number of disclosures that contained

expenditure data filed by each chamber. The
Source: Disclosures of foreign currency used in
number of disclosures filed in each chamber
conjunction with international travel by House and
since 1993 is summarized in Table A-1. The
Senate entities.
data suggest that the number of disclosures
Notes: Senate data through August 3, 2010, House
filed in both chambers has grown since 1993,
through July 26, 2010. 2010 data do not cover the
with House disclosures growing at a faster
entire year. House disclosures that reported no
expenditures are excluded.
rate than the Senate’s, but not in a consistent
manner indicative of a readily identifiable
pattern of activity in either chamber. It cannot be determined from available data whether the
increase is attributable to increased travel or use of foreign currency, decreased utilization of
privately sponsored travel, or change in the manner in which the House or Senate document their
use of foreign currency through the disclosure process.

10 Senate data through August 3, 2010, House data through July 26, 2010.
11 Reports filed excludes initial reports that were amended in their entirety, and includes amendments that supplement
initial reports.
Congressional Research Service
4

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

The amounts reported in the 2,760 disclosures
reporting foreign currency expenditures were
Figure 2. House and Senate Foreign
tabulated. In some instances, a reporting
Currency Expenditures, FY1994-FY2010
entity did not provide total expenditures by
Constant (June 2010) Dollars
category (per diem, transportation, other), or a
grand total. When this was observed, totals
$10
s
n
io
$8
were calculated for each category. Table 1
ill
M
$6
provides total foreign currency expenditures
$4
for the House and Senate from FY1994-
$2
FY2010 in nominal and constant (June 2010)
$0
dollars. Figure 2 graphs the levels of House
994
995
996
997
998
999
000
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
and Senate foreign currency expenditures
House
Senate

related to international travel in constant
Source: Reports of certain expenditures for official
dollars over the same period. Table A-2 and
foreign travel by Members and staff of the House and
Table A-8, in the Appendix, provide
Senate, filed in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 1754, and
expenditures by category for the House and
CRS calculations.
Senate, respectively, over the same period.
Notes: Senate data through August 3, 2010, House
through July 26, 2010. FY2010 data do not cover the
As with the number of disclosures filed,
entire year.
Figure 2 shows increased expenditures in
both chambers over time. This could be explained by an increase in congressional international
travel, or the costs of such travel. If the data are an indication of increased congressional travel,
foreign currency expenditure data by itself cannot be used to determine whether increased travel
expenditures equates to an increase in the number of trips, travelers, or destinations visited.
Table 1. House and Senate Foreign Currency Expenditures, FY1994-FY2010
Nominal and Constant (June 2010) Dollars

House
Senate
House
Senate
FY Nominal
$
Constant
$
2010 $997,368 $4,100,445 –
–
2009 $9,449,316 $5,224,254
$9,449,316 $5,300,089
2008 $7,503,068 $3,009,582
$7,581,644 $3,093,412
2007 $6,915,386 $3,814,173
$7,237,253 $4,042,809
2006 $4,850,662 $3,095,681
$5,247,334 $3,369,446
2005 $4,021,449 $3,122,082
$4,523,656 $3,509,244
2004 $6,223,775 $2,610,378
$7,162,999 $3,022,359
2003 $5,047,614 $1,616,699
$5,969,802 $1,929,278
2002 $4,131,739 $2,561,037
$4,974,218 $3,099,083
2001 $3,564,003 $1,639,417
$4,380,412 $2,029,150
2000 $3,278,846 $1,528,939
$4,160,310 $1,948,224
1999 $3,288,477 $1,738,135
$4,129,247 $2,292,205
1998 $4,181,357 $1,871,555
$5,572,230 $2,507,695
1997 $2,964,574 $1,343,911
$4,014,885 $1,824,420
Congressional Research Service
5

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

House
Senate
House
Senate
FY Nominal
$
Constant
$
1996 $2,177,859 $532,105 $3,028,214 $740,049
1995 $2,038,917 $874,834 $2,910,264 $1,249,653
1994 $1,557,162 $1,260,830
$2,286,077 $1,801,026
Source: Reports of certain expenditures for official foreign travel by Members and staff of the House and
Senate, filed in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 1754, and CRS calculations.
Notes: Senate data through August 3, 2010, House through July 26, 2010.
Costs
22 U.S.C. 1754 provides authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to “purchase such local
currencies as may be necessary for such purposes, using any funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated” when local currencies owned by the United States are not available. This language
provides a permanent appropriation that provides funds to meet some of the expenses of
congressional international travel. Funding levels are reported in the annual Budget of the United
States Government (the President’s Budget),12 in the Federal Programs by Agency and Account
table entries for the Congressional Use of Foreign Currency, Senate and Congressional Use of
Foreign Currency, House of Representatives accounts. These tables appear in the Supplemental
Materials provided in the Analytical Perspectives volume for each fiscal year.13
Aggregated congressional disclosure data compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
are reported in their entirety, while budget data presented in the President’s Budget are rounded to
the nearest million dollars. As a consequence, the level of detail of any conclusions that might be
drawn from comparing these data may be limited. Table 2 provides foreign currency use and
budget authority and obligations for the Senate and House, FY1994 – FY 20009.
Table 2. Senate and House Disclosure of Foreign Currency Use, and Budget
Authority and Obligations, Congressional Use of Foreign Currency, Senate and
House Accounts, FY1994-FY2009
Millions of Dollars

Senate
House
Foreign
Foreign
Currency
Budget
Funds
Currency
Budget
Funds
FY
Disclosure
Authority
Obligated
Disclosure
Authority
Obligated
2009 $5.224 $12 $7 $9.449 $6 $11
2008 $4.868 $13 $7 $7.503 $18 $13
2007 $3.814 $8 $5 $6.915 $15 $8

