How People Voted
 |
 |
39% For, 61% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1661, The Travel Promotion Act of 2007
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Comparing revision saved on June 20, 2007, 18:42:48 (webmaster), with revision saved on September 10, 2007, 18:47:50 (webmaster):
S. 1661 would communicate United States travel policies and improve marketing and other activities designed to increase travel in the United States from abroad.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
(LogTravel Promotion Act of 2007 - Establishes the Corporation for Travel Promotion as a nonprofit corporation that is not an agency or establishment of the U.S. government. Makes the Corporation subject to the provisions of the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act.
Requires the Corporation, among other things, to provide useful information to people interested in traveling to edit the wikiUnited States, counter and becorrect misperceptions regarding U.S. travel policy, and promote U.S. travel.
Establishes in the firstTreasury the Travel Promotion Fund. Requires the transfer of Treasury funds to providethe Corporation, requiring nonfederal matching funds.
Authorizes the U.S. government, if a detailed summaryfully automated electronic system is implemented to determine, in advance of travel, the eligibility of an alien to travel to the United States, to charge an applicant a system use fee.
Authorizes the Corporation to impose an annual assessment on U.S. members of the travel and tourism industry represented on the Board, provided industry members approve by majority vote in a referendum.
Establishes in the Department of Commerce the Office of Travel Promotion, to be headed by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel Promotion.
Amends the International Travel Act of 1961 to require that the Office of Travel and Tourism Industries expand its research and development activities to promote international travel to the bill!)United States.
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
Latest Major Action: 6/19/2007: Referred to6/27/2007: Senate committee.committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Mia
November 26, 2007, 9:39am (report abuse)The travel and tourism industries should pay for this. The hotels, airlines and other businesses have lobbyists and trade goups that can pay for this. Taxpayers don't need to foot the whole bill.
Peter
November 27, 2007, 5:26pm (report abuse)I don't understand the comment about taxpayers footing the bill or the analysis indicating the cost to American families. As I read the bill, the promotion program would be paid for by a fee levied on foreign travelers to the United States. It doesn't look like the taxpayer pays anything at all.
Telly
November 27, 2007, 6:18pm (report abuse)I read the analysis (linked above) and it talks about where the money comes from: "borrowed from the Treasury, assessments on private firms operating in the travel industry, and new fees charged to users of the visa waiver program." Some of those are foreign travelers, but the rest are taxpayers and U.S. companies. Spending this money takes away from other priorities. I'm with Mia on this.
Charles
November 27, 2007, 10:50pm (report abuse)Either we give Homeland Security a ton of taxpayer money to explain their policies or try this non-profit using private sector expertise.
Jennifer
November 28, 2007, 10:05am (report abuse)From the line Telly quoted it seems clear that this is to be funded by the U.S. travel industry and foreign travelers using the visa waiver program--not American tax dollars. Other countries charge inbound travelers, including Americans, a fee to enter or exit--or both. Why are we so far behind in global competitiveness?
Telly
November 28, 2007, 12:04pm (report abuse)Last time I checked, the U.S. travel industry was made up of American taxpayers. You think that those taxes aren't passed on to American consumers? And you must realize that taxing foreign visitors just reduces the money they have to spend here, as well as pushing them to other destinations. I'd never heard before that higher taxes and fees are part of "global competitiveness"!
David
November 28, 2007, 3:33pm (report abuse)It looks like the fee is only $10 per traveler. Do you really think that's going to have a big impact on their spending or on their decision to come in the first place? The fee would fund travel promotion, which ought to result in more foreign visitors, not fewer.
Jon
November 28, 2007, 4:26pm (report abuse)This bill actually sounds like a good idea. I noticed that a lot of House Republican Study Committee members have cosponsored the bill. This looks like something conservatives can support.
Telly
November 28, 2007, 9:23pm (report abuse)Riiiight. Like Republicans have been reliable about limited government the last few years. $10 per traveler is a lot for a whole family, combined with all the other burdens on visitors to this country. This kind of nickel-and-diming is what's got the government so oversized in the first place. Why on earth should the federal government have anything to do with travel and tourism? If this is an appropriate for the federal government, is anything out of bounds?
Chad
November 29, 2007, 10:43am (report abuse)Isn't part of the issue, though, finding a way to counteract the unintended consequences of our new security regime? I think that was a point made in one of the comments above: don't weaken security, but do something to counter the negative impressions that are driving foreign travelers away. The scheme outlined in the bill may be a better choice than asking DHS to to it.
Jon
November 29, 2007, 1:12pm (report abuse)Telly makes a fair point. Seeing Rep. Mike Pence on the bill makes me take a second look, however. He's got staff who take a cold, hard look at legislative from a fiscally conservative outlook. A lot of conservatives, whose opinions I respect, have signed on to the bill. There must be a reason they're backing this.
Jeff
December 4, 2007, 10:08am (report abuse)Roy Blunt is on there too, although he's not averse to pork. It makes me wonder what's going on here. What is it that these guys see as beneficial in this legislation? Indiana and Missouri don't seem like big international tourist destinations.
Bruce
December 20, 2007, 8:15pm (report abuse)Anheuser-Busch's Chairman is on Discover America Partnership's leadership committee. A-B's HQ's is in St. Louis, Missouri, and swings much weight. Indiana's top companies include several in transportation business, allies with tourism industry, which through all its connections is pushing for this bill as a free ride on tourism promotion, instead of using their own ample profits from this $1 trillion industry. It's pork, plain and simple.
Mark
December 20, 2007, 9:24pm (report abuse)According to the Commerce Department, foreign visitors spent nearly $108 billion while visiting the United States in 2006; when combined with domestic travel and tourism-related spending, that figure jumps to more than $1.2 trillion. Despite these record revenues generated by the U.S. travel and tourism industry, the industry, represented by the Discover America Partnership under the leadership of Disney and other corporate powerhouses, has the audacity to ask the American taxpayer to fund their marketing campaigns to the tune of $200-$300 million. This is nothing short of corporate welfare for a trillion dollar industry that could, and should, fund their own ads...much like they did when Disney shot the "Welcome: Portraits of America" video that showcased Canada and its landmarks (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071030/BUSINESS/110300044/1006).
We do have a travel and tourism crisis on our hands; industry leaders are marketing the wrong country while bashing their own.
Dave
January 9, 2008, 5:02pm (report abuse)U.S. industry leaders bashing the United States? Mark, what are you talking about?
Brad
October 2, 2008, 9:45am (report abuse)Visitor spending drives taxes. Many of those dollars are used to improve the quality of life for residents in the community. If it weren't for these visitors, many communities wouldn't be able to support the museums, theaters, sports venues, etc. that their residents enjoy. Nat. Restaurant Assn. says that 40% plus diners are not local. International visitors outspend domestic visitors 6-1. The US is the only developed country that doesn't spend a dime promoting itself.
Brad
October 2, 2008, 9:45am (report abuse)We let CNN do it for us (they paint a great picture) or the violent movies we produce and send for their kids to watch, the war(s), etc. The impression we are portraying to the world is not very positive. Statistics show nearly 80% of international visitors leave the US with a positive impression of our country. We could use a little of that! Investing in tourism pays back huge dividends in a multitude of ways. You are right Disney may not need the help, but the small museum down the street just might. My city invested $1.4 mil in marketing in 2007 and visitor spending was $530 mil. Pretty good deal.