U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–207 PDF 2010

ECONOMIC AND SECURITY CONCERNS IN TOURISM 

AND COMMERCE: H.R. 3232 AND H.R. 1776 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 

Serial No. 110–146 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chair 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Ranking Member 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 3 

Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement ....................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Roy Blunt, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Bill Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, prepared statement 1 ............................................................. 8 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, prepared statement .................................................................................. 124 

WITNESSES

Geoffrey Freeman, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Travel Industry 

Association ............................................................................................................ 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 167 

Patrick Long, Director, Center for Sustainable Tourism, Division of Research 

and Graduate Studies; Professor, College of Business, East Carolina University ................................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 178 

Lois C. Greisman, Associate Director for the Division of Marketing Practices, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission .......................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Jeffrey Rechenbach, Executive Vice President, Communication Workers of 

America ................................................................................................................. 59 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Tim Searcy, Chief Executive Officer, American Teleservices Association .......... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

David L. Butler, Director, Call Center Research Laboratory, University of 

Southern Mississippi; Executive Director, National Association of Call Centers ........................................................................................................................ 78

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

U.S. Department of Commerce, statement for the record .................................... 9 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, written response to questions for the 

record .................................................................................................................... 121 

‘‘Coming to America Congress should pass bill to promote foreign tourism,’’ 

editorial, The Dallas Morning News, September 6, 2008 ................................. 125 

‘‘Fly Coach, Share a Room,’’ The New York Times, September 9, 2008 .............. 126 

‘‘The Tourism Industry and Economic Issues Affecting it,’’ CRS Report, July 

29, 2003 ................................................................................................................. 128 

Page

VI 

‘‘Government Advertisement of Tourism: Recent Action and Longstanding 

Controversies,’’ CRS Report, December 28, 2005 .............................................. 147 

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt was unavailable at the time 

of printing. 

(1) 

ECONOMIC AND SECURITY CONCERNS IN 

TOURISM AND COMMERCE: H.R. 3232 AND 

H.R. 1776 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:08 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Barrow, 

Ross, Weiner, Whitfield, Stearns, and Blunt. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Before we begin, I want to just take a moment, if I might, to express my gratitude to both my vice chair—well, first of all to my 

vice chair for during my absence convening the hearings and doing 

all that she could to provide very capable leadership to this subcommittee during my extended absence. Jan, I really want to thank 

you so much. You are a great member, a great American and a 

great friend. Thank you so much for all that you have done. 

I want to also extend my commendations to my ranking member, 

who has been very cooperative and has really worked hard during 

my absence in a bipartisan way to make sure that this committee 

functions in a bipartisan manner and that this committee maintains its long history of being one of the most successful subcommittees in the Congress based on bipartisanship and based on 

inclusion and based on fairness, so I want to thank my ranking 

member, Mr. Whitfield, for his cooperation. 

And lastly, I want to thank the staff on both sides, the Republican staff and the Democratic staff members, for their work over 

the past months. We have done some tremendous work and we 

really set a pace in this subcommittee that I believe will be very 

difficult for others to emulate. So thank you so very much. 

Now on to the business of the day. The first bill that the subcommittee will take up today is H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion 

Act of 2007. This bill will create a nonprofit corporation for travel 

promotion, which will be funded by fees charged to foreign visitors 

from their visa waiver program countries and matching contribuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:31 Jan 07, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-146 CHRIS
2 

tions from the travel and tourism industry. The corporation will be 

tasked with running public awareness campaigns about U.S. entry 

requirements in foreign countries as well as generally promoting 

tourism to the United States. As our witnesses will tell us, the U.S. 

share of international arrivals has shrunk over the past 7 years in 

comparison to the rest of the world and I think that this legislation 

is a creative approach to help our country reverse this trend. We 

are conducting this hearing on this day—as we all know that 9/11 

had a dramatic impact on the tourism industry which we are trying 

to rebound presently. 

While I wholeheartedly support increasing tourism to the United 

States, I do have several concerns with H.R. 3232 as it is written. 

For the sake of brevity, I will concentrate on two areas, namely 

oversight and how the Corporation for Travel Promotion is funded. 

With regard to oversight, I am sure that adequate checks and balances for the corporation are in place. I would welcome a discussion 

of the roles that the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Treasury might play in overseeing the corporation’s operations and funding. In terms of funding, I would like 

to explore whether the corporation should be allowed to contribute 

up to 80 percent of required matching funds in the forms of goods 

and services and whether funding for the corporation should be 

subject to the congressional appropriations process. 

The second piece of legislation the subcommittee will consider is 

H.R. 1776, the Call Centers Consumer’s Right to Know Act introduced by Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania. H.R. 1776 would require the 

employee of a call center when initiating or receiving a phone call 

to identify his or her physical location at the beginning of the 

phone call. While the job market for call centers in the United 

States remains robust, there are also disturbing trends that these 

jobs are increasingly being offshored to foreign countries. H.R. 1776 

is an attempt to confront this emerging tide of offshoring and keep 

these jobs right here in the United States. Mr. Altmire should be 

commended for his legislative effort. However, this subcommittee 

needs to resolve several issues regarding this bill. 

First, we need to get a handle on the actual status of the labor 

market for call center jobs here in America. Second, we have to determine technical jurisdictional issues involving the FCC’s ability 

to enforce the bill’s mandates, and lastly, we need to determine if 

H.R. 1776 will in fact accomplish its goals and help maintain or relocate call center jobs here in the United States. 

I am considering a more forceful approach to Mr. Altmire’s bill, 

in which a call center employee would not only be required to identify his or her location but also would be required to actually transfer the customer to a domestically based call center upon request 

of said customer. I hope to fully deliberate on these matters during 

this hearing in preparation for a possible markup of these two bills 

during the remaining weeks of the 110th Congress. It is important 

that we pass smart, effective legislation as is the proud tradition 

of this subcommittee. Hopefully we can work together in a bipartisan manner. When we have disagreements, I hope that we can 

disagree respectfully. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

3 

Mr. RUSH. And now I recognize the ranking member of this subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky, for any opening 

statement that he would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I might 

say on behalf of the entire committee that we are all particularly 

excited that you are back with us. We know that you have been experiencing a serious illness and that you have made a remarkable 

recovery, and you have been in our thoughts and prayers and we 

all look forward to working with you and look forward to your continued distinguished career in the U.S. Congress. 

All of us also excited about this hearing today on these two important pieces of legislation. I am delighted to see our whip is with 

us today, Mr. Blunt, who is one of the primary cosponsors of this 

legislation, H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion Act. Obviously tourism 

continues to play an important role in the United States, and with 

our economy floundering a little bit, the more we can do to encourage foreign travelers to come to America, the better it is from an 

economic standpoint for all of us. I am particularly interested in 

the testimony today relating to this legislation as it relates to the 

establishment of this nonprofit corporation. I think that is an interesting way to go, and, I think Chairman Rush mentioned this in 

his testimony, I am particularly interested in this initial $10 million from the general fund at the Treasury to provide the initial expenses for this corporation and I am assuming that that money will 

be paid back and I understand that there is a fee that will be imposed on certain travelers coming to the United States, and I would 

like to know, does this money actually have to be appropriated or 

not? And those are some questions that we can get into as we go 

forward with this hearing. 

Another thing that I am particularly interested in hearing today 

also is from Dr. Long, who will be focusing on tourism in rural 

areas of our Nation. There are many rural areas around the country that are having significant economic problems and anything 

that we can do to promote tourism to rural areas, and that is one 

of the intents and purposes of this legislation, would certainly be 

beneficial to all of us. 

In addition, as the chairman noted, we are going to be hearing 

testimony on the Call Center Consumer’s Right to Know Act, H.R. 

1776, and I look forward to the testimony of witnesses on that bill 

also. I know we do have some concerns with that bill but hopefully 

with the testimony from the witnesses, we can learn a lot more 

about that. 

I appreciate the time and effort of our witnesses that are here 

today. I am sorry that the Commerce Department and Treasury 

Department are not here to testify but I think they have submitted 

testimony. We look forward to this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and 

once again, we are delighted you are back. 

Mr. RUSH. And now it is my pleasure to recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, my friend from the great State of Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for an opening statement. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I just 

want to tell you what a thrill it is to see you back in the chair. 

Having seen you since you returned, every time I see you, you look 

better and better and that is very encouraging to all of us. I just 

want to welcome you back to the Congress and to the home of our 

subcommittee. 

I am going to submit most of my testimony for the record because we are, unfortunately, going to have a number of interruptions of this committee. I do want to say regarding tourism that it 

does worry me that our share of international tourism has dropped 

in the last 10 years. It is surprising to me in a way because of the 

value of the dollar. I was just abroad and I know how little it 

seems our dollar is worth and it would be a bargain to come here. 

So I am concerned about some of the barriers that we ourselves 

may have put up that I think bear looking at. The security entry 

to the United States may be part of disincentive. I think the chairman and I have a particular interest since we are very interested 

in the Olympics coming to Chicago and making it as easy as possible for people to come and paving the way for our being selected. 

I am alwo concerned that there is no explicit prohibition in the 

bill that specific businesses would not benefit from the publicly-financed advertising in the bill. I think that individual businesses 

ought to do their own advertising, although I see signs everywhere 

for come to Greece, come to Jamaica. That kind of thing I think is 

totally appropriate. 