12 Current and previous versions of the Annual Budget of the United States Government are available at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/.
13 For example the budget authority and obligation data for FY2009 are available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
usbudget/fy11/pdf/ap_cd_rom/33_1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Senate
House
Foreign
Foreign
Currency
Budget
Funds
Currency
Budget
Funds
FY
Disclosure
Authority
Obligated
Disclosure
Authority
Obligated
2006 $3.096 $7 $5 $4.851 $15 $9
2005 $3.122 $8 $4 $4.021 $18 $9
2004 $2.610 $4 $3 $6.224 $14 $9
2003 $1.617 $2 $2 $5.048 $6 $6
2002 $2.561 $3 $3 $4.132 $5 $5
2001 $1.639 $1 $1 $3.564 $4 $4
2000 $1.529 $1 $1 $3.279 $5 $4
1999 $1.738 $2 $2 $3.288 $2 $2
1998 $1.872 $1 $1 $4.181 $2 $2
1997 $1.344 $1 $1 $2.965 $2 $2
1996 $0.532 $1 $1 $2.178 $3 $2
1995 $0.875 $3 $1 $2.038 $5 $2
1994 $1.261 $2 $2 $1.557 $5 $3
Source: Foreign currency disclosure columns are based on disclosure of foreign currency used by Senate and
House entities in conjunction with authorized international travel, as published in the Congressional Record
through August 3, 2010, for the Senate, and July 26, 2010, for the House, and tabulated by CRS. Budget authority
and obligation data based on the President’s Budget, Federal Programs by Agency and Account table entries for
the Congressional Use of Foreign Currency, Senate, and Congressional Use of Foreign Currency, House, various
years, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget.
Notes: Nominal dollars. Foreign currency disclosures collected from the Congressional Record and rounded by
CRS. Budget authority and obligated levels presented as provided in the President’s budget.
Recognizing the limitations of available disclosure and budgetary data, and the challenges that
may arise when comparing them, it appears that since FY2004 for the House, and FY2005 for the
Senate, funds in the Congressional Use of Foreign Currency Account for each chamber have been
obligated in amounts larger than necessary to fund the use of foreign currency in conjunction with
official congressional international travel, as reported by the House and Senate. This may call into
question whether disclosure information is complete, or for what purposes the additional funds
have been obligated. Further details that might illuminate these expenditures are not available, in
part because there is no requirement that detailed expenditures for congressional international
travel be publicly disclosed beyond the requirements of 22 U.S.C. 1754.
Trips and Destinations14
Although it does not appear intended for this purpose, the disclosure regime required by 22
U.S.C. 1754 provides an opportunity to assess the number of destinations to which Members and
staff have travelled. In this section, “destinations” is used to identify travel to specific countries,

14 U.S. states that have appeared as destinations in congressional disclosures, and destinations that could not be
identified by materials provided in congressional disclosures are excluded.
Congressional Research Service
7

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

regions, or cities within countries, and areas that are territories, possessions, or protectorates of
other nations. The primary source of destinations are the 22 U.S.C. 1754 disclosures. Inclusion as
a destination in a congressional travel disclosure does not necessarily mean that the place listed is
a foreign state. In some instances, foreign destinations may be identified in ways that are different
than their official names or in ways that do not account for their international status. For example,
French Guiana, located in South America, and Guadeloupe and Martinique, islands located
between the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, are considered by the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) as parts of France. The State Department identifies them in its documents as parts
of the French Antilles. In this report, they are listed separately from France to give an indication
of the scope of congressional travel. Similarly, Diego Garcia and the Salomon Islands are listed
as destinations, but they are identified as part of an archipelago located in the Indian Ocean
between the continent of Africa and Indonesia, and are considered by CIA as part of Indian
Ocean Territory of the United Kingdom. Antarctica is a continent that is administered
internationally. In other instances, popular names of some countries are listed under the official
name of the state,15 and some travel to regions or provinces of a country are listed as travel to the
larger state.16
There is no explicit requirement that countries to which Members and congressional staff travel
be identified in conjunction with the use of foreign currency. There may be an implicit
expectation of country disclosure, however, because 22 U.S.C. 1754 (b)(C)(2) grants discretion to
the chairs of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence to omit countries to which their Members and staff may travel.
Disclosures filed by those panels typically do not identify countries to which their Members and
staff travel, but the disclosures of other congressional entities typically do. Consequently, lists of
destinations provided may not reflect all of the international destinations to which Members and
staff have travelled on official business, and do not provide a clear indication of the number of
times they have been visited.
Due to these limitations, it is not possible to identify discrete trips, or the total number of visits to
a destination. It is possible, however, to count the total number destinations visited since 1993.
Table A-12 and Table A-6 in the Appendix provide lists of destinations visited by Senators and
Senate staff, and Members of the House and their staff, respectively, since 1993.
It is also possible to identify destinations by year and quarter. Table A-3 and Table A-9 provide
the number of individual destinations to which House and Senate Members and staff,
respectively, traveled by quarter and year, 1993-2009. In both tables, the “Individual
Destinations” columns report the number of destinations visited at least once in each year.
Quarterly totals report the number of destinations visited at least once in each quarter. Since some
destinations may have been visited more than once in a quarter, or in more than one quarter, the
sum of the quarterly totals may not reflect the number of individual destinations visited in each
year.
The data also support the identification of travel to an individual destination on a quarterly and
annual basis since 1993. Table A-4 provides for the House, and Table A-10 for the Senate a list
of countries visited in the 15 or more years since 1993, while Table A-5 for the House, and Table

15 E.g., references to Holland are listed under Netherlands.
16 E.g., travel to England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland is listed under United Kingdom; travel to Dubai or Abu
Dhabi is listed under United Arab Emirates and travel to Zanzibar is listed as under Tanzania.
Congressional Research Service
8

