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

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. 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.

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 Prepared 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 th 111 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, FY1994FY2010.................................................................................................................................. 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 I 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 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/pelosisparty-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 disclosures related to international travel have been filed in the House and Senate.11 1,994 of those disclosures were filed by House entities. Of the House disclosures, 243 reported no 160 140 expenditures of foreign currency. House data 120 100 presented below are based on the remaining 80 1,751 disclosures that contained expenditure 60 40 information. Senate data are based on 20 0 expenditures reported in 1,009 disclosures filed in the chamber. Figure 1 charts the number of disclosures that contained House Senate 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 rate than the Senate’s, but not in a consistent expenditures are excluded. 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. 20 09 20 07 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 Disclosures Filed Figure 1. House and Senate Foreign Currency Use Disclosures Filed, 1993-2010 10 Senate data through August 3, 2010, House data through July 26, 2010. Reports filed excludes initial reports that were amended in their entirety, and includes amendments that supplement initial reports. 11 Congressional Research Service 4 International Travel by Congress: Legislation, Background, and Potential Policy Options Figure 2. House and Senate Foreign Currency Expenditures, FY1994-FY2010 Constant (June 2010) Dollars Millions $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 House 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 $0 1994 The amounts reported in the 2,760 disclosures reporting foreign currency expenditures were tabulated. In some instances, a reporting entity did not provide total expenditures by category (per diem, transportation, other), or a grand total. When this was observed, totals were calculated for each category. Table 1 provides total foreign currency expenditures for the House and Senate from FY1994FY2010 in nominal and constant (June 2010) dollars. Figure 2 graphs the levels of House and Senate foreign currency expenditures related to international travel in constant dollars over the same period. Table A-2 and Table A-8, in the Appendix, provide expenditures by category for the House and Senate, respectively, over the same period. Senate 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. FY2010 data do not cover the entire year. As with the number of disclosures filed, 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 FY Senate House Nominal $ Senate 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 FY Senate House Nominal $ Senate 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 House Senate FY Foreign Currency Disclosure Budget Authority Funds Obligated Foreign Currency Disclosure Budget Authority Funds 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 House Senate FY Foreign Currency Disclosure Budget Authority Funds Obligated Foreign Currency Disclosure Budget Authority Funds 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. 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. 16 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. For example, disclosures of travel to Zaire are listed under Democratic Republic of Congo, as the country has been known since 1997. 18 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 DODprovided 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 Year House Totala House, No Expendituresb House, 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 Constant $ Nominal $ FY Per Diem Transport Other Total Per 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 all 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 dollar. 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 FY Individual 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 17 36 Kuwait 14 36 Argentina 15 35 Bosnia-Herzegovina 15 35 Indonesia 15 35 Kenya 17 35 Korea, Southb 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 Marshall 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 Republic ofd Italy Oman Uruguay 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 Peru Zimbabwe Cyprus Korea, Northf 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 Constant $ Nominal $ FY Per Diem Transport Other Total Per 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 Constant $ Nominal $ FY Per Diem Transport Other Total Per 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 all 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 FY Individual 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 Years Visited Quarters Visited Germany 17 61 Italy 17 58 17 56 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 16 43 16 40 Hong Kong 16 39 Pakistan 16 39 Poland 16 37 Singapore 17 37 Totals France United Kingdoma Thailand Korea, Southb 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 Marshall 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 Territory Guyana Montenegro Taiwan 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 Republic of Kazakhstan Panama Vanuatu 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 Analyst in American National Government epetersen@crs.loc.gov, 7-0643 Mabel Gracias Library Technician Reference Assistant mgracias@crs.loc.gov, 7-9058 Terrence L. Lisbeth Reference Assistant tlisbeth@crs.loc.gov, 7-0096 Parker H. Reynolds Analyst in American National Government 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