In terms of H.R. 1776, the Call Center Consumer’s Right to 

Know Act, I think we need to look at this from a jobs and a security angle, obviously call center jobs but also the security of our 

personal and financial information being handled by call centers 

overseas. I am not totally convinced that this is the right way to 

go but I am looking forward to the testimony. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I will put the rest in the 

record. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the vice chair. 

Now it is my honor and pleasure to introduce the former ranking 

member of the subcommittee, Mr. Stearns of Florida, for the purpose of opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and like my other colleagues, let me welcome you back. You are an inspiration to all of 

us to see you here and I know how difficult it has been for you, 

and I think it is nothing but good news to see you and we encourage you and look forward to working with you. 

Also, I think many of us have to be very proud on this subcommittee of the accomplishment that we passed the Consumer 

Products Safety Improvement Act. The President signed this Act. 

This is a long time in coming. It is a bipartisan bill. We were very 

successful after many weeks and almost months with the Senate 

in the conference, so I think all of us in this committee can be very 

proud of that bipartisan effort. 

5 

Statistics show, particularly in my area of the country in Florida, 

that when it comes to travel and tourism, the United States, while 

having been a leader for many years, is starting to fall behind. We 

have a problem because there is just a noticeable decline in the 

share of tourism over the past decade and so that is why I welcome 

this bill that we have today. In 2001, travel to the United States 

declined by 8 percent, despite the fact that global travel is on the 

rise. An unfortunate variety of factors can be attributed to the decrease, including a more negative global perception of the United 

States. We have instituted tough entry requirements because of 9/ 

11 and we have also had economic factors but the dollar’s value is 

very good to foreigners, so we are hoping that tourism will increase. I am particularly concerned that we are not moving quickly 

enough. This bill, H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion Act, I think is 

a very good bill. I support it. Many other countries are currently 

engaging in effective government advertising and are successfully 

attracting tourists at high rates. It is important the United States 

pay attention to the changing trends and we too begin focusing on 

a plan which will ensure that the United States remains one of the 

top destinations in the world, especially for those coming from Visa 

Waiver Program countries. 

The government has a vital role here. A lot of people do not believe so, but I think the bill we are considering today contains a 

solid foundation for boosting U.S. tourism and getting the government involved in effective advertising and outreach via a privatepublic campaign and the creation of a nonprofit corporation, the 

Corporation for Travel Promotion. As with any bill, there will be 

some amendments and I look forward to that. I would like to thank 

Mr. Blunt and Mr. Delahunt for their initiative here. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I think I will mention something about 

the other bill we are considering, H.R. 1776, the Call Center Consumer’s Right to Know Act. This is a bill that is aimed to protect 

American consumers by requiring call center employees to identify 

their physical location at the beginning of the call. While the 

United States is a world leader in call center employment and the 

U.S. share of the industry employs almost 6 million people, concerns have arisen about the rate at which the United States is losing call centers to other parts of the world where labor is obviously 

significantly cheaper. This legislation attempts to rectify this issue 

and I think it is important to examine the implications of the bill 

closely and take into account the testimony of our panel of witnesses today. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks Mr. Stearns. 

Now it is my pleasure to recognize the distinguished member of 

this committee, Mr. Ross of Arkansas, for the purpose of opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are very delighted 

to have you back with us and presiding over this hearing today on 

two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 1776, the Call Center Consumer’s Right to Know Act and H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion 

6 

Act of 2007. I, along with 234 of my colleagues in the House and 

48 in the Senate, have cosponsored this bill. In addition, 46 members of this full committee, or 80 percent of the members of the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, are cosponsors of the bill. 

Clearly there is strong bipartisan support for this legislation, and 

I believe that is because we all recognize the tremendous role the 

travel and tourism industry plays in our country’s economy. Mr. 

Chairman, given the fact that 80 percent of the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee and 234 of my colleagues in the 

House and 48 in the Senate have cosponsored this legislation, it is 

my hope that following this hearing today and the short time remaining in the 110th session of Congress, we can move to a markup of this bill and get it to the floor for a vote of the members of 

the United States House of Representatives. 

The tourism industry is responsible for approximately 7.5 million 

American jobs and $104.9 billion in tax revenues for federal, state 

and local governments. In my home state of Arkansas alone, approximately 57,700 people are employed by the travel and tourism 

industry, and visitors to Arkansas generated approximately 

$902,300,000 in 2004. As such, promoting travel to the United 

States is extremely important to me. This bill is what I call commonsense legislation which will create American jobs here at home, 

strengthen our economy here at home and increase our Nation’s 

image abroad at no cost to the American taxpayer. Travel to the 

United States since 2001 has declined by 8 percent, despite a 30 

percent increase in global travel. I believe that this legislation is 

a good, positive first step to remedy this growing problem by creating more U.S. jobs and generating much needed economic 

growth. 

The Travel Promotion Act creates a travel campaign jointly managed by our government and the private sector. The legislation 

specifies that travel promotion be funded at no cost to U.S. taxpayers by the private sector together with a modest fee paid by foreign travelers. It establishes a travel promotion fund whereby private industry can contribute up to $100 million or matched with a 

government contribution financed by a $10 fee paid by foreign travelers from visa waiver countries. American travelers frequently pay 

similar fees when traveling to other countries. These countries 

spend millions of dollars to entice visitors to come to their countries 

and I believe that it is past time that America does the same. I am 

concerned about our Nation’s economy and our international image 

abroad. However, I am hopeful that this hearing and this legislation can reverse this decline by bringing new visitors to the United 

States, generating new visitor spending and raising millions of dollars in new federal tax revenue. 

Once again, thank you, Chairman Rush and all the witnesses for 

coming today before the subcommittee, and I look forward to hearing the testimony. With that, Mr. Chairman, again I can’t thank 

you enough for scheduling this hearing. Again, it is my hope that 

we can follow this hearing up with a markup in the few days left 

in the 110th session of Congress, given the enormous support for 

this bill, 80 percent of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as more than 200 of my colleagues in the House. 

7 

Again, Mr. Chairman, welcome back. We are delighted to have 

you back with us. With that, I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from the 

great State of Georgia, my home State, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement. In the 

interest of time, I will waive an opening statement but I would 

want to take this opportunity to commend you once again and to 

express my compliments to the chair and my great feeling over 

your return among us. It has been great to see you on the floor. 

It is even better to see you back in the chair. God bless you, sir, 

and thank you for being with us, and with that, I will yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

At this time I would like to ask that Mr. Blunt, who is not a 

member of the subcommittee but a member of the full committee, 

be allowed to give an opening statement. Are there any objections? 

With none said, the chair now recognizes Mr. Blunt for a 5-minute 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I won’t take the 5 minutes. I am so 

glad that you are back and we are having this hearing. You and 

I have been good friends, ironically since we traveled together 

about 10 years ago to represent our country at a NATO parliamentary meeting. Good things happen when people travel. That is one 

of the things we are talking about here today. 

Also, Mr. Delahunt and I have spent a lot of time over the last 

year-and-a-half working on our legislation, H.R. 3232. I certainly 

am pleased to hear the comments from all of my colleagues that 

relate to that legislation. The fee that Mr. Ross mentioned is a fee 

that is going to be collected anyway. We think this would be an appropriate use for that fee before it gets diverted into some other 

use, which is one of many reasons that I join Mr. Ross’s view and 

the view of others that hopefully we can move this bill quickly 

through our committee and to the floor. Certainly foreign travelers 

stay longer, they spend more, and, particularly important on the 

7th anniversary of 9/11/2001, they like us better, and encouraging 

all of those things to happen, starting with they like us better, is 

one of the real reasons that we should be interested in this, one 

of the real reasons that Mr. Delahunt and I worked together on 

this legislation, and Mr. Chairman, you and the other members of 

the committee that have cosponsored this legislation give us real 

encouragement that hopefully we can make this important step in 

the right direction before that fee is diverted somewhere else and 

as we focus on this important sector of our economy. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, welcome back and thank you so much for 

having a hearing on both of these bills today and for letting me join 

the subcommittee for a few minutes, and I have a written statement to submit for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blunt was unavailable at the 

time of printing.] 

8 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman, and as announced 

earlier, the Committee now stands in recess until the conclusion of 

the 9/11 memorial service. I have been informed that the ceremony 

will last approximately 20 to 30 minutes. The Committee stands in 

recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. RUSH. The Committee is called to order. The chair asks 

unanimous consent that Mr. Delahunt’s statement be inserted into 

the record at this time. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the 

chair orders that the statement be inserted into the record at this 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt was unavailable at the 

time of printing.] 

Mr. RUSH. Now we will move to our witnesses. I really want to 

thank you for being here. I want to thank you for your patience. 

It is really a testimony to your commitment on these issues that 

you, one, take time out from your precious day’s time to come to 

appear before this subcommittee, and two, that you have allowed 

yourselves to remain while we conduct some other business in the 

affairs of the Nation. 

Our first witness is Mr. Geoffrey Freeman, who is the senior vice 

president of public affairs for the Travel Industry Association. Mr. 