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

A-11 for the Senate provide lists of countries visited in 35 or more quarters in the same period.
Table A-7 for the House and Table A-13 for the Senate provide lists of countries that have not
appeared in foreign currency disclosure documents since 1993.
As with any data taken from the 22 U.S.C. 1754 disclosures, the information regarding
destinations should be interpreted with care. For example, it appears from foreign currency
disclosure data that no one from Congress has visited the Vatican in an official capacity since
1993. At the same time, it was widely reported that a number of members were appointed by their
respective chambers to attend the funeral rites of Pope John Paul II in 2005.17 It is possible that no
one in the congressional delegation that traveled to the Vatican spent foreign currency while they
were there. It may also be the case that some of the travel disclosures listed Italy as the
destination, although the Vatican is recognized as an independent state that sits within that
country. On the other hand, since the 22 U.S.C. 1754 disclosure is not meant to be an official
record of the places to which Congress travels, some gaps between those records, and evidence of
other travel may be expected.
In other instances, foreign destinations change names, geographic boundaries, or cease to exist.
As a consequence, there has been some fluidity in the names, number and jurisdiction of some
states since 1994. Instances in which country names changed are incorporated in the data under
the state’s current name.18 Immediately prior to the period studied, the former Czechoslovakia
dissolved into two nations, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Some congressional travel
disclosures filed after the dissolution list Czechoslovakia as a destination, making it impossible to
determine a traveler’s actual destination. Similarly, in some circumstances, it may be possible that
trips to the same region or city resulted in travel to more than one country. The Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia dissolved in 1992, following the independence of former constituents
Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia in 1991, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. The remaining
entities, Montenegro and Serbia, in 1992 federated as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and,
after 2003, in a looser union as Serbia and Montenegro. In May 2006, Montenegro declared its
independence. In 2008, Kosovo, then a province of Serbia, declared itself independent. As a
consequence, it is not possible to determine with any precision what congressional travel to those
places occurred since 1994 when the destination was listed as Yugoslavia, or any of the related,
forerunner destinations.
111th Congress Legislation
H.R. 3036
Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr. introduced H.R. 3036, to direct the Secretary of Defense to
determine and disclose the costs incurred in taking a Member, officer, or employee of Congress
on a trip outside the United States so that such costs may be included in any report the Member,
officer, or employee is required to file with respect to the trip under applicable law or rules of the
House of Representatives or Senate, on June 25, 2009. The measure would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to give a Member, officer, or employee of the House or Senate

17 Sonny Bunch, “Forty to Attend Papal Funeral,” Roll Call, April 6, 2005, retrieved through nexis.com.
18 For example, disclosures of travel to Zaire are listed under Democratic Republic of Congo, as the country has been
known since 1997.
Congressional Research Service
9

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

traveling outside the United States on official duty a written statement of the cost of any DOD-
provided transportation within 10 days after completion of the trip. H.R. 3036 would require the
inclusion of those statements in any report which must be filed pursuant to House or Senate rules.
The measure would exclude any travel whose sole purpose is to visit U.S. military installations,
or to visit U.S. military personnel in a war zone.
H.R. 3036 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition, to the Committee
on House Administration, 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. No
further action has been taken as of the date of this writing.
H.R. 4447
On January 13, 2010, Representative Timothy V. Johnson introduced H.R. 4447, Suspending
Travel After Years of Pleasure Trips on Unwitting Taxpayers Act of 2010, or the STAY PUT Act
of 2010. The measure would prohibit the use of appropriated funds to pay for official
international travel by any Member, officer, or employee of the House until the Comptroller
General studies and reports to the Speaker of the House, DOD, and Department of State (State).
The report would consider the use of certain appropriated funds for congressional international
travel, make recommendations for appropriate restrictions on, and reporting requirements
applicable to, such travel that would promote transparency and cost savings. H.R. 4447 exempts
any travel: (1) to a military installation or to a theater of operations of the Armed Forces; and (2)
by Members and employees of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, if the travel is for official committee business.
H.R. 4447 was referred to the Committee on House Administration. No further action has been
taken as of the date of this writing.
H.R. 4983
Representative Mike Quigley introduced H.R. 4983, the Transparency in Government Act of
2010 on March 25, 2010. The bill would amend a number of House rules to increase disclosure
and access to records of congressional activities. Regarding congressional international travel,
section 102 of the measure would require that disclosure reports filed under House Rule X, clause
8(b)(3) to be posted on the website of the committee to which the report was submitted in a
searchable, sortable, downloadable format within 48 hours of filing.
H.R. 4983 was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition,
to the Committees on Rules, House Administration, the Judiciary, and Standards of Official
Conduct, 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. The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 15, 2010, referred the measure to the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. No further action has been
taken as of the date of this writing.
Congressional Research Service
10

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

H.R. 5957
H.R. 5957, the Congressional Foreign Travel Reform Act of 2010, was introduced by
Representative Timothy V. Johnson on July 29, 2010. The measure would repeal current law
governing the congressional use of foreign currency in conjunction with international travel, and
establish new procedures. The House and Senate could obtain foreign currency to provide per
diem allowances to Members and staff of the House and Senate who travel overseas in the course
of their official duties, subject to the authorization of certain congressional officials.19 Local
currency could be issued subject to a limitation of the greater of the equivalent of $75 per day, or
the maximum per diem established for each country by the Department of State for employees of
the United States Government.20 Any unexpended per diem would be required to be returned to
the Department of Treasury for the purposes of deficit reduction. H.R. 5957 would prohibit
vacation stopovers in conjunction with official, international travel, and restrict the number of
staff from Member and committee offices with some exceptions. All travelers would be required
to take action to reduce the costs of travel, and to return unexpended per diem at the conclusion of
travel. The Committee on House Administration (CHA) would be granted authority to
promulgate regulations implementing changes to House rules and procedures related to
international travel.
The measure would require Members and staff of the House to file statements before and after
any international travel. At least 14 days prior to undertaking travel, the first statement would be
required to include the following: (1) a description of how the travel relates to the Member’s or
employee’s official duties; (2) a tentative itinerary for each day of the travel, including a list of
the locations to be visited, and any individuals to be met; (3) the names of any other individuals
who are traveling with a House Member or staff; (4) the amount of the per diem requested for the
travel, and whether the amount is greater than the standard per diem provided by the State
Department; and (5) a description of the aircraft to be used for transportation for the travel,
including a “best estimate of the costs of using such aircraft.” When travel is completed, H.R.
5957 would require a statement within 14 days with the following: (1) a statement detailing the
“value, worthiness, and educational benefit to the Member or employee of the travel”; (2) an
itinerary, including a comprehensive statement of travel times, meetings, and other activities (3)
costs of travel, including an itemization of costs and providers of transportation, lodging, and
meals; and (4) the amount, if any, of the per diem that was unspent. The measure would allow a
Member or employee of the House to exclude from either statement any information that is
classified or which would adversely affect national security, but would require documentation in
support of any such exclusion. All statements would be required to be published in the
Congressional Record, and posted on the Web sites of the Clerk of the House and the website of
the official authorizing travel. In addition, statements regarding the travel of a Member would be
required to be posted on that Member’s website; statements of House employees would be
required to be posted on the website of the employee’s employing office.

