Papers

I. Introduction

Travel to foreign nations is, of course, an important component of Presidential diplomacy. As the country's most visible ambassador, the President uses his power and influence to promote democracy and international stability. In this context it is necessary from time to time for the President to travel abroad and meet with world leaders.

The question is, though, how much should a President travel? Although there are benefits from going abroad -- securing treaties, trade agreements, etc. -- there are also costs to be considered. The planning and implementation of each foreign excursion requires hundreds of labor hours and millions of tax dollars. In addition, Presidents who spend too much time abroad may be neglecting duties at home. Some analysts have argued that Presidential travel is a venue to escape domestic scandals and political crises.

With this in mind, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) analyzed all visits to foreign nations by President Clinton and his modern era predecessors. A review of the trips taken by Presidents over the past 48 years -- mostly the period of the jet age -- reveals that Clinton set numerous records for Presidential travel abroad during his eight years in office.

II. Methodology

For this study NTU uses data published by the State Department and news source archives to compile a list of all the trips and visits made by Bill Clinton outside of the United States and its territories. Each instance when the President leaves the country is counted as one "trip." A "visit" is counted for each separate nation where the President pays a call during a trip. Thus, one trip may entail several state visits.

III. Highlights

Our analysis of the record of visits by President Clinton and his predecessors is summarized in Table 1. Our findings reveal:

• Bill Clinton made 133 visits to foreign nations -- a Presidential record (see Appendix 1 for a year-by-year listing of Clinton's trips).
• These 133 visits break down into an average of 16.6 nations visited per year, another Presidential record.
• In his eight years, Clinton made more foreign visits than Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon combined (over the years 1953 -1974).
• In his eight years, Clinton visited almost as many nations as Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush combined (over the years 1977-1993).
• While Clinton was President for one-sixth of the period analyzed (eight of the 48 years between 1953 and 2001), he accounted for almost one-third of all Presidential visits.
• Clinton's closest competitor was President George H. W. Bush, who made 60 visits to foreign nations during his four years in office. While Bush was arguably more focused on foreign policy than almost any other President of this period, Clinton still managed to have an annual average 11% higher than Bush's.
• Clinton visited 74 different countries or entities (many of them several times -- see Appendix 2 for a detailed summary).

• Clinton spent a total of 229 days in foreign countries - nearly one full working year (see Table 2).
• In terms of days out of the country, Clinton's biggest travel year was 1998 -- the same year he was fighting impeachment in the House of Representatives (see Table 4).

• Clinton spent more days abroad in 1998 than John Kennedy did during his entire Presidency.
• President Nixon's travels also peaked the year he was facing impeachment (see Table 3).
• 1,302 federal officials accompanied Clinton to Africa in 1998 - including several close staff officials who were called to testify before the grand jury empanelled by the Independent Counsel investigating the Monica Lewinsky/obstruction of justice matter.[1]
• The General Accounting Office's (GAO) incomplete estimates of the costs of just half of Clinton's 54 trips total $263.6 million. The final tally of Clinton's eight years of foreign travel could easily add up to more than half a billion dollars.

The question of how much a President should travel is important because of the large investment of time and money that must be devoted toward the planning and execution of each visit. Staffers from multiple departments and agencies devote hundreds of labor hours to ensure that each excursion is smoothly and securely conducted. In advance of a trip, the White House must coordinate with the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Secret Service, and any number of other federal agencies that are involved with the trip's agenda.

The President's 1998 trip to Africa provides an example of how extensive this operation can be. In addition to the advance teams, ever-present security detail, and White House cooks, Clinton's entourage included "stenographers, telephone operators, pilots, diplomats, coordinators, facilitators, assistants to the President, deputy assistants to the President, reporters and technicians, spin doctors (10, if you count the assistants and their assistants), Members of Congress (16 including 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans), Cabinet Members (3), business executives, labor leaders, mayors, church leaders, Clinton pals, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, special envoy to Africa."[2]

Unfortunately, the complete cost of all of President Clinton's trips abroad is currently unknown, but two studies completed by the General Accounting Office provide a glimpse of what the final tally might be. At the request of Congress, GAO examined the cost of three Clinton trips in 1998 (see Table 5) and in a separate study the cost incurred by the Defense Department for fixed-wing cargo airlift, passenger airlift, and aerial refueling for 27 Presidential foreign trips between January 1997 and March 2000 -- half of Clinton's total number of trips (see table 6).