Freeman will speak on behalf of TIA, which is a not-for-profit trade 

organization that represents the U.S. travel industry. The second 

witness is Dr. Patrick Long, who is the director of the Center for 

Sustainable Tourism at East Carolina University. The Center for 

Sustainable Tourism is devoted to implementing sustainable practices in business operations, public policies, and personal travel behaviors. Dr. Long will speak about H.R. 3232’s effects on promoting 

rural tourism. 

I would like to note, as previous speakers have already noted, 

that the subcommittee did invite the Departments of Commerce 

and Treasury to testify at today’s hearing. The chair is disappointed that neither agency was able to produce a witness. However, I do thank the Department of Commerce for providing written 

statements on the legislation, and I now ask unanimous consent 

that they be inserted in the record at this point. Are there any objections? Hearing none, the statements will be inserted into the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

9 


62207.001
10 


62207.002
11 


62207.003
12 


62207.004
13 


62207.005
14 


62207.006
15 


62207.007
16 

Mr. RUSH. Again, to our witnesses who are present, the subcommittee welcomes and thanks you for your testimony. And now 

the first witness will be Mr. Geoffrey Freeman, who I previously 

introduced. Mr. Freeman, you have 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY FREEMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 

Whitfield. We appreciate this opportunity, and Chairman Rush, 

allow us to echo everyone else’s comments and welcome you back 

to Washington. 

In the years since 9/11, the United States has instituted countless new security policies in order to protect the homeland. The Administration, Congress, and many others are to be applauded for 

the success of those policies and the fact that America has not been 

attacked again. Many of those policies have also had unintended 

consequence, either from poor implementation or by creating a perception around the world that travelers are no longer welcome in 

the United States. Helping fuel that perception is the foreign press, 

a press that is all too willing to highlight America’s inefficiencies 

or discourage travelers. One of the best examples of this is a fullpage story that ran in the Times of London this past January, a 

story titled ‘‘Travel to America, No Thanks’’ and featured a picture 

of the Statue of Liberty holding a stop sign. The story went on to 

tell its readers 10 places around the world they could travel without having to go through the unnecessary security hassles that we 

often feature here in the United States. Whether the story was true 

or not, whether the accusations were true or not, didn’t matter. It 

fed a perception around the world that travelers were no longer 

welcome. This was one of many stories over the past 7 years that 

have discouraged travelers from visiting the United States. 

To be clear, America’s security is job number one and the policies 

we have implemented are, by and large, the right security policies. 

But basic economics say that with every obstacle we put in place, 

you have to have a corresponding effort to welcome visitors to the 

United States or else, and that ‘‘or else’’ that we have confronted 

over the past 7 years is a decline in travel. However unfounded the 

concerns may be about America’s security policies, the United 

States welcomed 2 million fewer overseas visitors in 2007 than we 

did in 2000, this despite an extraordinarily weak dollar and the 

fact that there are 35 million more people traveling long distances 

today than there were 7 years ago. The cumulative economic impact of the decline of 46 million visitors over 7 years is $143 billion 

in spending, $23 billion in tax receipts, and in 2007 alone, 340,000 

jobs that America could have had had it simply kept pace with 

global travel trends. 

Welcoming overseas visitors to the United States is a no-brainer. 

When overseas visitors come to the United States, they spend an 

average of $4,000 per person per trip. That compares to an average 

of $1,200 by Mexican or Canadian visitors. And these visitors that 

spend $4,000, they don’t use our healthcare system, they don’t use 

our education system and they are not a strain on Federal, State 

17 

or local resources. We can’t welcome enough safe and secure overseas visitors. 

So what is it going to take to welcome more visitors? It is really 

a three-part plan. We have to build an efficient visa system, we 

have to build a smart and welcoming entry process and we have 

to better communicate our security policies and let travelers 

around the world know that America welcomes them. We applaud 

Congress for the important steps it has taken over the past 2 years 

to address America’s visa system and the entry experience. Very 

significant steps have been taken to improve each of those areas. 

That leaves us with the last step, communicating our security policies and letting travelers know that we welcome them here in the 

United States. 

H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion Act, which has enormous bipartisan support, as Mr. Ross touched on earlier, would combine public 

sector accountability with private sector execution to help the 

United States welcome millions of additional visitors each year. 

The Corporation for Travel Promotion will clearly explain U.S. 

travel policies, promote the United States as a whole as a premier 

travel destination and reverse negative perceptions, and best of all, 

it is funded with no money from U.S. taxpayers. The funding comes 

from the private sector and a $10 fee on visa waiver travelers who 

do not spend $131 on a U.S. visa. 

Around the world, travel promotion programs are creating jobs, 

increasing spending and generating taxes for our competitors. 

What do the U.K., Japan, Australia, and dozens of other countries 

around the world know that the United States doesn’t? What they 

accept and what they know is that travel promotion makes dollars 

and cents. For too long the United States has stayed silent while 

the foreign press deters travelers and while other countries attract 

our visitors and while critics with a pre-9/11 mindset say that the 

U.S. government has no role in attracting overseas travelers. The 

government put in place many reasonable security barriers after 9/ 

11. It is time that the government partner with the private sector 

to limit the negative impact of those barriers. 

Before you finalize your work for this year, we strongly urge you 

to pass the Travel Promotion Act and help provide the American 

economy with the stimulus it needs. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman follows:] 

18 


62207.008
19 


62207.009
20 


62207.010
21 


62207.011
22 


62207.012
23 


62207.013
24 


62207.014
25 


62207.015
26 


62207.016
27 


62207.017
28 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Freeman. 

And now Dr. Patrick Long. Dr. Long, you have 5 minutes for an 

opening statement, and we welcome you again. Thank you so 

much. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK LONG, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM, DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES; PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, EAST 

CAROLINA UNIVERSITY 

Dr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Whitfield, for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 3232. I am 

Patrick Long, Director of the Center for Sustainable Tourism at 

East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. I am also 

past chairman and past president of the National Rural Tourism 

Foundation authorized by Congress under the Tourism Policy and 

Export Promotion Act of 1992. 

A number of years ago, Charles Kuralt had a conversation with 

Douglas Duncan, newspaper editor of the Chelton, Nebraska, Clipper. Duncan explained in that conversation how you know when 

you are in a small town. He started by noting that you know you 

are in a small town when Third Street is on the edge of town. He 

went on to say that you know you are in a small town if you are 

born on June 13 and your family receives gifts from the local merchants because you are the first baby born that year. You know you 

are in a small town if you dial a wrong number and talk for 15 

minutes anyway. You know you are in a small town if you can’t 

walk for exercise because every car that passes you offers a ride. 

You know you are in a small town when the biggest business in 

town sells farm machinery. And you know you are in a small town 

if someone asks you how you feel and spends the time to listen to 

what you have to say. 

Although rural life in the United States is ever changing, it provides both a nostalgic and a real attraction to our international 

visitors. Certainly more cosmopolitan today than Duncan described 

to Kuralt, rural areas continue to have limited economic options. 

What they do have is a wealth of history, culture, natural resources, and rural ambience that can serve as the basis of a tourism economy. I come before you today to offer a reminder that Congress formally recognized in 1992, the important role that tourism 

plays in the economic revitalization of rural areas by enacting the 

National Rural Tourism Foundation. Recognizing the potential for 

rural tourism, the Act noted the following. Many local communities 

with significant tourism potential are unable to realize the economic and employment opportunities that tourism provides because 

they lack the necessary local resources and expertise needed to induce tourism trade. And secondly, increased efforts directed at the 

promotion of rural tourism will contribute to the economic development of rural America and further the conservation and promotion 

of natural scenic, historic, educational and recreational resources 

for future generations of Americans as well as foreign visitors. 

We support the goals of H.R. 3232 and believe much can be done 

at the congressional and agency levels to promote international visitor travel and to streamline the entry process. Under this bill, the 

provision of a coordinated clearinghouse of U.S. travel information 

29 

and requirements with a promotional component has the potential 

to jump-start stagnant inbound travel. International tourism expenditures are of great importance to the U.S. economy. In my 

home State of North Carolina, there were over 358,000 international visitors in 2007, generating expenditures of $607 million. 

Recognizing the importance of increasing the flow of international tourists who research has shown are interested in experiencing at some point rural America, I come before you today as 

past chairman of the foundation to make the case for those rural 

communities that are not currently a visible part of our country’s 

tourism product and badly need tourism as an economic revitalization tool. There are few states in the U.S. without a substantial 

number of rural communities struggling economically that wouldn’t 

benefit from assistance in their tourism planning, implementation 

and promotion. From the many stopping points along Route 66, 

which has its auspicious beginnings in the district represented by 

the Honorable Chairman Bobby Rush, we see the uniqueness of 

countless national treasures. These rural communities are the potential draw for thousands of tourists looking for a scenic ride, a 

good meal, comfortable lodging, and a unique shopping experience. 

In particular, these communities can build their capacity to serve 

the needs of our international visitors. 

My comments today therefore are not so much about the legislation before you, which appears to be strongly supported by the 

tourism industry as well as by an impressive number in Congress, 

but rather to ask you to be mindful of the needs of rural America. 

What I would ask is that in addition to supporting the Travel Promotion Act, that you consider ways to strengthen the capacity of 

the previously authorized national rural tourism foundation to 

meet its original charge, to serve as a catalyst to the economic revitalization of rural America through tourism. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Long follows:] 

30 


62207.018
31 


62207.019
32 


62207.020
33 


62207.021
34 


62207.022
35 


62207.023
36 


62207.024
37 


62207.025
38 

Mr. RUSH. The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning. My first question is directed to Mr. Freeman and Dr. Long. 

