Travel Promotion Act of 2008

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me express my gratitude to the Chair of the subcommittee for his leadership, as well as to the ranking member, Mr. Whitfield, for his efforts, as well as the Chair and ranking member of the full committee, Messrs. Dingell and Barton.

I am pleased to join with the minority whip, my friend Roy Blunt, and 244 bipartisan House cosponsors to encourage support for the Travel Promotion Act of 2008. This bill will reverse the decline in the number of overseas visitors coming to the United States.

In a global economy, the world travel market is important. It means jobs and new business opportunities. This is a market that is growing, it is expanding, but our share of it keeps getting smaller. Overseas tourists, scientists, businessmen and students are going elsewhere, put off by the red tape and confusing guidelines for entry into the United States. Even the weak dollar is not enticing enough visitors to reverse this trend.

This drop is not only impacting our economy negatively, but we are missing an important opportunity to improve our image in the world. Data clearly demonstrates that it will help improve our image across the globe by connecting visitors with the most effective ambassadors that we have, the American people.

Once here, foreign visitors get to know us, who we are as a people and our values. This promotes respect for America and for Americans. It helps make the world a safer place for all of us, and it is the most cost-effective public diplomacy initiative we could ever undertake, at no cost to the American taxpayers.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the strong bipartisan support for the legislation, and close my remarks by urging the entire House to vote for its passage.

I would be remiss not to acknowledge the effort and the time that was put into this particular proposal by the minority whip, Mr. Blunt. We all are in his debt.

Madam Speaker, Once in awhile, this House gets it just right. And when that happens, it's usually because we're working well together, across the aisle., Today I'm very pleased to join with the Minority Whip, my friend Roy Blunt and with 244 bipartisan House cosponsors--in bringing to the floor the Travel Promotion Act of 2008. Without the support of so many on both sides of the aisle, as Well as their staffers, this day would not be possible.

The bill addresses the sharp decline in the number of overseas visitors to the United States. The world travel market is expanding but our share is getting smaller. Overseas tourists and businessmen and students are going elsewhere--even though the weak dollar should make the U.S. a cheap vacation. This drop has been felt in every sector of our economy, and more importantly--in our relationship with the rest of the world.

The reason is painfully simple. We don't make a coherent effort to tell America's story, to say to foreign visitors that they are welcome. Or to explain the confusing and sometimes intimidating rules and delays and even indignities that have become part of our visa and border entry process for foreigners since September 11, 2001.

Let me make clear that most of these rules are absolutely critical to our national security. And that we're constantly working to improve them.

The problem is most overseas visitors don't know that. And that what they do know comes from the echo chamber of the foreign press, which is often all too happy to exploit the horror stories about Fortress America--stories which then get repeated over and over again.

A constituent of mine on Cape Cod--where travel and tourism is literally the lifeblood of our local economy--described it as trying to entice a patron to a restaurant. First, he said, you detain and search the customer. Maybe pull his credit record and ask about past parking tickets and other legal transgressions. Then you hope he'll wander in for an expensive meal.

Even official visitors are not immune. Not too long ago the leader of a delegation from the Russian Duma visiting Capitol Hill concluded our inter-parliamentary meetings by saying he had thoroughly enjoyed our time together--and that he was never, under any circumstances, returning to the United States again. All because of the way he was treated during the entry process.

We are one of the only nations in the world that leaves the foreign travel marketplace to chance, with no official strategy to compel foreigners to visit the United States. The economic impact is staggering. The drop in foreign travel to the U.S. since 9/11 translates into a loss of $94 billion in visitor spending. A loss of $16 billion in tax revenue. And the loss of 200,000 American jobs in nearly every congressional district in this nation. No city in the United States has been hit harder than Boston.

In that spirit, I believe that this proposal will inject much needed capital into the American economy. Travel and tourism, when the sector is doing well, drives economic growth and creates opportunity at every level of the economy: from the airlines, to the hotel staff, to the cooks and dishwashers, to the tourguides. This bill will drive growth and create jobs here at home.

Even worse, is the effect on the already-tarnished face of the United States around the globe. If we're really worried about the distortions about us learned in madrassas, the best antidote is to encourage a first-hand look at our country and our people.

The Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight, which I chair, recently concluded a series of hearings on America's declining image in the world. The conclusions were overwhelming and deeply alarming.

Zogby International found that ``Arabs who know Americans, Arabs who visited America . . . they tend to like our people, our culture, our products and our values more.''