19 In the House, authorizations could be obtained from the Speaker, for Members, officers, or employees of the House;
or from the chairman of a committee, for Members or employees of that panel. In the Senate, the President of the
Senate, President Pro Tempore, Majority Leader, or Minority Leader could authorize travel for Senators, officers, and
employees of the Senate. Chairmen of Senate committees could authorize travel for Senators serving on, or staff
employed by, those panels. Chairmen of joint committees could authorize travel for Members and employees of those
panels.
20 See 5 U.S.C. 5702.
Congressional Research Service
11

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

H.R. 5957 was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition, to the
Committee on Rules, 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. No
further action has been taken as of the date of this writing.
House Administrative Actions, 111th Congress
On May 14, 2010, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a restatement of rules regarding the authorization
by House Committee chairmen of international and domestic travel by Members and staff of the
House.21 The restatement included the following:
• authorizations to travel for oversight purposes must be made in writing to a
committee chairman. An itinerary of the proposed trip must be included, as well
as a statement describing the purpose of the travel. If commercial air travel will
be undertaken, the estimated cost of airline tickets must also be included;
• commercial air travel may only be booked in coach/economy class, “consistent
with Executive Branch guidelines.” Business-class accommodations may only be
authorized if the scheduled flight time is in excess of 14 hours, consistent with
rules established by DOD and State;
• any per diem provided to Members or staff is intended to be expended only for
official purposes related to the trip. Requests for enhanced per diem must explain
the justification for the request and must be submitted by the Member leading the
delegation. Excess funds are to be returned to the Treasury;
• international travel should be authorized only when it is necessary to facilitate the
work of the committee;
• chairmen may authorize travel only for Members and staff of their committee.
Spouses of Members may travel when necessary for protocol purposes only and
at no cost to the federal government;22
• staff support must be provided by committee staff only. Personal staff is not
authorized to travel;
• all travel must be led by a majority party Member of the committee and efforts to
ensure that the travel is bipartisan must be documented;
• a minimum number of Members, varying by the type of aircraft assigned, is
required for use of DOD aircraft to support congressional travel;
• Member travel is to be conducted only during times when the House is not in
session and is not to interfere with representational responsibilities; and

21 This section is based on information taken from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi Announces New Director of
Interparliamentary Affairs, CODEL Reforms,” press release, May 14, 2010, http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/
pressreleases?id=1698.
22 If a Member of the committee does not have a spouse, an adult child (18 years of age and older) of the Member may
be authorized to travel when necessary for protocol purposes only, and on the same basis as a spouse.
Congressional Research Service
12

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

• committees must file, on a quarterly basis with the Clerk of the House, reports
disclosing all expenditures for travel and the purpose of those expenditures.
Discussion
There is no single source that identifies all international travel undertaken by the House or Senate,
and no means to identify the number of trips taken, destinations visited, travelers, total costs, or
costs paid for by funds appropriated to government entities other than Congress. Based on an
evaluation of international travel disclosures required pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1754, it would appear
that the explanatory capacity of current disclosure requirements may be of limited assistance to
explain the purposes, benefits, destinations, and costs of congressional international travel. In the
event that Congress chooses to reconsider current practices whether through legislation
introduced thus far in the 111th Congress or by other vehicles, it would appear to have the
following options:
• Maintain the status quo.
• Require more detailed disclosure by Members of Congress and their staff who
travel to international destinations.
• Require detailed disclosure by all government entities that support congressional
travel.
Increased disclosure could clarify the purposes and intended outcomes of congressional
international travel. More detailed disclosure might include purposes of travel, travelers, detailed
itineraries, and purposes of intermediate stops, (e.g., layovers). Activities related to congressional
international travel for which there is little publicly available information may include advance
planning in support of such travel, means by which Members and staff are chosen to travel,
reasons destinations are chosen, and reasons for stops at intermediate points on the way to a final
destination.
Various foreign currency disclosures filed by congressional entities referred to travel support
provided by some executive branch agencies, including DOD23 and State.24 Although
consideration of the activities of executive entities in support of congressional international travel
is beyond the scope of this report, it would appear that full transparency of the costs on
congressional international travel would involve consideration of the extent of support provided
by executive agencies, and the costs of that support. Requiring disclosure by executive agencies
of the activities they undertake to support congressional international travel could lead to a more
detailed picture of the overall costs of that travel when combined with expenditures by
Congress.25 22 U.S.C. 1754 does not require the disclosure of the costs of that assistance.
Generally, more detailed disclosure of congressional international travel could increase the
transparency of congressional activities. The costs of administering the disclosure process,