Data from the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Association showed international arrivals in the United States have 

steadily increased since 2007. An entry fee such as the one proposed by H.R. 3232 may serve as a further disincentive for visitors 

to come to the United States, thus possibly reversing this trend. Do 

you think that this is accurate? Please explain your opinion and 

provide supporting evidence, and I would ask you to give short and 

concise answers in the interest of time. Mr. Freeman. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you. We appreciate the Department of 

Commerce’s concerns and have had many conversations with them 

about those. There are two important numbers to look at here. 

First of all, there is international travel. International travel includes the entire world including Canada and Mexico, and then 

there is overseas travel. When you look at international travel, it 

is true that the United States returned to pre-9/11 levels at the end 

of 2007 but that boom in travel is driven almost entirely by Canadians and Mexicans. Before 9/11, the United States welcomed 50 

million visitors, 25 million from Canada and Mexico and 25 million 

from overseas. In 2007, we got back to welcoming 50 million visitors, 30 million from Canada and Mexico, 20 million from overseas. 

Clearly, when you look at overseas travelers, the travelers who 

spend $4,000 on average per trip as opposed to the $1,200 Canadian or Mexican travelers spend, this is where we are seeing a 

problem. From an economic standpoint, there is an issue there, and 

from a public diplomacy standpoint. When these travelers aren’t 

coming to America, we are missing that opportunity to win hearts 

and minds around the world. Travelers from the U.K., Japan, Australia, and other overseas countries are avoiding the United States 

post-9/11. As to whether or not any type of fee could discourage 

travel to the United States, I think the only thing we can do is look 

at what these countries do and what does the evidence suggest. 

Every country I mentioned has a fee in place, either an entry fee 

or an exit fee, that Americans and other travelers currently pay as 

we go into or out of those countries. The fees that we pay to those 

countries fund, among other things, their travel promotion programs against the United States and every one of those countries 

is seeing an increase in travel that the United States is not seeing. 

The fact is that the average traveler spends $4,000. We don’t believe a $10 fee invested in promotion would be a deterrent, it would 

lead to an increase of millions of visitors. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. 

Dr. Long, do you have anything to add to this or do you agree 

with Mr. Freeman? 

Dr. LONG. I concur with my colleague, Mr. Freeman, on that. I 

feel that a $10 fee, as we all experience when we travel to other 

countries paying those fees, would certainly not be a deterrent for 

anyone wanting to come to see the products that we have for tourism in America. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. To the both of you again, building on the 

last question, section 5 of H.R. 3232 also stipulates that the initial 

loan from the Treasury to the Corporation for Travel Promotion 

must be repaid within 5 years. Section 5 contemplates no penalty 

39 

for non-repayment of the loan. What happens if the corporation 

fails to repay this loan in time, or worse, defaults? Do you believe 

that a penalty should be included in Section 5 as a consequence of 

failure to repay the loan in time or defaults on the loan? Would you 

please answer with a yes or no answer? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I believe the sponsors of the bill put that language 

in there in order to provide the entity with startup costs. The private sector, the corporation have to pay that back with interest 

within a certain number of years, as you mentioned. We absolutely 

concur that there should be penalties if that money is not paid 

back. 

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Long? 

Dr. LONG. I am not familiar enough with that aspect of the bill 

to respond in a reasonable fashion. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Freeman, I only have a few minutes left of my 

time. I would direct your attention to Section 5B of H.R. 3232, 

which establishes a travel promotion fund to partially fund the 

Corporation for Travel Promotion. This section caps annual transfers from the fund at $100 million. Can you tell me why this level 

was chosen? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I believe what it accounts is a maximum of $100 

million. For every dollar the private sector puts on the table, there 

is a matching fee through the visa waiver fee that would be applied. That dollar is capped at $100 million. That is the absolute 

maximum that the visa waiver fee would contribute to this program. I think in reality, it would take several years to get the private sector and the whole program up and running, and I think it 

would be some time before you would have a $100 million max, but 

that should be yet another sign of the accountability measures in 

this program, that those funds are capped rather than left open. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. My time is up, and now the chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and thank you, Dr. 

Long and Mr. Freeman, for your testimony. Dr. Long, let me ask 

you. You had referred to the National Rural Tourism Foundation, 

and is there anything in this legislation, H.R. 3232, that would 

strengthen that foundation or gives you reason to believe that at 

least it would be helpful for that foundation to be more effective? 

Dr. LONG. We are not asking for any change in the proposed legislation as you see it before you. We do know that increasing visitation to this country will certainly increase the opportunity for local 

communities to benefit from this. The point that I bring to you is 

that there are many communities that are not prepared to receive 

those dollars and that in any future thinking, whether it is directly 

in future tourism legislation or whether it is agency funding such 

as agriculture, commerce, whatever the case may be, that the goodwill of the foundation be kept in mind. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You all probably have larger crowds than rural 

Greenville now with the East Carolina Pirates, right? 

Dr. LONG. The Pirates have done a good thing for the reputation 

of that school and that part of the State. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

40 

Mr. Freeman, this initial $10 million, does that have to be appropriated? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I believe the way the language is written, that money does not have to be appropriated. It is a $10 million loan 

from the Treasury paid back with interest by the private sector. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So this legislation, if it passed, would authorize the government to transfer up to $10 million for initial costs? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I believe so. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Now, I noticed that this whole program, this whole corporation is dependent upon this $10 fee being collected, 

and section 6, the first sentence says, ‘‘If a fully automated electronic traveler authorization system to collect basic biographical information in order to determine in advance of travel the eligibility 

of an alien to travel to the United States is implemented, then a 

fee would be imposed.’’ Is that system going to be implemented? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, indeed, it is. On January 12 of next year, the 

Department of Homeland Security is implementing a new program 

whereby millions of travelers who come to the United States via 

the visa waiver program will now have to register with the U.S. 

government in advance of their trip to the United States. I think 

all of us should be concerned about the effect this could have on 

travel lacking a significant communications program to let the 

world know how this program will work. While DHS has not put 

a fee in place initially because we do not believe they wanted to 

go through a rulemaking process in the few short months they 

have left in this Administration, we do believe that a fee will be 

implemented in a future administration and that will present the 

opportunity for the matching funds. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how did you all decide to implement this 

fund in the Treasury Department? This legislation directs that a 

fund be set up in the Treasury Department. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Again, I believe the sponsors of the legislation in 

working on this, the transfer of the money from Homeland Security, which collects the electronic system for travel authorization 

fee, or will—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So Homeland Security would collect the $10 fee? 

Mr. FREEMAN. The fee is collected through Homeland Security, 

and in order for it to make it to the Corporation for Travel Promotion, the rules simply require it to go through the Department. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. How much is the fee today that they collect? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Again, the program begins in January of next 

year. Because they didn’t want to go through a rulemaking this 

year, there isn’t a fee set. That will be determined by the next administration. We believe that fee that they will set will be in the 

range of $10. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So there would be an initial $10 million loan 

that would be repaid with interest, then in 2009 there would be a 

match of 50/50, and then 2010, the corporation would have to pay 

100 percent, I suppose. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Well, in 2009, there would be the $10 million loan. 

The purpose, just so everyone is aware, of that $10 million loan is 

to enable the Corporation for Travel Promotion to retain the staff 

it needs first but then to begin doing the research and the development so we can hit the ground running, know which countries we 

41 

are targeting, know what our promotion is in those countries. In 

2009, I believe, according to the legislation, it is a 2:1 contribution. 

For every dollar the private sector puts on the table, there are $2 

from this fee, and for every year thereafter it is a 1:1 contribution. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, is there anything in this legislation that 

would mandate that the private sector contribute? I mean, is there 

a mechanism that—— 

Mr. FREEMAN. It is a voluntary contribution, and indeed, I think 

that is what we hope, all of us would hope would work rather than 

mandating the private sector in a sense be taxed to do this. This 

is something that the private sector is currently saying, the travel 

community is coming to you and saying we want to put money on 

the table. We have seen what has happened over the past 7 years 

when we haven’t communicated. Help us help the country by bringing more visitors in. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And this is primarily through the travel industry 

association? I mean, you all would be the ones out there trying to 

convince people? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Well, I think we would be working closely with 

the Corporation for Travel Promotion to ensure the private sector 

and the private sector would include companies, it would include 

local convention and visitor bureaus. It could include State tourism 

offices to contribute to the fund to bring people to the United 

States. The fact is, if you are not willing to visit the United States, 

then you are not going to go to Illinois, you are not going to go to 

Kentucky, you are not going to go to those other places if you have 

concerns about visa and entry policy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And the—— 

Mr. RUSH. The chair has the responsibility of alerting the gentleman that his time has expired and we have to move on. The 

chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 

for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Freeman, I represent a very diverse district and my office 

probably spends about 80 percent of its time dealing with issues of 

immigration and visas. I personally spend a lot of time on the telephone calling embassies around the globe trying to get someone another interview, guaranteeing personally that they will go back. 