The same poll found that people who say ``yes'' when asked, ``Have you been to the United States, or would you like to come to the United States?'' are 25-30 points more favorable than those who say ``no''. The survey also found that students who visit the United States have more positive views about us than non-visitors by a factor of 10 percent--and that this favorable reaction was also shared by their family and friends.

One of the key recommendations for Congress from the bipartisan U.S.- Muslim Engagement Project, is to expand exchange programs ``with a smarter targeting of visa restrictions to enable Muslims who pose a low security risk, especially journalists, business people, and religious leaders, to enter the U.S. more easily.''

Travel nearly always changes lives and attitudes for the better. Both the visitor and host open their minds and hearts to new ideas--and to each other. We all know that the best ambassadors for our fundamental values are ordinary Americans. Once here, foreign visitors get to know us and our good intentions. When they return home, they tell family and friends about our cities and towns, our beaches and mountains, our ballparks and skyscrapers and farms and museums. This is an idealistic vision, but it is one that is supported by reams of studies and data.

To discourage travel to the U.S. is to squander our best resource in the war of ideas: the American people. And as a consequence, an entire generation of future world leaders will grow up knowing as little about us as we do about them. There is one thing that is certain--if we continue down this road, we will live in a safer and less secure world.

To promote America, we must promote travel. That's Public Diplomacy 101. Toward that end, H.R. 3232 would establish the non-profit Corporation for Travel Promotion, at no expense to the taxpayer and with enormous economic benefits in red and blue congressional districts across the Nation.

That's why H.R. 3232 enjoys the support of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Olympic Committee, National Association of Manufacturers and 50 State tourism directors and thousands of mom-and-pop business that benefit from overseas travelers.

As Senator Dick Lugar remarked recently, we as a Nation have become ``inhospitable''. And I'm pleased to report that Senator Lugar signed on last week as the 50th cosponsor of the Senate companion of H.R. 3232. Followed yesterday by Senator Casey as number 51--yet more evidence of the bipartisan nature of this legislation.

In that spirit, I again want to express my appreciation for the leadership of Congressman Blunt, and that of Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Rush, as well as our colleagues on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees and their respective staffs, in working so cooperatively to move the bill to the floor. As one constructive element of those discussions, I would like to specifically note my expectation that the program to market America abroad will create business opportunities for marketing and advertising professionals for minority--and women-owned businesses.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and look forward to joining with our colleagues in the Senate to enact it into law in the very near future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion Act of 2008. As I've stated this month during committee consideration of this bill, I believe this is a good bill that will allow our public and private sectors to cooperate on a strategy to encourage foreign visitors to come to the United States.

I also want to extend, once again, my thanks to my friend and colleague, Bill Delahunt, whose primary sponsorship and work on behalf of this legislation has gotten us to where we are today. And to all the other cosponsors and supporters of this bill, let me also offer my appreciation.

This legislation is a response to the opportunity costs borne by the travel and tourism industries following reforms that Congress implemented in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Security was tightened at our ports of entry and we have made progress in better coordinating our national security apparatus to be aware of who is coming in and out of the country. Those reforms, though not always perfect, were important and we should be grateful that our country has been made safer as a result of them.

But the cost of those reforms has impacted some segments of our economy that were already directly impacted by the 9/11 attacks. Foreign visitors who, for a period of time, were unwilling to get on airplanes due to uncertainty about their safety after 9/11 are now unwilling to get on the same airplanes due to the bureaucratic obstacles to getting into the United States. Multiple agencies have heeded our call for greater security and barriers to entry, but the resulting layers of bureaucratic tape mean that legitimate visitors are often treated in a way none of us should be proud of, simply because they don't possess a United States passport. Millions of foreign travelers who want to visit our country for all the right reasons have received this message loud and clear: KEEP OUT. It isn't worth it to come here. The United States does not welcome you.

I've seen some estimates that show the results. Between 2004 and 2005, the United States experienced a decline of 10 percent in business travel. At the same time, Europe experienced an 8-percent increase. In 2005, we lost an estimated $43 billion in visitor spending alone.

Increasing unwillingness by foreign visitors to come to the United States since 9/11 translates into a loss of $94 billion in visitor spending; a loss of $16 billion in tax revenue to Federal, state and local governments; and the loss of 200,000 American jobs.

