< PREVIOUS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

Travel Controversies

Lavish trips such as the highly publicized Scottish golf outings connected with lobbyist Jack Abramoff have affected how even non-partisan congressional travel is viewed. Travel has become such a controversial issue that Aspen Institute Congressional Program invitations include a printed copy of the Ethics Committee ruling that clarifies how the trip conforms to official congressional travel rules.

The conferences are held outside the country, Clark explains, precisely because of those ethics rules, which don’t allow members of Congress to take subsidized trips within the U.S. that are longer than three days. Sometimes more time actually costs less, according to Clark. After trying a three-day education conference format, he found adding a fourth day provided greater financial and intellectual value. “For a little more money, you get a fourth more time,” he says, which is “much more efficient for the foundation and for us.”

In addition to housing and meals, the program pays coach class airfare for each lawmaker and spouse or guest. Husbands and wives are the secret weapon in Clark’s arsenal, helping to maintain civility and promote attendance. Spouse participation has always been an integral part of the Congressional Program strategy — a lure to persuade members to make time for the conferences. In the early days, Representative Obey recalls, after he advised Clark it was “crazy” to seek such time-consuming commitments from busy members of Congress, Clark countered, “There’s one incentive: You can bring your spouse and the conferences will be held at a very nice place.” Members of Congress don’t get a lot of time to themselves, Obey points out, and “if you’re being asked to take five days and focus on a subject, you may not want to do it. But,” he adds, “if it is a nice place and your wife can come, that makes it more appealing.”

Roughly 90 percent of spouses attend Aspen Institute Congressional Programs, in Deana Arsenian’s estimation. But the prospect of a luxurious getaway with spouse in tow might also detract from the serious image that the Aspen Institute wants to convey. The Education Program, in particular, must deal with the possibility of appearing to be a luxury junket because it takes place in the winter at a resort location such as Puerto Rico, Jamaica or Mexico.
One honest response to any criticism is that lawmakers and panelists simply wouldn’t attend if the trips weren’t in appealing places. “They’re not going to go to the Bronx,” Representative Regula remarks. Although the Aspen Institute Congressional Program has attracted the attention of the press and the Center For Public Integrity watchdog group for its role as in sponsoring congressional travel, Clark’s explanation of the nonpartisan nature and heavy work schedule of a Congressional Program trip is generally accorded a great deal of respect.

The program is “very clean,” According to Clark. He points to the Aspen Institute Congressional Program as a rare travel and learning opportunity with “no specific interest in a private goal.” Media coverage of the Program’s congressional trips have acknowledged as much. The Associated Press led one congressional travel story last year by pointing to the Congressional Program’s heavy work agenda: “The 17 members of Congress who went to Dublin, Ireland, on an Aspen Institute Congressional Program-paid trip last summer got a walking tour of the city. They also spent six or seven hours each of the four days in discussions with scholars and policymakers about U.S. relations with Europe and Russia. It was not quite the same as the itinerary for trips arranged by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, when golf at St. Andrews’ famed course in Scotland was the highlight,” the AP article noted.

Congressional Program veterans seem unfazed by potential criticism of these trips. To Senator Bennett, it is “completely transparent…. Everybody knows what they’re doing…so there are no apologies.” A more fiery response comes from Obey: “There will always be idiots who foul the nest,” he declares, referring to Abramoff. But trips such as Abramoff’s should not be mentioned in the same breath as the “very different” Aspen Institute, he says, terming the program “the gold standard…. in how private travel ought to be handled.”

He blames misunderstandings on some reporters who don’t distinguish between lobbyist or special interest-paid travel and travel for the purpose of study. Obey’s colleague from the other side of the aisle is just as adamant. “I can defend what I’ve done and will continue to defend it,” declares Republican Regula, who has told House colleagues considering travel ethics legislation they “shouldn’t restrict trips with Aspen Institute because they are nonpartisan.”

Unlike scholars, legislators are not widely encouraged to take time for reflection or educational travel – and their understanding of issues and ability to make wise decisions may suffer as a result. Carnegie Corporation supports Aspen Institute Congressional Programs because of their nonpartisan nature, because they are consistent with the Corporation’s mission, which is to promote knowledge and understanding, and because they carefully observe regulations designed to ensure fair play. The stringent rules governing the Program — starting with the invitation, which pointedly states participation is required for “duration” of the conference — should insulate it from major criticism, Clark believes. Because he is very explicit about that requirement, members almost never leave early. “If they’re there and we paid for it, I expect them to attend all sessions,” he stresses. One legislator who skipped discussions to play tennis one morning was never invited back.

MORE > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

---