You seem to feel though that the provisions of the Homeland Security situation aren’t the problem as long as we explain them to people. Maybe it depends on countries but I was just at an Indian 

wedding of a very prominent family and I would say about half a 

dozen of those guests were only there because I got on the phone 

and made those calls. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been permitted 

into the United States. What is your experience? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I think that as we look at the problem, as we look 

at the decline of 46 million travelers over the past 7 years, it isn’t 

simply due to communications. It is a three-legged stool. The first 

part is the visa problem. In a country like Brazil right now, the 

wait time to simply get an interview for a visa is 100 days. That 

is not making us more secure, it just suggests that we are more 

inefficient than we need to be. We are not staffed appropriately. 

The same problems have existed in India for quite some time. We 

have similar problems in China. We need a visa system that meets 

42 

the 30-day standard that the State Department has set for itself. 

Unfortunately, the State Department to date has not built a business plan despite report language from this Congress last year asking it to do so, to find every consulate where the wait time is over 

30 days and tell Congress how they are going to get that wait time 

below—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So this legislation, I am sure advertising is attractive but not if the result is that people then apply for visas and 

can’t get them. I think a lot of people like myself don’t necessarily 

plan 100 days in advance. They find a good deal and they plan a 

couple months ahead. Will this work? 

Mr. FREEMAN. This legislation will absolutely work in a number 

of countries around the world. When you look at a country like 

Brazil or a country like India where there are visa problems, those 

need to be addressed, and obviously the problem needs to be addressed in those countries before you can start marketing yourself 

as a destination, and that is why we have been working with so 

many in Congress to address those problems. I do believe in India, 

the wait times about 18 months ago were up to 150 days to get an 

interview for a visa. In recent weeks, the wait times have been 

down to about 15 days. We need to communicate that. We need to 

promote that. It isn’t just about posters around the world saying 

come to the United States. When we put new security policies in 

place, when we improve the visa system, when we launch an international register traveler program to expedite the processing, we 

need to tell the world we are doing these things, not leave it to the 

foreign press. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We do, although a lot of those people who finally get the interview end up getting denied to come to the States 

too. I know. As I said, I spend a lot of time doing that. I think we 

have to streamline somehow, to streamline our process without 

risking our security. 

I wanted to ask both of you, do you support a provision that 

would make sure that the corporation doesn’t support a specific 

business such as I cited in my opening statement? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Absolutely, and I believe that was the intent of 

the sponsors. The role of this entity is to encourage people to travel 

to the United States. Once they are a captive audience, then Florida, California, various hotels, theme parks, others, they can fight 

over them, but if they are not considering the United States, then 

nobody else, whether it be Illinois, California, Florida, or the rest, 

can convince them, can educate them on visa or entry policy. It is 

the role of this entity to communicate U.S. security policy and encourage people to visit the United States, not one specific entity or 

destination. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Dr. Long, I think it was the New York Times 

that did a whole piece on crumbling barns in rural America and 

how all these wonderful old barns are just falling apart and somehow changing the character of rural America. Your testimony got 

me thinking about just how charming and intriguing it would be, 

I think, to promote a rural America tour, and I would be interested 

in helping with that. We have some wonderful places in Illinois 

that have exactly that kind of atmosphere that you mentioned. 

43 

Dr. LONG. Well, I realize that our focus today is international 

travelers, but if you think about the shortening of the travel experience due to energy costs and the like, we are going to see a lot 

more domestic folks that are going to be traveling outside of urban 

areas that are going to rediscover, recapture their desire to visit 

rural America. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Oh, I would think even international travelers 

might be interested in the flavor of rural America. 

Dr. LONG. Yes, and I didn’t mean to misinterpret that, but in addition to that international draw, rural America would benefit from 

the increased domestic expenditures as well. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. At this time we want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. Again, our sincere apologies for the 

delay, but thank you for your fine testimony. So we want to thank 

the witnesses for their time and you are now excused. Thank you 

so very much. 

The chair has another commitment and now would like to ask 

the vice chair if she would please come and chair the second part 

of this hearing. Thank you so much. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [presiding]. We are going to begin. I am Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, the vice chair of the committee, taking over the chair now. The second panel is made up of Lois 

Greisman, Associate Director for the Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, the Federal Trade Commission; Jeffrey Rechenbach, Executive Vice President, Communication Workers of America; Tim Searcy, Chief Executive Officer of 

American Teleservices Association, ATA, and our fourth witness, 

Dr. David Butler, Director of Call Center Research Laboratory of 

the University of Southern Mississippi, Executive Director, National Association of Call Centers. We will begin with Ms. 

Greisman, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LOIS C. GREISMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR THE DIVISION OF MARKETING PRACTICES, BUREAU OF 

CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Ms. GREISMAN. Thank you, Chairman Schakowsky and Ranking 

Member Whitfield. I am delighted to be here this afternoon. As you 

know, my oral remarks represent my own views. The written statement is that of the Federal Trade Commission. 

I would like to take this time just to highlight a few points from 

that statement. The Commission’s experience with call centers 

arises in connection with its telemarketing initiatives which focus 

primarily on deceptive and abusive practices. Combating telemarketing fraud has been a top priority for the Commission for 

well over a decade. In total, the Commission has filed more than 

375 cases, the vast majority of which target garden-variety frauds 

yet highly pernicious frauds such as business opportunities, investment promotions, sale of bogus products in the weight-loss area 

and so on. 

Since 2003, as I am sure you are well aware, and the implementation of the Do Not Call Registry, the Commission also has focused considerable attention to protecting consumers’ privacy by 

limiting the number of unwanted telemarketing calls that they reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:31 Jan 07, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-146 CHRIS
44 

ceive. Indeed, consumers have now placed more than 168 million 

telephone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry just since 2003, 

and it has been a remarkable success, due in part, I believe, to the 

Commission’s rigorous law enforcement program and also to significant efforts by the telemarketing industry. In that regard, I thank 

American Teleservices Association, Tim Searcy. 

In a nutshell, the Commission’s law enforcement experience in 

the telemarketing arena is broad and robust but the law enforcement mission, as I mentioned, has been focused on deceptive and 

abusive practices, outright lies, implied lies or privacy invasion, 

rather than examination of the sort of labor and international 

trade policy issues that I think really lie at the heart of H.R. 1776. 

So it is against that backdrop that the Commission’s testimony 

flags four specific aspects of the bill with some concerns. 

The first one addresses the bill’s potential breadth. It would appear to require disclosure of the call center’s physical location, 

whether operating in the United States or abroad, and appears to 

reach even local pizza parlors or doctors’ offices. Second, we have 

some concerns about the definition of call centers as it might reach 

online transactions, particularly online service assistance. Resolving ambiguity as to the bill’s coverage would improve enforcement 

and also, we believe, provide critical guidance to industry as it 

would comply with any new requirements. Third, the bill’s certification of compliance requirement may present any enforcement 

agency with costly burdens, and the bill itself does not seem to 

have any enforcement mechanism for a failure to certify. Last but 

not least, because I think this goes to the very efficacy of H.R. 

1776, we are concerned that the FTC’s jurisdictional limitations 

would substantially complicate and indeed might undermine effective enforcement of the bill, and these jurisdictional limitations include depository institutions, airlines and insurance companies, 

which perhaps are among many of the very entities that use overseas call centers. Having such entities beyond the statutory reach 

of the FTC would, we believe, frustrate enforcement. 

So for those reasons, the Commission respectfully suggests that 

another agency without such limitations and one versed in the 

labor and international trade policy issues at the core of H.R. 1776 

might prove better situated to administer and enforce the bill. The 

Commission is pleased to continue to provide further assistance, 

and I assure you, will vigorously protect American consumers from 

telemarketing fraud. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greisman follows:] 

45 


62207.026
46 


62207.027
47 


62207.028
48 


62207.029
49 


62207.030
50 


62207.031
51 


62207.032
52 


62207.033
53 


62207.034
54 


62207.035
55 


62207.036
56 


62207.037
57 


62207.038
58 


62207.039
59 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Jeffrey Rechenbach now. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY RECHENBACH, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. RECHENBACH. Thank you, Chairman Schakowsky, Ranking 

Member Whitfield and subcommittee members for the opportunity 

to testify before you today in support of H.R. 1776, the Call Center 

Consumer’s Right to Know Act, introduced by Congressman Jason 

Altmire. My name is Jeff Rechenbach. I represent the 600,000 active members of the Communications Workers of America, or CWA, 

and I have asked that my written testimony be entered into the 

record. 

CWA represents 150,000 customer service workers across our 

Nation. Customer service workers are professionals who want to 

provide quality service and have the opportunities for secure careers. That desire is being undermined by a race to the bottom and 

the outsourcing of customer service work. The Call Center Consumer’s Right to Know Act is bipartisan and simple. It seeks to improve the level of customer service American consumers receive 

while creating good-paying jobs. It simply gives consumers the 

right to know the location of the call center and the representative 

with whom they are speaking. I believe the legislation could be improved if consumers were able to request that they be transferred 

to an American-based call center if they so desire. 

I would not criticize the abilities or the work ethic or the character of call center workers in other countries or demean their cultures in any way. In fact, through our international union brothers 

and sisters, we established a worldwide Customer Service Professional Week and it is the first week of October this year. In our 

view, any fault found with the quality of outsourced customer service work is simply the result of poor management practices and the 

difficulties with supervision and accountability when operations are 

subcontracted. It is a product of the race to the bottom where 

outsourcing favors cutting costs over quality service. 