Travel and tourism affects every congressional district in America. In my home district in Missouri, tourism in the city of Branson alone produced approximately $1.8 billion for the local economy. Every one of my colleagues have places in their districts that foreign travelers benefit from visiting. We need to encourage that. Getting people to visit our country brings incredible benefits for things that are important to our country. Three specific things come to mind:

First, tourists spend and that helps local and regional economies. We all know our nation faces economic challenges today. Support for local businesses and the goods and services they offer is good for our tax base. Those revenues are benefits that our constituents don't have to pay in taxes themselves. And that's a good thing.

Second, tourism helps create jobs. Local businesses in support of tourist economies generate and sustain employment at all levels of the economy. At a time of economic challenge for many American families and their communities, these jobs are critical.

Finally, people who visit the United States tend to like Americans more. At a time when polling shows that fewer people understand Americans, it shouldn't surprise us that there

is waning support for our policies throughout the world. We know that when people visit us here in our country, they almost always like Americans more and are likely to consider American foreign policy more favorably than those who don't visit us. Members of Congress know better than anyone in the country that our best ambassadors are our constituents, when given the opportunity.

The Travel Promotion Act of 2008 is an effort to encourage all of those things, and reverse the dangerous notion that America is an unwelcoming place, not even worth the trouble of visiting. It creates a partnership that combines the resources and willpower of the private sector and the government to generate renewed interest in visiting America. We also took a hard look at what's already on the books and streamlined parts of the government that are supposed to be doing this work but aren't doing it effectively.

One area where I wish we'd spent some more time and effort was on updating the language relating to the Electronic System for Traveler Authorization (ESTA). When we originally crafted this bill, the ESTA had not yet been created, so our language included a reference to this on the condition it was authorized. The ESTA was authorized as part of the 9/11 bill that Congress passed last year. Unfortunately that legislation did not provide a mandate for the administration to collect the very fee that will provide the federal matching funds for the Corporation. I had hoped that as a result of the negotiations that got us here today, we would have found a way to create that mandate. I've been told that the Department of Homeland Security intends to create a fee in order to implement the ESTA in the near future. I would encourage the Department to do that and help get this program established.

The bill we have in front of us is an amended version of the bill that Mr. Delahunt and I introduced last year. I appreciate the hard work that Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton have put into these amendments, as well as the work that Mr. Rush and Mr. Stearns put into the amendments that cleared the subcommittee last week. I think most of these changes enhance the bill and make it a better product.

I'd also like to thank Chairman Bennie Thompson and Ranking Member Peter King from the Homeland Security Committee, and Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith from the Judiciary Committee. Without the hard work of these members and their staffs, we wouldn't have this bill up on the floor today.

I'm looking forward to passage of the Travel Promotion Act. I'm looking forward to working with the industry experts who eventually will serve on the board of the Corporation for Travel Promotion and with the Department of Commerce to develop a strategy to ensure our country is an attractive market for international travelers. And, of course, I'm looking forward to welcoming as many of those travelers as possible to Branson, Missouri.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question, Madam Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I submit two letters for the Record regarding H.R. 3232.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2008.

Hon. John D. Dingell,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 3232,

the Travel Promotion Act of 2007, introduced by Mr. Delahunt

on July 31, 2007, which upon introduction was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the

Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security.

H.R. 3232 was marked up and ordered reported by the

Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 23, 2008. I

recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill

before the House in an expeditious manner, and, accordingly,

I will waive further consideration of this bill in Committee.

However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should

not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security

waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction

over H.R. 3232.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

Committee on Homeland Security conferees during any House-

Senate conference convened on this or similar legislation.

Finally, I request that a copy of this letter be included in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R.

3232. I look forward to working with you on this legislation

and other matters of great importance to this nation.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3232, the ``Travel Promotion Act of 2008.'' This legislation is the bipartisan product of negotiations between three committees. I commend several of my colleagues who contributed to this bill's improvement. In particular, my good friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Bobby Rush, deserves recognition for his efforts. I also extend my personal thanks to the chairmen and ranking members of the Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary, Representatives Thompson, King, Conyers, and Smith, respectively. Lastly, I offer my gratitude and congratulations to my friend from Massachusetts, Representative Delahunt, the distinguished Republican Whip, Representative Blunt, and Representative Lofgren of California.

The amendments made to H.R. 3232 by the Committee on Energy and Commerce in consultation with the other Committees have measurably strengthened the accountability standards to which the Corporation for Travel Promotion, which this bill charters, will be held. I support the goal of encouraging more foreign tourists traveling to the United States, and would urge my colleagues to adopt the ``Travel Promotion Act of 2008.''