Foreign Travel Appropriate for Legislators?

[Garrette]

On the news this morning a political analyst was discussing Tom DeLay and his (alleged?) improprieties.

I don't want to get into the DeLay specifics; I just wanted to mention how the following came up.

The analyst was basically defending DeLay and said something to the effect (paraphrasing):

"We want our senators and representatives to meet foreign leaders and travel to other parts of the world."

Which made me think of the following (sets of) questions:

1. Do we really want them to do that. I'm not implying that traveling is a bad thing, but is "meeting foreign leaders" within the purview of senators and representatives? Isn't this more properly a function of the executive branch?

2. How do other countries view this both in theory and in practice? Do MPs routinely travel to other countries? If so, is there a formal or informal limit, i.e. is travel within the EU okay but travel outside it frowned upon?

I haven't formulated my own opinion yet.

Just thinking and asking.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It is very common in the UK (although given relative size, also a whole lot easier).

Most MP's, even if they are not part of the government will sit on some parliamentary committee investigating or monitoring or reviewing something. This is often a reason/excuse for foreign travel - see how others deal with the same problem. However such travel does need to be approved by the liaison committee:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/liaison_committee/lcfm021204.cfm

However as we do not have the same divide between the executive and the elected members of parliament, this is probably not relevant to your first question.

 

[drkitten]

1. Do we really want them to do that. I'm not implying that traveling is a bad thing, but is "meeting foreign leaders" within the purview of senators and representatives?

Let me turn this around. Do we really want senators and representatives drafting legislation with the potential of significant international impact in total ignorance of the rest of the world situation? Alternatively, do we want these people to be drafting legislation addressing problems that other countries have tried to solve, in total ignorance of the success or failure of their attempts? Even the task of allocating money to various organizations (for example, the military, the department of state, the various international aid organizations, and so forth) requires a knowledge of international affairs.

Especially since it's the job of the senate to ratify treaties, I would argue that it's essential for the senate to be able to to make judgements based in knowledge about the international situation.

But even in the House of Representatives, members are routinely required to debate matters of international impact. For example, from this site on Taiwan/US relations:

On Tuesday, 29 July 1997, U.S. Congressmen Solomon (R-NY) and Tom Lantos (D-CA) introduced a Resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives in support of Taiwan's membership in the United Nations. Below is the text of the most important considerations as well as the operative part of this Resolution:

[snip]

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--

1. Taiwan deserves full participation, including a seat, in the United Nations and its related agencies; and
2. the Government of the United States should immediately encourage the United Nations to take action by considering the unique situation of Taiwan in the international community and adopting a comprehensive solution to accommodate Taiwan in the United Nations and its related agencies.

 

[Number Six]

Having Congressfolk travel to foreign lands on occassion seems reasonable but it seems like there should be a formal mechanism in Congress to fund this and determine who goes where. Or else if a person goes whereever they want then they should fund it. Having Congressfolk accepting funding for their travel seems like something that could be easily abused (but then again the same is probably true of many kinds of lobbying).

 

[Ziggurat]

1. Do we really want them to do that. I'm not implying that traveling is a bad thing, but is "meeting foreign leaders" within the purview of senators and representatives? Isn't this more properly a function of the executive branch?/B]

Certainly the executive branch bears the major burden for interactions with foreign governments. But the senate is responsible for ratifying treaties, so they do have some constitutionally mandated responsibilities regarding foreign relations. This doesn't necessarily require foreign travel, but foreign travel could certainly be a useful component of that duty.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by new drkitten:

Let me turn this around. Do we really want senators and representatives drafting legislation with the potential of significant international impact in total ignorance of the rest of the world situation? Alternatively, do we want these people to be drafting legislation addressing problems that other countries have tried to solve, in total ignorance of the success or failure of their attempts? Even the task of allocating money to various organizations (for example, the military, the department of state, the various international aid organizations, and so forth) requires a knowledge of international affairs.

Especially since it's the job of the senate to ratify treaties, I would argue that it's essential for the senate to be able to to make judgements based in knowledge about the international situation.

But even in the House of Representatives, members are routinely required to debate matters of international impact. For example, from this site on Taiwan/US relations:

Actually, I had considered this before writing the OP. While relevant, it does not seem compelling.

As Ziggurat says, it is possible--even easy--to become informed of international matters without traveling.

I might go so far as to argue that if one's purpose is to become educated on both the successful and failed initiatives of other countries and to get a sense of the potential impact of proposed domestic legislation, then junkets centered on meetings with dignitaries is a poor way to achieve it.

The analyst I heard specifically said "meet foreign leaders."

Travel geared toward exposure to the actual culture, systems, infrastructure, and bureaucracy of the other nation would, I think, serve this purpose better.

As far as the ratification of treaties goes, I can think of no issue that traveling senators could uncover that should not have already been addressed by the original negotiators. If the senate feels there is reason to doubt the integrity, savvy, efficiency, or ability of the negotiators, then that is sufficient reason not to ratify any treaties.

That being said, I'm really really really not opposed to the basic idea of senators/representatives traveling on the taxpayer dime.

My questioning is more from a legalistic standpoint than one of effectiveness. (Which is probably a bad thing as I'm not a legal scholar in any sense).

---

On a related note, I heard a show last night during which the host advocated that the rules restricting travel be completely abolished and replaced by one rule and one rule only (paraphrasing):

"Travel all you like, paid for by whomever you can get to pay for it, but disclose it all completely. Let your constituents decide if you're bought as a result."

It has merit...