Recently, through collective bargaining, CWA and AT&T reached 

an agreement to bring back from offshore 5,000 call center jobs. 

This was a win-win. However, with low coverage of collective bargaining, we should not expect that returning work from offshore 

and eliminating subcontracting foreshadows a new trend for American workers. Too much of U.S. management is caught in the treadmill of lowering wage rates and consequently lowering quality 

through outsourcing. 

It is estimated that 4 million Americans work in call centers. Remarkably, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not have a category 

for customer service agents nor does it canvas communities to survey for wages for these workers. An increase in service sector jobs 

would ease the pain for Americans who lost their good-paying manufacturing or textile industry jobs because of offshoring. We have 

lost over 3.6 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA, according to 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we continue to hemorrhage U.S. manufacturing jobs. While this job loss figure is staggering, forecasts regarding the number of service sector jobs that 

we can expect to see offshored are even more sobering. Forester ReVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:31 Jan 07, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-146 CHRIS
60 

search Company estimates that the United States will lose 3.3 million service sector jobs by 2015. This number is considered by many 

to be a conservative estimate. In 2002, Forester attempted to estimate the number of high-tech jobs that would be offshored. By 

2004, Forester had found that its estimate was 38 percent lower 

than what had actually happened. 

Unfortunately, recent developments have exacerbated this problem. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the American 

government provided more than $650 million in trade-related assistance to the signatories of the Central American Free Trade 

Agreement. This included money that went to education programs 

which taught English to future call center workers in Central 

America. The result has been an exodus of call center jobs. The 

number of call center jobs created in Costa Rica doubled to 50,000 

between 2005 and 2007. 

Madam Chairman, what this bill is really all about is giving 

American families a chance to be better consumers. Let them make 

the choice as to whether or not they want to spend their dollars 

with a company that helps sustain American communities with 

good-paying jobs or whether they want to look the other way on 

that notion. When I go to buy a shirt, I can clearly see a label telling me where it was made. The same is true with suits, shoes, 

most food, electronics and even cars. I can make a choice: do I want 

to buy a shirt made in the United States or am I OK buying one 

made in a foreign land. Quality, price, and land of origin should 

and can be part of the choice in dealing with service-based industries as well. 

Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

holding a hearing on this important legislation, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rechenbach follows:] 

61 


62207.040
62 


62207.041
63 


62207.042
64 


62207.043
65 


62207.044
66 


62207.045
67 


62207.046
68 


62207.047
69 


62207.048
70 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. Searcy. 

STATEMENT OF TIM SEARCY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SEARCY. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the 

committee for the opportunity to come and speak to you today on 

this important issue. 

As CEO of the American Teleservices Association, I represent 

more than 2 million professionals in all aspects of customer service. 

The mission of the ATA is to assist in balancing the interests of 

consumers and legitimate business using contact centers. Consumer protection is of paramount interest to the members of the 

ATA. For this reason, ATA members are advised and required to 

conform to a strict code of ethics including compliance with federal 

and State laws. The ATA has also worked to create an accreditation process for contact centers including third-party audits to ensure that firms are complying with these laws and to promote best 

practices in compliance and consumer protection. The ATA’s selfregulatory organization has received early praise from both the 

Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission in public comments. It has been a pleasure to create a relationship with the FTC and Lois Greisman’s office in which we are 

able to work together to focus on fraudulent issues in teleservices 

and to bring bad characters and bad actors out into the light. 

As part of a very complex patchwork of Federal and State laws, 

many elements of disclosure already exist to inform the consumer 

about the individual and the company with whom they are in contact. Disclosures to comply with these laws require identification of 

the caller, the company engaged in the call, the purpose of the call 

and the nature of the goods or services. Additionally, there is a requirement to transmit the calling party number and the company 

name to be retrieved by a customer using caller identification technology. 

The particular type of disclosure contemplated in House Resolution 1776 is a burdensome additional expense without clear benefit 

to the consumer. Each time additional disclosures or compliance requirements are added to a call, call lengths are increased and the 

cost of doing business by phone increases as well, while the quality 

of the interaction with the consumer declines. The rising costs of 

compliance and regulation are causing many firms to contemplate 

automation only or offshore solutions to stay cost-competitive. Currently, members of the teleservices industry can expect to pay tens 

of thousands of dollars annually to stay in compliance with Federal 

laws, but when State laws are added to the compliance regimen, 

costs skyrocket to over $200,000 per year. The cost of doing business is the primary impetus for choosing alternative solutions to 

domestic live operator contact centers. With no other financial option and in a challenging economic environment, companies are 

choosing overseas contact centers and automated IVR, or interactive voice response systems, to handle calls for everything from 

sales to service. 

A term of the industry which has frequently been seen in print 

is ‘‘rightsourcing.’’ Because firms have taken a broader view of the 

71 

customer relationship and the economics which govern profitability, 

companies have begun to very carefully select which locations are 

best suited for various types of customer interaction. It is with no 

small irony that we are beginning to see companies from Spain, 

France and Australia choose U.S. contact centers to handle calls on 

their behalf because of both the expertise and the labor costs. 

I would like to offer two options to requiring location disclosure 

at the beginning of the call. The ATA believes that a reduction in 

overall compliance costs could be a means to make domestic contact 

centers even more affordable. Exclusive federal jurisdiction alone 

could reduce the costs to industry by an estimated $200 million or 

more per year and make onshore solutions more desirable. By creating one set of laws, firms would no longer have to manage an impossible patchwork of overlapping and sometimes contradictory 

rules. 

Secondly, I agree with Mr. Rechenbach: Consumers should have 

a choice to know the location of a company’s contact center if they 

are interested. If you want to find out where goods and services 

have been purchased, if you want to know where something has 

been made, you can look at the label to determine, but that is your 

choice, that is something that you take interest in. No federal law 

currently exists which mandates that an entity disclose a contact 

center’s location upon request. The American Teleservices Association’s SRO requires firms that seek accreditation as best practices 

providers to disclose their location when asked. The ATA would be 

very supportive of turning this practice into law. 

In summary, profitability of the contact center industry is highly 

dependent upon efficiency and the amount of time spent on the 

phone with consumers. Additional and unnecessary disclosures 

during a call increase the amount of time spent per call and reduce 

the number of people that can be reached and/or calls that can be 

handled during a given period of time. Also, creating an unnatural 

communication at the start of the call will only deteriorate the consumer experience by creating a robotic interaction when they are 

seeking to relate to a human being. 

Prior to any change in federal law, adequate investigation and 

study needs to be done to determine the appropriate course of action. ATA believes current disclosures required by the TSR and the 

TCPA are adequate for contact centers to conduct business effectively while keeping consumers informed of their rights. However, 

the consumer has the right to know upon request the location of 

their call center. 

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinion and testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Searcy follows:] 

72 


62207.049
73 


62207.050
74 


62207.051
75 


62207.052
76 


62207.053
77 


62207.054
78 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Dr. David Butler. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BUTLER, DIRECTOR, CALL CENTER 

RESEARCH LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF CALL CENTERS 

Dr. BUTLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the 

committee. I am not going to read from anything because I will put 

everyone to sleep. I would like to make a couple of points. 

My background is as an academic and I collect data on the call 

center/contact center industry and I would like to bring some baseline facts to bear since this bill is talking about jobs. Number one 

is, the United States government and its entities do not do a good 

job of collecting information on this industry. At present, the S.I.C. 

code and the N.A.I.C.S. code associated with this industry both collect improper and wrong information on this industry, so relying on 

those two pieces of data collection, you get an inaccurate count of 

the contact and call center industry in the United States. Number 

two, to even get a remotely good count, you have to go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational code, and even within there 

you have to consolidate eight separate codes to be able to get even 

a decent resolution of what is happening in this industry. 

In that vacuum, we started collecting data on the number of call 

centers open, closed, expanded, adding jobs and contracting in the 

United States since 2002 to the present. Right now, if you consolidate all those years, the United States has gained over 87,000 jobs 

in the call center industry. Only one year, 2003, was there a net 

loss in jobs. So as a starting point, we need to understand that this 

is a net job gain industry in the United States. 

Within the United States, we track 11 subsectors in this industry. Only one of those sectors, the reservation distribution sector, 

is actually losing jobs and that is losing jobs both in the United 

States and near shore and offshore and that is because of technology changes. Whenever I booked my flight out here, I purchased 

it online. I printed my boarding pass this morning from the hotel. 

I didn’t talk to a call center operator or reservation person. Those 

jobs have been lost to technology more than they have been lost to 

offshore operations. 

The last two issues I would like to make are regarding the bill 

itself. At present, the way the bill is written for disclosure, I think 

it will have minimal impact on the call center industry. By disclosing where someone’s geographic location is, I believe consumer 

choice of making a choice of offshore or not offshore, that was 

something that would probably been more effective about a decade 

ago when this was a more sensitive topic. If the bill were changed 

to actually have a request to move to an American operator or 

American customer service representative, I think that would have 

more significant impact, but the unintended consequence of potentially moving jobs offshore, especially from U.S. third-party providers that own and operate call centers offshore is significant, so 

I think there are some repercussions on the negative side that need 

to be examined before we move forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Butler follows:] 

79 


62207.055
80 


62207.056
81 


62207.057
82 


62207.058
83 


62207.059
84 


62207.060
85 


62207.061
86 


62207.062
87 


62207.063
88 


62207.064
89 


62207.065
90 


62207.066
91 


62207.067
92 


62207.068
93 


62207.069
94 


62207.070
95 


62207.071
96 


62207.072
97 


62207.073
98 


62207.074
99 


62207.075
100 


62207.076
101 


62207.077
102 


62207.078
103 


62207.079
104 


62207.080
105 


62207.081
106 


62207.082
107 


62207.083
108 


62207.084
109 


62207.085
110 


62207.086
111 


62207.087
112 


62207.088
113 


62207.089
114 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I thank all of our witnesses. I am 

going to begin with a few questions. 

