Benefits from Ortiz's travel still uncertain

U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Texas, states repeatedly in official documents that his trips overseas are for the purpose of expanding economic opportunities for his congressional district in south Texas.

Despite expenditures over the years of, for example, $69,200 in per diem stipends from the government for official trips, and special-interest groups footing bills to the tune of at least $154,000 since 2000, the actual achievements of the trips are difficult to gauge.

Have any jobs been created in Texas? Has new business located in Ortiz’s congressional district? Is there increased trade, particularly with China which has been the focus of a number of trips?

Ortiz’s office wasn’t much help when asked to address these questions. Repeated requests over the past two weeks for an interview with Ortiz or for information from his staff about the travel have been declined or ignored.

The Brownsville Herald’s review of Ortiz’s travels comes on the heels of a Wall Street Journal article published Aug. 31 stating that congressional investigators are questioning six lawmakers – among them Ortiz – for possible misspending of government per diem money given for travel.

Results of that probe probably will not be announced until after the November elections, but it is known that the investigation is looking into whether congressmen used per diem money for items other than the approved expenses.

The Wall Street Journal first addressed the issue in an article last spring. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi followed in May with a list of guidelines for travel by congressmen. She also wrote to House committee chairmen with what was termed a “restatement” of rules for travel approved by committees. The document is available online.

“Any per diem provided to (House) members or staff is intended to be expended only for official purposes related to the trip. Excess funds are to be returned to the Treasury,” she wrote.

Confusion over rules

The Wall Street Journal articles suggest that congressmen often do not follow this rule and in fact might be confused as to what the guidelines are and in what situations they must be applied. Different rules govern different types of trips.

This came up in an article about Ortiz published last February by Roll Call, the newspaper of Capital Hill.

That article opened with the statement that Ortiz “has accepted tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of trips to China from a development corporation in his hometown that he aided by securing earmarks and other federal assistance with millions of dollars.”

Ortiz told Roll Call that there was “nothing inappropriate” about his travel.

“I’m doing what members of Congress do: bringing jobs, economic development and industry to my district,” he was quoted as saying.

When Roll Call pointed out that Ortiz had not filed travel disclosure documents with the House ethics committee for two trips to China in 2008 sponsored by the Robstown Economic Development Corporation, Ortiz had a ready answer.

“Ortiz said he believed that since the Robstown group was a municipal entity, he was not required to file disclosure forms,” the newspaper wrote.

Indeed, Roll Call followed with a statement of its own: “Members (of Congress) are not required to file disclosure forms for travel sponsored by state or local government entities, and the (Robstown) development corporation is a city-sponsored economic development entity.”

How this relates to House rules on special-interest trips is unclear. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued a memorandum on March 14, 2007, to all House members, officers and employees outlining the provisions of the House rule.

Under the new rules, and prior to the privately-sponsored trip, the sponsor has to provide details on the estimated cost of the travel for the member and details about the trip; the committee has to approve the travel; and the House member has to file a post-travel disclosure form with the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives disclosing the actual costs, itinerary, meetings and events attended.

“Post-travel disclosure of expenses is required within 15 days after the traveler returns,” the memorandum states.

“It is a violation of House rules not to file the necessary disclosure within that time period,” the March 2007 memorandum states in bold type.

The Robstown Improvement Development Corp. took Ortiz to China two times in 2008, one time in 2009 and one time this year.

The Herald’s review of public records show that Ortiz submitted the post-travel disclosure form within the required time after his Jan. 10 return from China this year.

But it took him more than two years to submit the post-travel disclosure forms for the two trips in 2008 and more than one year to submit the form from his 2009 trip.

Public records show that he submitted the disclosures on the 2008 and 2009 trips in February this year – within days of the article published by Roll Call.

Ortiz did not respond to a request for comment by The Brownsville Herald.