23 For more information on the role of DOD in support of congressional travel, see 31 U.S.C. 1108, sec. (g), and
Department of Defense Directive Number 4515.12, “DOD Support for Travel of members and Employees of
Congress,” January 15, 2010, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/451512p.pdf.
24 For more information on the role of State in support of congressional international travel, see Department of State,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Official Foreign Travel Guide for the U.S. Congress, August 2008.
25 Such information may also shed light the extent and means of interbranch cooperation.
Congressional Research Service
13

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

however, could result in increased administrative effort, time, and cost. This might make such
travel more expensive, or make the actual costs seem higher, as the costs of planning and
executive agency support are included. Any change to current disclosure requirements could
subject Congress to greater scrutiny by the media and general public. Raising the profile of
congressional travel among the media and public might curtail the incidence of congressional
international travel if the response is unfavorable. On the other hand, increased disclosure might
afford the opportunity to more fully inform the public about the necessities and benefits of
congressional international travel. To the extent that those educational efforts lead to a positive
public response and greater support for travel, more detailed disclosure might increase the
incidence of such travel.26
Enhanced transparency could raise security concerns if patterns of congressional international
travel are easily available and their analysis reveals consistent patterns of travel. This could
increase the cost of travel to destinations that pose greater risks to Members of Congress or their
staffs, or curtail such travel.
Any change to current congressional travel practices arguably could affect the ability of
legislators and staff to make informed decisions in their official duties. Were Congress to proceed
in this area, it could take into consideration the balance between the potential consequences of
those changes against enhanced transparency and a more detailed understanding of the ways in
which congressional international travel serves Congress and the national interest.

26 A version of this argument is offered by Cragg Hines, “Do You Know Where Your Rep is—and Who’s Paying?”
The Houston Chronicle, July 3, 2005, p. 3, Outlook Section.
Congressional Research Service
14

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Appendix. Foreign Currency Disclosure Data, 1993 -
Present
Table A-1. Foreign Currency Travel Expense Disclosures
Filed in the House and Senate, 1993-Present
Calendar Years
House
House, No
House,
Year
Totala
Expendituresb
Adjustedc Senate
1993 34
0
34
31
1994 96
0
96
66
1995 76
0
76
36
1996 79
0
79
44
1997 114
0
114
62
1998
147 29
118 65
1999
139 24
115 57
2000 96
12
84
68
2001 119
29
90
51
2002
137 19
118 59
2003
147 20
127 54
2004
165 22
143 77
2005 82
13
69
68
2006
131 19
112 72
2007
137 24
113 58
2008
140 14
126 61
2009
134 17
117 47
2010 21
1
20
33
Totals 1,994
243
1,751
1,009
Source: Foreign Travel Disclosures filed in the House and Senate, 1993- present.
Notes: Senate data through August 3, 2010, House through July 26, 2010.
a. Number of disclosures filed by House entities.
b. Number of disclosures filed by House entities that reported no expenditures.
c. Number of disclosures filed by House entities that reported expenditures. Calculations provided below for
the House are based on these disclosures unless otherwise noted.
Congressional Research Service
15

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

House Travel Data
House Foreign Currency Use
Table A-2. Foreign Currency Travel Expenditures
Reported by the House of Representatives, FY1994-FY2010
Nominal and Constant (June 2010) Dollars

Nominal $
Constant $
Per
Per
FY
Diem Transport Other Total Diem Transport Other Total
2010 $997,368 $1,990,859 $126,683 $3,114,910 $801,224 $1,753,274 $93,046 $2,647,544
2009 $2,803,768 $5,777,807 $867,741 $9,449,316 $2,840,544 $5,848,667 $880,858 $9,570,070
2008 $2,252,234 $4,887,992 $362,842 $7,503,068 $2,274,199 $4,942,511 $364,934 $7,581,644
2007 $1,942,136 $4,596,475 $376,774 $6,915,386 $2,032,515 $4,810,572 $394,167 $7,237,253
2006 $1,505,225 $3,053,139 $292,298 $4,850,662 $1,628,805 $3,302,074 $316,455 $5,247,334
2005 $1,487,172 $2,072,841 $461,436 $4,021,449 $1,672,462 $2,330,749 $520,446 $4,523,656
2004 $2,206,125 $3,801,836 $215,814 $6,223,775 $2,540,475 $4,375,142 $247,382 $7,162,999
2003 $1,998,332 $2,679,947 $369,335 $5,047,614 $2,361,510 $3,169,801 $438,491 $5,969,802
2002 $1,552,494 $2,274,087 $305,157 $4,131,739 $1,868,887 $2,737,801 $367,531 $4,974,218
2001 $1,413,621 $1,957,984 $192,398 $3,564,003 $1,735,634 $2,409,492 $235,286 $4,380,412
2000 $1,134,347 $1,999,211 $145,288 $3,278,846 $1,436,894 $2,540,664 $182,752 $4,160,310
1999 $1,512,875 $2,234,072 $485,173 $3,288,477 $1,823,629 $2,760,102 $489,158 $4,129,247
1998 $1,667,946 $2,415,376 $98,035 $4,181,357 $2,224,019 $3,217,555 $130,656 $5,572,230
1997 $1,350,856 $1,540,130 $73,587 $2,964,574 $1,828,061 $2,087,489 $99,335 $4,014,885
1996 $776,768
$1,373,369
$27,721
$2,177,859
$1,078,119
$1,911,611 $38,484
$3,028,214
1995 $797,347
$1,217,679
$23,892
$2,038,917
$1,137,394
$1,738,926 $33,945
$2,910,264
1994 $724,881 $788,941 $43,340 $1,557,162
$1,064,181
$1,158,511 $63,385 $2,286,077
Source: Reports of certain expenditures for al official foreign travel by Members and staff of the House, filed in
accordance with 22 U.S.C. 1754, the Consumer Price Index for various years, available at
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt, and CRS calculations of totals reported in each disclosure by
year. House disclosures of foreign currency use in conjunction with international travel are available from the
Clerk of the House at http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/foreign/index.html.
Notes: Rounded to nearest dol ar. Data current through July 26, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
16