Mr. Rechenbach, the suggestion that Mr. Searcy made that we 

codify the notion that when a person calls and they want to know 

the location, that they would be required to give it. Do you think 

that would be adequate, and if not, why not? 

Mr. RECHENBACH. Well, I certainly think it would be a step in 

the right direction but I don’t think it actually addresses the overall issue. I think many people would like to know ahead of time 

and wouldn’t be schooled in the notion that they could ask for this 

information, ask for where that call is being generated from. So I 

think the notion of having somebody just self-identify right up front 

would be a much better solution to keeping that work here in the 

United States. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And let me ask you this. Explain to me how, 

any one of you can, how effective you think H.R. 1776 actually 

would be in creating and preserving American call center jobs. Let 

me start again with you, Mr. Rechenbach. How does this bring the 

jobs home? 

Mr. RECHENBACH. We think there has already been a trend 

among American corporations that have felt some backlash by 

outsourcing work overseas. We think by putting that information 

out front, that will encourage more of these corporations to bring 

this work back here to the States. You know, I can’t codify that 

with any kind of notion of what those numbers would look like, but 

as you see these trends start to move this way, we saw this backlash against automated calls. A lot of people started to push back 

on automated calls and want to talk to a human being, and we 

have seen the number of those calls begin to decrease as a result 

of that. I think this would have that same kind of effect on American corporations, recognizing that American consumers feel more 

comfortable, more at ease talking with an American representative. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Do you want to say something, Mr. Searcy? 

Mr. SEARCY. Well, I think Mr. Rechenbach makes an interesting 

point, which is that the fair market is already allowing for consumers to make choices and for companies to respond to those 

choices. If they have been moving activity back to the United 

States, although I agree with Dr. Butler, there has been a net increase in jobs, not a net decrease in jobs, the reality is that businesses are making decisions that are in their best interest and in 

the consumers’ best interest. The second thought is that the consumer wouldn’t be educated necessarily to go ahead and put this 

into place where they would ask for the location of the contact center. Our do-not-call experience from 5 years ago indicates that very 

quickly consumers become aware of their rights. Otherwise we 

wouldn’t have 168 million names on the do-not-call list. Through 

both press and word of mouth, I think this would be a choice that 

the consumer would be aware of and be able to make at their 

choosing. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask another question. One of the 

issues that I raised that I may have just missed hearing addressed 

by the four of you is this issue of protecting personal and financial 

information. When we are dealing with a call center that actually 

may be located in another country or just contracted with an AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:31 Jan 07, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-146 CHRIS
115 

ican company, how can we make these companies comply with the 

same kinds of laws on privacy and security that we demand from 

U.S. call centers? Can anybody answer that? 

Ms. GREISMAN. Madam Chairman, it is my position that if a U.S. 

company is outsourcing certain of its servicing of contracts or other 

work that the outsourced entity is governed currently by U.S. laws, 

and that is the position of the Federal Trade Commission. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you do that regardless of the source of the 

call? And I am not talking about fraud and abuse that you were 

discussing, I am talking about just the systems that control the privacy of our data. Do you monitor that and enforce that? 

Ms. GREISMAN. If the FTC has jurisdiction over the U.S. entity 

and that U.S. entity outsources part of the processing servicing of 

whatever customer functions, it is our position that we do have jurisdiction, that the outsourced entity also must comply with—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And have you had any enforcement issues 

with that? 

Ms. GREISMAN. Nothing readily comes to mind in the security 

context. Certainly going back to telemarketing fraud, we have 

taken action against entities that do business in the United States 

and have part of their operations outside of the United States. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Does anybody else want to comment on this? 

Mr. SEARCY. Madam Chair, I completely agree with Lois about 

this but I would also comment, it is U.S. companies who outsource 

and they pay for them so the jurisdiction is not so much that you 

would go to India to enforce, you can enforce on the company here. 

So consequently with the FTC, it really puts a burden on the company to make certain that the outsourcer that they are working 

with is in compliance because the group that is going to receive the 

enforcement is within our borders. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. If I could, Mr. Ranking Member, just go 

on for just a minute. If the company is overseas, are there any additional enforcement barriers to making sure that the security is in 

place? I am assuming they may be doing some subcontracting to a 

call center. They may not own it outright. Is that true? 

Mr. SEARCY. They do subcontract. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I understand the jurisdictional question but 

are there any additional barriers to making sure that those subcontractors, which I imagine could be set up anywhere, are actually 

protecting our information with the same scrutiny as we would if 

they were here in the United States? 

Mr. SEARCY. We absolutely do, and I would say even more so, the 

reason being the industry has taken a very serious look at what 

the implications are, the downside if that data was not protected, 

and for that reason, you will find there is more monitoring and 

more internal enforcement, meaning the companies have a much 

greater investigatory effort into the firms they are working with. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Have there been data breaches overseas? 

Mr. SEARCY. Not that have required enforcement. I know that in 

the last 5 years, there have been data breaches overseas but nowhere in the same category nor the same rate as we have seen 

here domestically, and none of which have been raised to the point 

of being an issue about what data should go overseas or not. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You wanted to say something quickly? 

116 

Mr. RECHENBACH. Yes, just very quickly, the simple fact is our 

laws don’t apply in foreign countries, and if it is subcontracted out 

to a foreign company, we won’t have recourse, and I think we have 

all seen the WTO continues to release weak consumer protections 

year after year, so I think there is a very deep and genuine concern 

that we ought to have that our data, that our information about 

American citizens could be potentially exposed to being stolen or 

manipulated by other interests. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is actually, I would think, a matter of 

fact or not. Is that the case? That is the concern I am raising if 

they subcontract? Dr. Butler? 

Dr. BUTLER. If I could speak on this, we are talking about multiple entities. Number one, U.S. corporations that house contact 

centers inside their own entity, that is not an issue. Number two, 

U.S. outsourcers. These are third-party providers housed in the 

United States with call centers in the United States and overseas. 

Their jurisdiction is in their company operations both locations. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. I am talking about just overseas. 

Dr. BUTLER. Then we are talking about third-party providers like 

WIPRO and other companies that are solely overseas. If they are 

contracting with a U.S. company and accessing their data from 

U.S. servers, the United States has jurisdiction because that is 

U.S. data, even if they are reaching over into the United States. 

And I think the legal piece you are trying to get around is covered 

under the Safe Harbor agreement that the United States has and 

signed with some of the EU countries. I think that is a provision, 

if anything you are going to get into with data protection, that is 

the mechanism by which you would be accessed. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think that is one of the concerns that American consumers might have. 

I really feel the need to move on because we are going to have 

a vote in a very short time. Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, even if an outsourced company in another 

location with a call center, we did not have jurisdiction over that 

call center to protect American consumers, there is nothing in this 

legislation that would provide that protection, is there? This legislation seems pretty simple. It wouldn’t address that problem, would 

it? 

Ms. GREISMAN. There is nothing in it that I see. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. Now, Ms. Greisman, does the Federal 

Trade Commission support this legislation? 

Ms. GREISMAN. The FTC has taken the position that there probably is another agency better suited to administer and enforce it, 

given the jurisdictional limitations under the FTC Act. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Which agency would that be? 

Ms. GREISMAN. I am really not in a position to identify one, but 

one better versed in labor issues and international conditions. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So Mr. Searcy, does your organization support 

this legislation? 

Mr. SEARCY. No, sir, we do not. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Dr. Butler, do you support this legislation? 

Dr. BUTLER. Actually we don’t support nor do we not support it. 

We are trying to provide some good data to have everyone make 

an informed and educated decision. 

117 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, Mr. Rechenbach, from your testimony, it 

appears that you had two reasons for supporting this legislation. 

One was quality of service to American consumers and two was 

consumers have a right to know. On the quality issue, could you 

elaborate on quality issues that you all are concerned about? 

Mr. RECHENBACH. Well, I think we have seen a drive where cost 

has become a higher concern than quality of service and so many 

providers that provide a cheaper service will opt for a lower quality 

and outsource this customer contact work that may have been in 

the past done in the United States or it may be new work that is 

getting generated as new industries are created. So it really is in 

the eye of the beholder, if you will, as to whether or not you are 

getting a good quality job overseas or a good quality job from a 

worker here in the United States. I like to think that a good-paying 

job here in the United States is going to be giving you a better 

quality of service. We found, particularly in the call centers that we 

have organized, where you pay somebody a decent wage, turnover 

rates are dramatically lower, there is much more retention of workers, and as a result, a better quality job gets provided by those individuals. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I guess the thing that I am a little bit concerned 

about this legislation, I mean, it is a very simple piece of legislation, it is not complicated, but if I am a Delta Airlines customer 

and I call about my airplane ticket and there is a call center in 

India and they come on the line and they say we are here to answer your questions about your airplane ticket, and by the way, we 

are located in India, then if they don’t say that, then that gives me 

the right to call the FTC or some other federal agency and say hey, 

I made this call and they didn’t tell me they were in India, and 

then under this legislation, that agency would have had to do a 

rulemaking and adopt a civil penalty for that company and so this 

federal agency would be running around taking complaints from 

people saying well, they didn’t identify, and then you would have 

to do an investigation. I mean, it seems like a very complicated 

process without very many practical results from it. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEINER [presiding]. Thank you. 

