Bummed that you missed that spectacular congressional trip last month to Slovenia and Italy? Not to worry. There's an even better one leaving tomorrow for . . . drumroll . . . the Galapagos!

Yes, you and your spouse, along with a few members of Congress, will fly aboard your own U.S. military jet to the famed archipelago off the coast of Ecuador.

Why stay on Capitol Hill when you can observe a whale shark near the fabulous Galapagos Islands? (By Bob Hayes Via Bloomberg News)

Granted, Quito, the capital, is not really a tourist destination. That's why we've arranged for you to spend less than a couple of hours at the airport before boarding a flight to the islands, home of those spectacular tortoises and other species of flora and fauna that informed Charles Darwin's evolution theories.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who chairs a subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee, will lead six other lawmakers, including: Democrats Darlene Hooley (Ore.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.) and Ben Chandler (Ky.), and Republicans Bob Inglis (S.C.) and Frank Lucas (Okla.). on the trip. The purpose is to meet officials and scientists and search for elusive facts on global warming and marine science and such.

Baird, Inglis, Lucas and Tanner -- are bringing spouses for what promises to be a spectacular trip; if taxpayers weren't paying the tab, it would cost you many thousands in airfare and lodging alone. Five committee staff members will be on board to smooth things along.

The embassy will make sure your transportation around the archipelago, including charter boats and the diving gear you'll need to really understand the effects of climate change, is provided.

After four days hauling in those facts, you'll head back to Quito on Monday night. The next morning, it's out to the airport, where the plane and crew, who've patiently awaited your return, are standing by to bring you home.

Note: We apologize for the late notice on this splendid journey. If we come across more of this caliber, we'll try to be more timely. However, with the political conventions and the elections approaching, look for some falloff on the travel front, at least on the Hill. On the other hand, this is traditionally high season for outgoing senior administration officials to take critical overseas trips.

(If Loop Fans spot some excellent junkets out there, that e-mail is: kamena@washpost.com.)

What's Won, Lost in Transition

The Washington chatter is all about whom Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are going to pick as their running mates. (Yes, we've got your Loop "Pick the Veep" contest entries pending.)

Obama calls it "the most important decision I'll make before I'm president" -- a bit strange when you consider Bush I's pick of Dan Quayle.

But there's another job that both candidates should focus on fairly soon: transition director. Sure, some snarky columnists will gig them for presuming victory by gearing up preelection. But solid transition planning -- and initial personnel decisions -- are simply too important to put off until after the election.

McCain, who would be engaged in a mostly friendly takeover, probably could wait a bit before focusing on this. Obama, looking at a hostile takeover and the need to quickly get his picks in place, will want to move rapidly.

Transition experts single out as the model to follow Ronald Reagan's transition operation, run by former Nixon attorney general Edwin Meese, and the personnel planning of former Nixon aide Pendleton James, who was later a professional headhunter. (The Bush II transition, run by Dick Cheney, with a personnel shop run by Clay Johnson, comes in a close second.)

The personnel chief needs to be someone who's working "totally below the radar," said Colby College professor G. Calvin Mackenzie, "otherwise he becomes a magnet for résumés." The best pick would be "not a political person," but someone who "knows government, the pitfalls, the ethics," and someone who can answer "what are the key positions for our constituencies that we're going to get a lot of pressure on. Vacuum invites all kinds of pressure." Not to mention lengthy infighting.

Most observers cite Bill Clinton's operation as the worst transition. The Clinton White House, transition expert Paul C. Light observed, would pass potential candidate lists from one official to another, instead of having a joint review, prolonging the process endlessly. Then came the "bean-counting" exercises over appropriate percentages of women and minorities in each department.

The incoming president, Light said, should also "limit the number of transition teams to a bare minimum, if they have any at all." In addition, he should "put someone in charge of transition planning who's going to move into the White House with him . . . and who'll oversee the personnel process." Someone whose decisions would rarely, if ever, be overturned.

McCain, as it turns out, has a solution to at least part of the problem. He joined with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) in the 1990s to sponsor legislation that would cut in half the bloated number of presidential appointees -- 3,000 -- which could save taxpayers more than $100 million in salaries and benefits.

In addition, as Light points out in his new book, "A Government Ill Executed," the government would actually work more efficiently, with fewer political hacks in federal jobs.

Maybe McCain could get Obama to sign on to the bill?

Of Course They Can All Get Along

Speaking of Obama, there's word that his campaign is moving into tent-enlargement mode now that the general election's begun, following that Lyndon Johnson maxim about how it's better to have someone inside the tent.

There's even chatter that former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a key Hillary Clinton campaign adviser whose relations with Obama foreign policy chief Tony Lake are said to be frosty at best, might be coming on board. There's also talk about reaching out to folks such as Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesman and, more recently, a Clinton adviser.

Dept. of Mystery Jobs

An odd job posting floated by recently from "a leading international organization" looking for a director of communications in Washington. Sounds like a pretty good opportunity. You'd "lead and conduct public affairs and outreach programs in the U.S. and worldwide." One part of your job would be "providing expert advice to senior officials on public affairs, communications, and outreach strategy."

Curiously, the organization isn't identified. Neither, much more important, is the pay range. Is it one of the spook folks? The CIA? DIA? NSA?

No, it's just the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the government's radio and television outlets, such as Voice of America and Radio Marti.

Why the secrecy? We're told this is increasingly done these days in government to cast a wider net for applicants. Really, really, wide. (This job, if you want it, is a Senior Executive Service, Level I, max pay about $172,000 a year.)

Meanwhile, the agency is also minus a chairman because the current one, James K. Glassman, who took over just a year ago, was sworn in yesterday as public diplomacy czar at the State Department. Glassman will be on the BBG board, but only as delegated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. There are two other vacancies on the eight-member board.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this column.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061002803_pf.html