104th
Congress: Democratic Perspectives 103rd-107th
Congress Committee Activity I oppose H.R. 2579, as reported, because it is unnecessary legislation, because it promises more than it delivers, and because it is a cynical approach to addressing legitimate issues involving the U.S. travel and tourism industry.
No one disputes the importance of travel and tourism to our economy. The industry generates billions of dollars in revenues and employs tens of thousands of Americans. In my home State of Michigan, tourism plays an important role in the State's economy. In fact, Governor Engler's Tourism Director asked me to support full funding for the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA), stating that "[e]limination of this agency or reduction in its already meager budget would seriously reduce our ability to contribute effectively to lowering the U.S. trade deficit through tourism." (December 19, 1994 letter from Arthur E. Ellis, Director, Michigan Travel Bureau).
I was a strong critic of USTTA in the past. My criticism of the agency had nothing to do with the importance of promoting legitimate U.S. tourism interests. Instead, it derived from the fact that the agency could not prove it brought into the U.S. more than what it cost American taxpayers to fund it. In 1985, I tried to abolish USTTA. That effort was rejected by a fully bipartisan majority of the Committee. The vote was 20-22.
I supported legislation in the 100th Congress to make USTTA fully funded by industry user fees, because that addressed my biggest concern about the agency -- eliminating general taxpayer support for USTTA. Though the legislation was enacted (section 10301, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, P.L. 100-508), it was never implemented, because some of the biggest beneficiaries of USTTA's programs, like the airline industry, alleged the bill violated provisions of an international treaty (see, Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 23, February 4, 1992).
In the 102nd Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce worked to enact bipartisan legislation to reform USTTA (Tourism Policy and Export Promotion Act of 1992, P.L. 102-372). Based on the new law, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Under Secretary Greg Farmer succeeded in making significant reforms of the agency. They made USTTA more accountable. They improved USTTA's relationships and partnerships with State and local governments. They worked closely with industry to reinvent the agency's programs. Their commendable efforts were evident in last year's White House Conference on Travel and Tourism, when government and industry officials came together and set objectives for implementing a national tourism plan.
Ironically, just as USTTA was taking important strides toward fulfilling its statutory responsibilities, the Republicans passed legislation -- as part of one of their many continuing resolutions that followed the disastrous partial government shutdowns -- that zeroed out USTTA's appropriation (H.R. 3019, Balanced Budget Down Payment Act, Part II, P.L. 104-134; see also, H.Rpt. 104-537, 142 Cong.Rec. H4187, April 30, 1996). This action was consistent with legislation Commerce Committee Republicans supported that abolished USTTA, as part of a larger effort to "eliminate" the Department of Commerce (see, H.R. 1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act, as reported by the Committee on Commerce; see also, Title XVII, H.R. 2491, Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995).
At the same time Republicans were busy abolishing funding for USTTA -- and as if to apologize for doing so -- H.R. 2579 was introduced.
H.R. 2579 is a bill in search of a reason to exist. The main purpose of the bill is to create the United States National Tourism Organization, described in this report as a "privately-funded, non-profit, non-Federal organization." But why do we need Federal legislation to create a private organization? Either there is a compelling interest justifying government involvement in the promotion of U.S. tourism interests or there is not. If there is such an interest, then the decision to eliminate USTTA funding should be reconsidered. If there is not such a compelling interest, we should leave it up to industry to decide if it wishes to avail itself of State laws governing the formation of "privately-funded, non-profit, non-Federal" organizations.
This bill is a fig leaf that tries to cover up what Republicans have done to USTTA. My Republican colleagues preach every day how we ought to get the Federal government out of the way and turn matters over to the States. Yet the fact is that adequate laws already exist in the District of Columbia and every one of the 50 States governing the establishment of non-profit corporations (see, e.g., Title 29, District of Columbia Code). It doesn't take Federal legislation, like H.R. 2579, to create a non-profit corporation to promote American tourism interests.
Supporters of H.R. 2579 refer to the bill as "ground-breaking" legislation that is needed more than ever in view of the demise of USTTA (see, e.g., 142 Cong.Rec. E630, April 25, 1996). Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill does nothing that the private sector cannot do on its own. I am sure, however, the private sector will be back soon asking us to shower money or other special benefits on their new Congressionally-blessed corporation, all at the taxpayers' expense.
Indeed, at the January 24, 1996 hearing on H.R. 2579, witnesses decried the lack of Federal commitment to travel and tourism. Judson Green, President of Walt Disney Attractions, noted that Australia "invests" $20 for each international visitor compared to only 28 cents by the United States government. Jonathan Tisch, President of Loews Hotels, testified that "[c]urrently, the U.S. ranks 33rd in terms of national tourism promotion budgets -- even countries such as Tunisia and Malaysia spend more." Roger Ballou, Chief Marketing Officer for Alamo Rent A Car, Inc., emphasized that governments of other countries "devote significant resources to their national tourism organizations, knowing that the investment pays off handsomely." This report ignores the calls for greater governmental involvement in tourism promotion, as clearly reflected in the record before the Committee, and instead concludes that the "precipitous" decline of the American share of worldwide travel receipts (18.9% in 1993 to 17.9% in 1995) somehow will be cured by H.R. 2579. If H.R. 2579 is enacted, I will be watching anxiously to see if, when, and how the U.S. National Tourism Organization will reverse the decline of U.S. tourism cited in this report (if any reliable statistics are available).
I cannot in good conscience support this bill. It amounts to an apology to the travel and tourism industry -- what politicians refer to as "cover." It is designed to make it look like the Congress is doing something worthwhile while trying to hide what Republicans have already done.
John D. Dingell.
104th
Congress: Democratic Perspectives
103rd-107th
Congress Committee Activity