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

House Destinations
Table A-3. Countries Visited by Members and Staff
of the House of Representatives, FY1994-FY2010
Individual
FY
Destinations
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2010 75 52
43 5 —
2009 123 71 52 80 70
2008 125 63 82 52 78
2007 124 50 54 69 90
2006 120 65 84 59 67
2005 104 80 42 59 15
2004 119
3 71 68 77
2003 108 48 43 47 69
2002 115 27 65 53 71
2001 103 39 48 64 72
2000 106 66 49 17 57
1999 116 54 66 73 64
1998 111 70 49 53 71
1997 100 42 58 51 47
1996 67
22 29 43 36
1995 104 41 53 52 56
1994 70
0 38 42 37
Source: CRS analysis of House foreign currency expenditure disclosure records. Data current through July 26,
2010.
Notes: “Individual Destinations” reports the number of destinations visited at least once in each year. Quarterly
totals report the number of destinations visited at least once in each quarter. Since some destinations may have
been visited more than once in a quarter or year, the sum of the quarterly totals may not reflect the number of
individual destinations visited in each year.
Table A-4. Destinations Visited by Members of the House and House Staff
in 15 or More Years Since 1993
Destination Years
Visited
Belgium 17
Canada 17
China 17
Egypt 17
France 17
Germany 17
Hong Kong
17
Congressional Research Service
17

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Destination Years
Visited
Israel 17
Italy 17
Kenya 17
Korea, Southa 17
Mexico 17
South Africa, Republic of
17
Turkey 17
United Kingdomb 17
Australia 16
Brazil 16
Czech Republic
16
El Salvador
16
Guatemala 16
Hungary 16
India 16
Ireland 16
Japan 16
Jordan 16
Peru 16
Poland 16
Russia 16
Singapore 16
Spain 16
Switzerland 16
Thailand 16
Ukraine 16
Vietnam 16
Argentina 15
Austria 15
Bosnia-Herzegovina 15
Colombia 15
Denmark 15
Haiti 15
Indonesia 15
Morocco 15
Nicaragua 15
Pakistan 15
Congressional Research Service
18

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Destination Years
Visited
Philippines 15
Qatar 15
Taiwan 15
Source: CRS analysis of House foreign travel disclosure records.
a. Excludes numerous references to travel to Korea.
b. Includes destinations listed as United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
Table A-5. Destinations Visited by Members of the House and House Staff
in 35 or More Quarters Since 1993
Country
Years Visited Quarters Visited
Germany 17
64
Italy 17
62
Belgium 17
58
France 17
58
United Kingdoma 17
58
Russia 16
57
Israel 17
53
Turkey 17
53
Thailand 16
52
Switzerland 16
51
China 17
50
Canada 17
49
Colombia 15
48
Japan 16
48
Ireland 16
47
Mexico 17
47
Austria 15
45
Jordan 16
44
South Africa, Republic of
17
44
Spain 16
43
India 16
42
Australia 16
41
Egypt 17
41
Czech Republic
16
40
Hong Kong
17
40
Hungary 16
40
Netherlands 14
40
Congressional Research Service
19

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Country
Years Visited Quarters Visited
Pakistan 15
38
Haiti 15
36
Korea, Southb 17
36
Kuwait 14
36
Argentina 15
35
Bosnia-Herzegovina 15 35
Indonesia 15
35
Kenya 17
35
Source: CRS analysis of House foreign travel disclosure records.
a. Includes destinations listed as United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
b. Excludes numerous references to travel to Korea.
Table A-6. Destinations to Which Members of the House or House Staff Have
Travelled at Least Once, 1993-2010
Afghanistan Denmark
Korea,
South
Philippines
Albania Djibouti
Kosovo Poland
Algeria Dominica
Kuwait Portugal
Angola Dominican
Republic
Kyrgyzstan
Qatar
Antarctica East
Timora Laos
Romania
Antigua and Barbuda
Ecuador
Latvia
Russia
Argentina Egypt Lebanon Rwanda
Armenia El
Salvador
Lesotho Samoa
Aruba
Equatorial Guinea
Liberia
Saudi Arabia
Australia Eritrea
Libya
Senegal
Austria Estonia
Lithuania
Serbia
Azerbaijan Ethiopia
Luxembourg
Sierra
Leone
Bahamas Fiji Macau Singapore
Bahrain Finland
Macedonia
Slovakia
Bangladesh France Madagascar Slovenia
Barbados French
Guiana
Malawi Somalia
Belarus
French Polynesia
Malaysia
South Africa,
Republic of
Belgium Gambia
Mali
Spain
Belize Georgia
Malta Sri
Lanka
Benin
Germany
Marshal Islands
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Bermuda Ghana
Martinique
Sudan
Bhutan Gibraltar
Mauritania
Swaziland
Congressional Research Service
20

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Bolivia Greece
Mauritius
Sweden
Bosnia-Herzegovina Greenland
Mexico
Switzerland
Botswana Grenada
Micronesia
Syria
Brazil Guadeloupe
Moldova
Taiwan
British Virgin Islands
Guatemala
Mongolia
Tajikistan
Bulgaria Guinea
Montenegro
Tanzania
Burkina Faso
Guinea-Bissau
Morocco
Thailand
Burma Haiti
Mozambique
Togo
Burundi Honduras
Namibia Tonga
Cambodia
Hong Kong
Nepal
Trinidad and
Tobago
Cameroon Hungary
Netherlands
Tunisia
Canada Iceland
Netherlands
Antilles
Turkey
Cape Verde
India
New Zealand
Turkmenistan
Chad Indonesia
Nicaragua
Uganda
Chile Iraq
Niger Ukraine
China Ireland
Nigeria
United
Arab
Emiratesb
Colombia Israel Norway United
Kingdomc
Congo, Democratic
Italy Oman Uruguay
Republic ofd
Congo, Republic of the
Jamaica
Pakistan
Uzbekistan
Costa Rica
Japan
Palau
Venezuela
Cote D’lvoiree Jordan
Panama
Vietnam
Croatia
Kazakhstan
Papua New Guinea
Yemen
Cuba Kenya
Paraguay
Zambia
Cyprus Korea,
Northf Peru
Zimbabwe
Czech Republic