The total estimated cost to taxpayers for the three 1998 trips is $72.1 million. It is very likely that these are conservative estimates because they do not take into account additional Secret Service costs (which are classified for security reasons) and costs to agencies involved in planning. Agency involvement in a particular trip depends on the goals and agenda of that trip. For example, if trade is a key issue, then the U.S. Trade Representative and officials from the Commerce Department would likely participate. The Department of Defense (DOD), responsible for the transport of the President and his entourage, is involved in all trips and bears the largest share of travel costs.

The aircraft support expenses for half of Clinton's trips cost nearly $247 million. Again, this figure does not include additional expenses incurred by other participating agencies (as seen in Table 5). The total known cost of half of Clinton's trips based on the two partial GAO studies (minus the $55.6 million in aircraft support costs for the trips to Africa, China, and Chile in 1998 which are included in both GAO reports) comes to $263.4 million. [3] It is safe to say that the remaining 27 trips need to have been held to a very tight budget to keep the total taxpayer burden for all of Clinton's foreign travel below a half billion dollars.

V. Other Costs

Questions about personnel opportunity costs of Presidential trip are particularly acute when examining the Clinton record. As noted previously, Clinton took staggering numbers of personnel on his overseas trips, with perhaps the biggest contingent going to Africa in 1998 (1,302 federal officials accompanied Clinton). But beyond questions of raw numbers, there are questions about who Clinton chose to bring along. In the case of Africa, Clinton chose to bring his personal secretary Betty Currie. Currie was of course a witness before the grand jury investigating the Lewinsky/obstruction of justice case. While Ms. Currie no doubt enjoyed her trip, it was very much out of the norm for the President's personal secretary to join him and one can reasonably wonder what public purpose was served by her accompanying the President.

Ironically, the White House can run up travel costs for the federal government without the President even setting foot abroad. For example, the White House can push for its own or other favored personnel to be included on State Department missions abroad. The State Department usually does not want to make waves about Presidential suggestions for trips. Frank Provyn, director of the State Department Office of International Programs during the Clinton Administration, observed, "A good way to get yourself into a jam is to ask too many questions when someone comes from the White House." [5]

One example of questionable personnel being included in State Department trips was the addition of Kathleen Willey on Clinton-era State Department missions to Copenhagen and Jakarta. Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff writes, "State Department records showed that the White House personnel office had arranged for her to go on both trips even though she didn't have the slightest qualifications for either one. (The Jakarta trip was for a conference on biodiversity, and the Denmark trip was on social development. The total cost to the taxpayers for Willey's airfare and expenses was about $7,000.)" [6] Both trips occurred after the date Willey alleges Clinton molested her in the Oval Office. One insider told Isikoff that the trips were quite plainly White House efforts to keep Willey quiet. [7]

VI. Foreign Travel as Diversion?

Given the tremendous costs associated with foreign visits, Presidents need to assure the public that the reasons for traveling are sound ones. Trips abroad should be reserved for important matters of state. However, as the data suggest, travel is perhaps sometimes undertaken for reasons other than the national interest.

• As Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate, President Nixon and President Clinton spent more days abroad during the years they faced impeachment (1974 and 1998 respectively) than in any other year (the Nixon data needs to be adjusted to account for the fact that he only served for part of 1974).
• President Clinton averaged 28.6 days abroad during the eight years of his Presidency. However, in 1998, he managed to go abroad for 45 days.
• Clinton's travel during the year of impeachment accounts for fully one-fifth of his days abroad during his eight years in office.

