[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6628-S6630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TRAVEL PROMOTION ACT OF 2009--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 71, S. 1023, the Travel Promotion Act 
     of 2009.
       Byron L. Dorgan, Tom Udall, Patrick J. Leahy, Barbara 
     Boxer, Kay R. Hagan, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Robert P. Casey, 
     Jr., Roland W. Burris, Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill Nelson, John 
     D. Rockefeller, IV, Daniel K. Inouye, Blanche L. Lincoln, Ron 
     Wyden, Bernard Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Nelson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1023, the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), 
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote.
  The yeas and nays resulted-- yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker

[[Page S6629]]


     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Bunning
     Coburn
     DeMint

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 3. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any recess 
time or morning business time count postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, during these tough economic times, 
American families expect and deserve that we will do everything we can 
to get the economy moving again. Of course, that involves investing in 
our country, investing in our infrastructure. It involves getting our 
financial system in order. It involves getting credit moving again. But 
we should not forget that one out of eight Americans is employed in the 
travel industry.
  I chair the subcommittee of Commerce, that deals with tourism issues, 
and I cosponsored the bipartisan legislation to bring new visitors and 
new spending and new jobs to the United States. I thank Senator Byron 
Dorgan for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and I also thank 
Senator Ensign for his leadership.
  I spoke last week, when we first started talking about this bill, 
about the importance of the tourism and travel industry to our economy. 
Tourism creates good jobs that cannot be outsourced. It increases sales 
for local businesses, and it brings in tax revenue for local and State 
economies.
  As I said, one out of every eight Americans is employed by our travel 
economy. Each year, travel and tourism contribute approximately $1.3 
trillion to the American economy. The travel economy contributes $115 
billion in tax revenues to State, local, and Federal Governments, and 
last year travel and tourism exports--which means the people coming 
into the U.S. to enjoy our beautiful country--accounted for 8 percent 
of all U.S. exports. In fact, tourism is one of the few economic 
sectors where we enjoy a substantial trade surplus.
  But things are not going as well as they could or they should, 
especially when it comes to bringing international travel to the United 
States. I know you know that, Madam President, coming from the State of 
New York. I see the Senator from Michigan. I have seen their recent ad 
campaign on ``Enjoying Pure Michigan.'' But we need to bring more 
people to this country.
  What does this mean? What is the problem? As you can see, while more 
people around the world are traveling--there were 48 million more 
global overseas travelers in 2008 than there were in 2000--633,000 
fewer visited the United States. That is unfortunate. You can see more 
people around the world are traveling, but fewer are coming to our 
country. What does that really mean?
  Since 2000, the U.S. share of the world travel market has decreased 
by nearly 20 percent, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and 
billions of dollars in revenue. You can see what happened here in our 
country. This chart is in millions of dollars--$26 million brought in 
in 2000, only $25.3 million in 2008; while for the rest of the world, 
$124 million for the rest of the world in 2000--up to $173 million in 
2008.
  When a traveler decides to visit another country, to visit someplace 
besides the United States, there is a ripple effect across our economy. 
Fewer airline tickets are sold, fewer cars are rented, hotels and 
lodges rent fewer rooms, tourist attractions have fewer visitors, local 
businesses miss out on sales and opportunities, workers lose their 
jobs, and it goes on and on.
  The decline in international travel, combined with the current 
economic downturn, is hitting our country's travel industry hard. Last 
year, nearly 200,000 travel-related jobs were lost, and the Commerce 
Department predicts we will lose another 247,00 jobs this year. We are 
not talking about the CEOs of the airline companies. These are hard-
working Americans--the people who work in the hotel rooms, the cooks, 
the janitors, the shop workers, the people who own little flower stores 
next to the hotels. They are the ones making the beds. They are the 
ones making the meals. These are the people we should think about when 
we talk about the bill before the Senate today.
  The question before us today is how can we bring international 
visitors to the United States because--do you know how much they each 
spend when they come? Something like $4,500 when they come to our 
country. That is $4,500 that provides jobs for those janitors and maids 
and shop owners.
  We have just as much, if not more, to offer travelers than anyplace 
else. We have stunning national landmarks, such as the Grand Canyon--
and the Statue of Liberty in your home State of New York, Madam 
President--centers of fun and entertainment from Las Vegas to Disney 
World, scenic country towns and the bright lights of the big cities and 
those quiet moments in those little towns in my home State of 
Minnesota. But we need to do a better job of promoting the United 
States as a premier travel destination. We have to face it. We are in a 
competition for international travelers, but we are not competing.
  Look at what is going on around the world when it comes to tourism. 
Here are some examples: Yemen has their own tourism promotion for their 
country. Of course, the Bahamas--I think many of us have seen those on 
TV. I certainly have. You see Tourism Australia. I have seen a few of 
those ads. South Africa, Taiwan, Scotland, India--these countries are 
promoting themselves internationally to bring in other visitors.
  What do we have right now in our country? We do not have a 
centralized promotion of our country for tourism. Countries around the 
world make tourism a national priority because they see it brings jobs 
to their country. They spend millions of dollars on promotion and 
programs and senior officials to coordinate national tourism policy. 
For example, Vietnam, Egypt, New Zealand, Lebanon, and Jamaica have 
ministries of tourism. Germany has a National Tourist Board, and 
Australia has a ``Tourism Australia'' program. In 2005, Greece spent 
more than $150 million on travel promotion; France spent $63 million. 
That is what we are up against.
  The Travel Promotion Act would level the playing field so we can 
compete with the rest of the world and recapture that lost market 
share. It will create the Corporation for Travel Promotion, a public-
private partnership to promote the United States as an international 
travel destination and finally establish a coordinated national travel 
program.
  Under the direction of a board of directors made up of 
representatives from the States, the Federal Government, and the travel 
industry, the corporation would be in charge of a national travel 
promotion, a program with goals to encourage travel to the United 
States, to communicate our country's travel policies, and to promote 
international exposure for parts of America that do not have the 
resources to promote themselves.
  As I mentioned earlier, our loss in the share of the world travel 
market is not a new phenomenon. It actually started after September 11, 
where, for good reasons, security measures were put into place, but 
some of those good