Source: CRS analysis of House foreign travel disclosure records.
a. Includes destinations listed as East Timor or Timor Leste.
b. Includes destinations listed as United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi, or Dubai.
c. Includes destinations listed as United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
d. Includes destinations listed as Democratic Republic of Congo, “DRC,” if listed in conjunction with other
African travel, and Zaire.
e. Includes destinations listed as Cote D’Ivoire or Ivory Coast.
f.
Excludes numerous references to travel to Korea.
Congressional Research Service
21

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Table A-7. Countries that Were Not Listed in Foreign Travel Disclosures
Filed in the House Since 1993
Andorra Kiribati Solomon
Islands
Brunei
Liechtenstein
St. Kitts and St. Nevis
Central African Republic
Maldives
St. Lucia
Comoros Monaco Suriname
Cook Islands
Nauru
Tuvalu
Gabon New
Caledonia
Vanuatu
Guyana San
Marino
Vatican
Iran
Sao Tome and Principe
Zanzibar
Source: CRS analysis of House foreign travel disclosure records, cross-referenced against entities listed in the
Department of State telephone directory for country offices, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/
organization/115480.pdf.
Senate Travel Data
Senate Foreign Currency Use
Table A-8. Foreign Currency Travel Expenditures
Reported by the Senate, FY1994-FY2010
Nominal and Constant (June 2010) Dollars

Nominal $
Constant $
Per
Per
FY
Diem
Transport Other Total
Diem
Transport Other Total
2010 $1,066,231
$2,988,899 $45,314
$4,100,445 $398,418 $1,021,003 $7,106 $1,426,526
2009 $1,626,465 $3,563,121 $34,668 $5,224,254 $1,651,128 $3,613,822 $35,139 $5,300,089
2008
$604,113 $2,194,829 $210,641 $3,009,582 $619,984 $2,254,934 $218,494 $3,093,412
2007
$786,981 $2,900,221 $126,972 $3,814,173 $834,271 $3,074,590 $133,947 $4,042,809
2006
$741,680 $2,218,608 $135,394 $3,095,681 $806,820 $2,416,219 $146,407 $3,369,446
2005
$795,850 $1,895,684 $430,548 $3,122,082 $893,535 $2,132,350 $483,359 $3,509,244
2004
$815,697 $1,547,955 $246,727 $2,610,378 $944,499 $1,791,931 $285,929 $3,022,359
2003
$502,031 $958,153 $156,515 $1,616,699 $599,029 $1,144,032 $186,218 $1,929,278
2002
$801,932 $1,497,003 $262,102 $2,561,037 $970,409 $1,811,507 $317,167 $3,099,083
2001
$515,992 $992,384 $131,042 $1,639,417 $638,351 $1,229,717 $161,082 $2,029,150
2000 $519,835 $948,389 $60,714 $1,528,939 $661,029 $1,210,398 $76,797 $1,948,224
1999 $568,481 $1,116,404 $53,250 $1,738,135 $749,910 $1,471,897 $70,398 $2,292,205
1998
$688,154 $1,049,156 $134,246 $1,871,555 $922,256 $1,405,826 $179,613 $2,507,695
1997 $547,065 $698,091 $98,755
$1,343,911
$742,701 $948,104
$133,615
$1,824,420
1996 $221,187 $265,626 $45,292 $532,105 $307,632 $369,426 $62,991 $740,049
Congressional Research Service
22

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Nominal $
Constant $
Per
Per
FY
Diem Transport Other Total Diem Transport Other Total
1995 $391,653 $416,216 $66,966
$874,834 $559,455 $594,541 $95,657
$1,249,653
1994
$539,337 $554,187 $167,306 $1,260,830 $770,413 $791,626 $238,987 $1,801,026
Source: Reports of certain expenditures for al official foreign travel by Members and staff of the Senate, filed in
accordance with 22 U.S.C. 1754, and published in the Congressional Record.
Notes: Rounded to nearest dollar. Data based on CRS calculations of totals reported in each disclosure by year.
Data current through August 3, 2010.
Senate Destinations
Table A-9. Countries Visited By Members and Staff of the Senate, FY1994-FY2009
Individual
FY
Destinations
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2010 95
41 60 65 0
2009 97
62 40 58 9
2008 107 57 72 50 68
2007 118 65 36 39 70
2006 105 41 58 50 55
2005 106 59 55 44 53
2004 113 42 58 35 68
2003 91
43 29 39 47
2002 105 24 58 58 45
2001 105 28 26 55 38
2000 99
42 44 36 57
1999 91
65 24 35 43
1998 102 68 51 43 37
1997 79
29 39 31 40
1996 61
8 33 26 25
1995 72 45 8 30
40
1994 67
34 44 35 23
Source: CRS analysis of Senate foreign currency expenditure disclosure records. Data current through August
3, 2010.
Notes: “Individual Destinations” reports the number of destination visited at least once in each year. Quarterly
totals report the number of destinations visited at least once in each quarter. Since some destinations may have
been visited more than once in a quarter or year, the sum of the quarterly totals may not reflect the number of
individual destinations visited in each year.
Congressional Research Service
23