Presidents Nixon and Clinton both decided to proceed with their impeachment- year trips despite concerns over their timing. Journalists characterized Nixon's 19-day trip abroad to the Middle East and the Soviet Union in June and July of 1974 as political theatre. [8] On Capitol Hill, Representative Les Aspin (D-WI) threatened to introduce a resolution designed to bar Nixon from traveling abroad during any impeachment trial. [9] Despite the outcry, and (as it was later revealed) health warnings from his doctors, Nixon continued on his trek. While in the Middle East, Nixon's Press Secretary Ron Zeigler conceded to a U.S. Information Agency official that the Administration hoped to use the press coverage of the President's meetings with world leaders before large, receptive audiences as a means to restore stature to the office and reverse his political fortunes back home. [10]

Clinton received similar criticism in 1998 for his travels abroad. The two longest trips of his tenure were made during that year: in March and April, he visited six African nations over 11 days and in June he spent 10 days in China. The China trip was originally set for November 1998 when Clinton was already scheduled to be in Asia on visits to Korea and Japan. However, in March of 1998, the Administration announced the new date while denying any political motives for the change. One Clinton official did anonymously concede to the press that, "Pictures of the President with world leaders are always nice." [11]

Further, Clinton's team sought to ensure American media coverage of his trips by loading the President's appearances with "deliverables" -- new programs and new spending proposals Clinton could announce to generate headlines. [12] This was particularly important in view of the fact that Presidential trips abroad may not generate as much media coverage as they did during the height of the Cold War.

Scholars have noted that Presidents often turn to foreign affairs as an area where they have relatively greater independence of action. [13] Political scientist Theodore Lowi suggests that foreign events are generally better than domestic and "pocketbook" issues at providing the Presidents with a popularity boost. [14] Although these effects may be short-lived, [15] they provide momentum to a President fighting for his immediate political survival. Compared to other foreign policy tools at the President's disposal (such as troop deployments or treaty negotiations, for example) travel poses the least level of risk and minimizes confrontation with Congress or other entities.

As Marlin Fitzwater, Press Secretary to Presidents Reagan and Bush, observed, "Foreign travel does a lot for a President under siege in terms of his own psyche. Every President enjoys traveling in foreign countries because it makes him feel like a President again." [16] And every President knows travel is a way to rally key constituencies back home. At least part of the motivation for Nixon's and Clinton's decision to spend so much time overseas at the same critical junctures in their Presidencies, was to create an aura of normalcy and to generate support for their continuance in office.

VII. Conclusion

Bill Clinton came to office in 1993 aware of the public's concern with excessive Presidential travel. During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Clinton even made an issue of this when he criticized his opponent, President George H. W. Bush, for spending too much time overseas and dodging his responsibilities at home. While in New Hampshire, candidate Clinton stated, "It is time for us to have a president who cares more about Littleton, N.H., than about Liechtenstein; more about Manchester than Micronesia." [17] Later that year at the Democratic National Convention in New York, "George Bush's Around the World Tour" T-shirts were distributed, which listed all of the countries visited by Bush. Ironically, by the time he left office in January 2001, Clinton had become the all-time champion of Presidential travel. He set Presidential records such as 1) total visits, 2) visits per year, 3) total days abroad, and 4) days abroad per year.

The various controversies of the closing days of his Administration have led to fresh questions about Bill Clinton and the Presidency itself. This paper suggests new tough questions that need to be asked about Bill Clinton and Presidential travel. First, do Presidents in the post-Cold War era need to travel as much as Clinton did? Second, what about costs? We want Presidents to travel safely, but do taxpayers have to shell out as much for all future Presidential trips as they did for Clinton's trips? Third, how extensive was the abuse of federal travel during the Clinton years? Were the thousands of invited guests all needed? Were the travel perks given to Bettie Currie and Kathleen Willey exceptions to the rule or part of a far more common pattern?

With a new President in the Oval Office, Congress and the American public may want to review the facts of Bill Clinton's travels and seek answers to these important questions.

John Berthoud is President of the National Taxpayers Union. Demian Brady is a Policy Analyst with the National Taxpayers Union.

Notes

Appendices