[[Page S6630]]

reasons have turned into very difficult times for tourists to come 
over, and that is what needs to be fixed. That is why part of this bill 
would make it easier for tourists to get their visas, make it easier 
for them to visit the country. A lot of times it is just expediting the 
checks that need to be made, making sure they can get their visas, just 
as they can get one to go to Canada or Mexico or other countries.
  The bill will establish the Office of Travel Promotion in the 
Department of Commerce to work with the Corporation for Travel 
Promotion and secretaries of state and homeland security to make sure 
that international visitors are processed efficiently.
  America is a country that wraps its arms around those who come to 
visit us, and this bill will make sure international visitors know they 
are welcome and wanted. The Travel Promotion Act is about more than 
just encouraging travel. It is also about building our economy. This 
bill is expected to bring in 1.6 million new international visitors 
each year. Since international visitors, as I noted, spend an average 
of $4,500 per person while they are here, this is a huge boost to our 
economy. That money from overseas coming into our economy, into our 
towns and cities, into our small businesses is new money. If they are 
not going to come and spend it here, they are going to go to one of 
these countries--to the Bahamas, South Africa, Australia. That is new 
money coming into our country.
  The U.S. Travel Association estimates this bill will create 40,000 
new jobs, and economists at Oxford Economics expect the bill to 
generate $4 billion in new spending and $321 million in new tax 
revenue.
  Just as important as how much it will generate is how much it will 
cost, which is zero for American taxpayers. This bill comes at no cost 
to the taxpayer. It will be paid for by a combination of private sector 
contributions and a $10 fee on international travelers entering the 
United States of America--zero cost, big benefit.
  The Congressional Budget Office just released a report that estimates 
that this bill will reduce budget deficits by $425 million over the 
next 10 years--that is the bill pending before this body today. The 
math is undeniable. For no cost to the taxpayer, we can boost travel, 
boost the economy, and reduce the deficit. That is why this bill has 
such strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It also has the support 
of numerous organizations such as the U.S. Travel Association, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  It has many newspaper endorsements. As you can see, newspapers in 
every part of the country support this legislation. I will read just a 
few. The Sacramento Bee:

       The country needs to reclaim its status as a global magnet 
     for visitors, even in the post 9/11 climate, and Congress can 
     help by passing the Travel Promotion Act by the end of this 
     year.

  Dallas Morning News, September 6:

       The Travel Promotion act is a sensible first step toward 
     putting the welcome mat back on America's doorstep.

  Orlando Sentinel:

       Our position, charging international travelers $10 to pay 
     for promotion of travel to bring in all that money makes 
     sense.

  Detroit Free Press, September 25, 2008:

       Doesn't it make sense to encourage, at no cost to 
     taxpayers, foreign visitors to come here and leave some 
     money? There's no good reason not to pass this bill.

  Finally, I leave the best to last, Duluth News Tribune, Duluth, MN, 
May 18, 2009:

       Ideas to bolster economic recovery without plunging the 
     nation any deeper into debt would be welcomed by taxpayers 
     from coast to coast.

  I know firsthand how important tourism is for the city of Duluth. It 
has had some very difficult economic times in the seventies and 
eighties. At one point it was so bad there was a time there was a 
billboard that someone put outside Duluth that said, ``The last one to 
leave, please turn off the lights.''
  That is what they were dealing with. They bolstered their economy 
through tourism.
  I was just up there. I did a field hearing there and they have 
actually seen an increase in their convention and business travel this 
year. Maybe a few people are going to places such as Duluth. Businesses 
are cutting back a little. But the important part of this is that you 
have one town just like so many across the country that has benefited 
from tourism.
  This is what we are talking about across the country. I wonder why we 
didn't pass this earlier, why we haven't been able to get this through. 
I can't answer this question. It makes no sense to me. Sometimes people 
don't want to talk about tourism because they don't think it is 
important, but when one out of eight Americans is employed in this 
business it is important.
  I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope we can get it through 
intact. I hope we will have a minimum number of amendments and we can 
simply do something good in a bipartisan way that will help increase 
jobs in America where one out of eight people is employed.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________