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Table A-10. Destinations Visited by Senators or Senate Staff
in 15 or More Years Since 1993
Country Years
Visited
Austria 17
Belgium 17
China 17
France 17
Germany 17
India 17
Israel 17
Italy 17
Japan 17
Jordan 17
Russia 17
Singapore 17
Switzerland 17
Turkey 17
United Kingdoma 17
Hong Kong
16
Kenya 16
Korea, Southb 16
Netherlandsc 16
Pakistan 16
Poland 16
Spain 16
Thailand 16
Ukraine 16
Brazil 15
Czech Republic
15
Denmark 15
Haiti 15
Indonesia 15
Ireland 15
Kazakhstan 15
Vietnam 15
Source: CRS analysis of Senate foreign travel disclosure records.
a. Includes destinations listed as United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
b. Excludes numerous references to travel to Korea.
c. Includes destinations listed as Netherlands or Holland.
Congressional Research Service
24

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Table A-11. Destinations Visited by Senators or Senate Staff
in 35 or More Quarters Since 1993
Quarters
Totals Years
Visited
Visited
Germany 17
61
Italy 17
58
France 17
56
United Kingdoma 17
55
Israel 17
53
Switzerland 17
52
Belgium 17
50
China 17
50
Japan 17
49
Austria 17
46
Turkey 17
46
Russia 17
44
Jordan 17
43
Thailand 16
43
Korea, Southb 16
40
Hong Kong
16
39
Pakistan 16
39
Poland 16
37
Singapore 17
37
Source: CRS analysis of Senate foreign travel disclosure records.
a. Includes destinations listed as United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
b. Excludes numerous references to travel to Korea.
Congressional Research Service
25

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Table A-12. Destinations to Which Senators or Senate Staff
Have Travelled at Least Once, 1993-2009
Afghanistan Czech
Republic
Laos
Qatar
Albania Denmark
Latvia
Romania
Algeria Djibouti
Lebanon
Russia
Angola Dominica
Lesotho
Rwanda
Antarctica Dominican
Republic
Liberia
Samoa
Antigua and Barbuda
East Timora
Libya
Sao Tome and
Principe
Argentina Ecuador
Lithuania
Saudi
Arabia
Armenia Egypt
Luxembourg
Senegal
Aruba El
Salvador
Macedonia
Serbia
Australia
Equatorial Guinea
Madagascar
Sierra Leone
Austria Eritrea
Malawi
Singapore
Azerbaijan Estonia
Malaysia
Slovakia
Bahamas Ethiopia
Maldives
Slovenia
Bahrain Finland
Mali
Somalia
Bangladesh France
Malta
South
Africa,
Republic of
Belarus Gabon
Marshal
Islands
Spain
Belgium Georgia
Mauritania
Sri
Lanka
Benin
Germany
Mauritius
St. Kitts and St.
Nevis
Bhutan Ghana
Mexico
Sudan
Bolivia Greece
Micronesia
Swaziland
Bosnia-Herzegovina Greenland Moldova
Sweden
Botswana Guatemala
Monaco
Switzerland
Brazil Guinea
Mongolia
Syria
British Indian Ocean
Guyana Montenegro
Taiwan
Territory
Brunei Haiti
Morocco
Tajikistan
Bulgaria Honduras
Mozambique
Tanzania
Burma, Union of
Hong Kong
Namibia
Thailand
Burundi Hungary
Nepal
Togo
Cambodia
Iceland
Netherlands Antilles
Trinidad and Tobago
Cameroon India Netherlandsb Tunisia
Canada Indonesia
New
Zealand
Turkey
Cape Verde
Iraq
Nicaragua
Turkmenistan
Cayman Islands
Ireland
Niger
Uganda
Congressional Research Service
26

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Chad Israel
Nigeria
Ukraine
Chile Italy
Norway
United
Arab
Emiratesc
China Jamaica
Oman
United
Kingdomd
Colombia Japan
Pakistan
Uruguay
Comoros Jordan
Palau
Uzbekistan
Congo, Democratic
Kazakhstan Panama
Vanuatu
Republic of
Congo, Republic of the
Kenya
Papua New Guinea
Venezuela
Costa Rica
Korea, Northe Paraguay
Vietnam
Cote D’lvoiref Korea,
South
Peru
Yemen
Croatia Kosovo
Philippines
Yugoslaviag
Cuba Kuwait
Poland
Zambia
Cyprus Kyrgyzstan
Portugal
Zimbabwe
Source: CRS analysis of Senate foreign travel disclosure records.
a. Includes destinations listed as East Timor or Timor Leste.
b. Includes destinations listed as Netherlands or Holland.
c. Includes destinations listed as United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi, or Dubai.
d. Includes destinations listed as United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
e. Excludes numerous references to travel to Korea.
f.
Includes destinations listed as Cote D’Ivoire or Ivory Coast.
g. Listed as a destination prior to June, 2006.
Table A-13. Countries That Were Not Listed in
Foreign Travel Disclosures Filed in the Senate Since 1993
Andorra Gibraltar
New
Caledonia
Barbados Grenada San
Marino
Belize Guadeloupe
Solomon
Islands
Bermuda Guinea-Bissau St.
Lucia
Burkina Faso
Iran
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Central African Republic
Kiribati
Suriname
Cook Islands
Liechtenstein
Tanzania
Fiji Macau
Tonga
French Polynesia
Martinique
Tuvalu
Gambia Nauru Vatican
Source: CRS analysis of Senate foreign travel disclosure records, cross-referenced against entities listed in the
Department of State telephone directory for country offices, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/
organization/115480.pdf.

Congressional Research Service
27

International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options

Author Contact Information

R. Eric Petersen, Coordinator
Mabel Gracias
Analyst in American National Government
Library Technician Reference Assistant
epetersen@crs.loc.gov, 7-0643
mgracias@crs.loc.gov, 7-9058
Terrence L. Lisbeth
Parker H. Reynolds
Reference Assistant
Analyst in American National Government
tlisbeth@crs.loc.gov, 7-0096
preynolds@crs.loc.gov, 7-5821

Acknowledgments
Jennifer Manning, Information Research Specialist, provided research support. Ida A Brudnick, Analyst on
the Congress, and Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy, provided technical assistance
in the development of this report.

Congressional Research Service
28