Does anyone care to respond? 

Mr. SEARCY. Yes, sir, I would make one comment. I completely 

agree with Representative Whitfield. In addition to the expense 

and the difficulty, you also would create a situation in which to certify this based on the fourth provision with an H.R. 1776. The only 

way to prove that indeed you had disclosed every time would be to 

tape every single phone call, which if we want to talk about privacy 

issues, I can assure you, this will cross that line. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Then Ms. Greisman would listen to those tapes. 

Mr. SEARCY. I would imagine someone on Ms. Greisman’s staff 

would have to listen to those tapes. 

Mr. WEINER. Can I pick up on that? Mr. Searcy, very often we 

hear our constituents and we have all had the experience as well, 

have a recording at the beginning of the conversation saying that 

this conversation could be recorded for quality assurance. Is that 

a widespread practice? Is it actually recorded? 

118 

Mr. SEARCY. Actually many of the calls are recorded. It has become common in some cases because of the use of technology to 

record every single call and to go ahead and use technology to monitor every call. You will go through and you will do voice recognition to find out if there are errors or mistakes or something in legal 

disclosure that hasn’t been done properly, so there is indeed a great 

deal of monitoring that goes on, a great deal of tape recording that 

goes on, on inbound calls. Those are calls coming in for customer 

service, not as much for outbound calls. 

Mr. WEINER. So to a large degree, the concern that Mr. Whitfield 

raised about how you find out or how you know, how you enforce 

as an employer, how you make sure your employees are doing it, 

to a large degree, that type of taping and recording is going on already, isn’t it? 

Mr. SEARCY. It is a common but not prevalent business practice, 

meaning that not everyone does it and not most of everyone does 

it. 

Mr. WEINER. I don’t know who can answer this, perhaps you can, 

Mr. Searcy, when someone makes a garment or a lot of products, 

frankly, they have to go through the process of creating a label that 

says where it was made and sewing it into the garment and making sure that they have it right, that something that came from 

Bangladesh or from Korea or from the United States is correctly 

identified. It may or may not have any impact on a consumer’s decisionmaking but it is there and it is so deeply ingrained in our values and in our culture that we almost expect it to be there even 

if we don’t look at it, and maybe if someone sees something that 

says made in Korea, there is no real practical way to check if it 

was made in Japan or made in Taiwan but they have it there. It 

is kind of like chicken soup; it does no harm. It strikes me that this 

legislation is also like chicken soup, that it provides an additional 

piece of information. Maybe I think in the sponsors’ view, it might 

lead more companies to say you know what, I don’t want them saying I am calling from Bangalore, I want to say I am calling from 

Baltimore, but from the perspective of consumers and policymakers, I don’t really see what harm exists to have that additional 

piece of information. I have seen in your testimony, and forgive me 

for arriving late back from New York, but I have seen your testimony about the added expense that would be involved. I am not 

buying it. ‘‘Hi, this is George, I am calling you from India, how can 

I help you with your PC today,’’ how is it any different than a 

‘‘Made in United States of America’’ label that some of us find on 

our garments or on our sporting equipment or anything else? 

Mr. SEARCY. It is a very good question. We propose an alternative, which is upon request. See, it doesn’t say made in India or 

made in China or made in Bangladesh on the front of my suit but 

inside where I can go find the label, if I so desire, I can find that. 

We believe that indeed current law does have a shortcoming. Consumers should be able to ask upon request where are you calling 

me from or where am I reaching you today, and the person should 

be obligated by law to tell them so that the consumer has the protection if they are interested but not the expense if they lack that 

interest. Many, many years ago, made in Japan was a very negative statement and then Japan improved its quality to the point 

119 

that made in Japan was an issue of pride. I don’t want to see us 

in a position where U.S. contact centers versus other countries. We 

have to take something that was built here and have other countries provide a superior level of service where consumers would 

possibly choose to select that contact center instead of ours. We are 

in a better position to let people do this upon request. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Rechenbach. 

Mr. RECHENBACH. You mentioned earlier the notion of the recording that comes on before the call, that this call be monitored 

for quality assurance. I don’t know that it would cost any more to 

include in a message like that, this call is being handled by a technician in Costa Rica and may be monitored for quality assurance. 

So this cost issue I think really doesn’t rise to the level of concern 

that it ought to. What really is the issue here is giving American 

consumers that opportunity to make an informed choice. You know, 

I am a union guy. I like to think I buy mostly union-made products 

but I will make a consumer decision from time to time that doesn’t 

reflect that. Every now and then I will see something I want, I 

know it is made somewhere else, a piece of electronic gear, and I 

go ahead and purchase it nevertheless. Consumers would have the 

same option when it comes to their services here, to make that 

choice, but they can only make it if they have that piece of information identified for them. 

Dr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WEINER. Yes, fire away, Dr. Butler. 

Dr. BUTLER. If I could speak to this, a couple elements. Number 

one, I don’t think the analogy between manufacturing and service 

works. If we are going to draw the analogy fully, then every piece 

of software that comes through which may be designed or created 

in multiple countries on a 24-hour rolling basis, does every piece 

of software when it comes up need to say made in these 15 different countries. I am not sure if the analogy works perfectly there. 

Secondly, you were asking what companies are going to be impacted or is this really going to do anything, the companies that 

are going offshore to save money aren’t going to bring them back 

because of disclosure. I really don’t believe that because they are 

not going to lose money by bringing it back onshore. Those that 

have chosen to keep them in the United States for market share 

purposes, for loyalty, for American pride, aren’t going to move it 

offshore even if you tried to pay them to. It is those that are in the 

balance, which is a narrow group, that are thinking about maybe 

going offshore, this may be a deterrent or it may make them think 

twice, ‘‘do we want to have that label on it.’’ So it is a very narrow 

group of call centers that we are talking about that may or may 

not be impacted, not the industry as a total group. 

Mr. WEINER. You are the experts, I am not, but it could well be 

that as a value added, as with so many other disclosure things, 

people make it a point of attention for their consumers. They say 

our call centers stamped right on the box of a Dell computer are 

entirely in the United States. It may turn out to be something that 

becomes a source once it is disclosed and required to be disclosed. 

For years and years in this country, there was no real requirement 

to have a clear disclosure of what your credit card interest rate was 

until the mid-1980s or so. Then suddenly they all started comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:31 Jan 07, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-146 CHRIS
120 

peting to have lower rates or different kinds of rates and the like, 

so I would dispute that. I think with more information, the marketplace will decide and consumers will decide how to use that information, which gets me back to the premise of the bill, which is arm 

consumers with information and who knows, you might have companies that will make a decision based on the reaction to that. I 

can see overnight Web sites popping up with another column in the 

chart about what PC you buy where the call center is. I can see 

people saying, all right, well that is something I want to check, 

that is one of the boxes that I want to check, and the analogy was 

not about whether or not you should have disclosure everywhere 

but it is the relative value of it that Mr. Whitfield pointed out, like 

what do you do with that information. I don’t know. Some people 

do nothing with it. Some people will create a buying club around 

it. 

I just have one final question. I know I have gone over my time. 

I have had the experience frequently where I have people tell me 

their name and I know it is not their name. ‘‘Hi, it is Rose.’’ ‘‘You 

don’t sound like you are a Rose.’’ So I think we are seeing instances 

in the marketplace where the pendulum is swinging in the opposite 

direction where there are actually subtle attempts to make it appear as if someone is calling you from next door when they probably aren’t. 

Mr. Whitfield, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. No, sir. 

Mr. WEINER. Do I have any further business I need to do? 

I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the written response of the Department of Treasury on H.R. 3232. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

121 


62207.090
122 


62207.091
123 


62207.092
124 

Mr. RUSH. All witnesses should be advised that they may receive 

written follow-up questions from the committee. 

Without objection, with the gratitude of the committee, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS 

I would first to like pause and remember the men and women killed on September 

11, 2001. On this the seventh anniversary of their sacrifice, I think it’s important 

to remember the lives lost on that horrible day. 

Since 9/11, our country has acted to protect our nation from any - and all - future 

acts of terrorism. These actions were necessary to protect this country which we all 

love. 

While we aggressively fight terrorism, the proponents of the bills before us seem 

to believe that our actions in this fight are a sign the United States is not still welcoming to foreigners to legally visit or do business. 

I disagree that one of the fundamental aspects of our country - its openness - has 

been changed as a result of our Fight against Terror. Our borders are always welcome to those who want to come here to visit our marvelous monuments and historic landmarks, study at the greatest universities and colleges in the world, and 

enjoy all the benefits that our country is uniquely privileged to have. 

Sadly, the numbers from the Travel Industry Association show that the number 

of foreign visitors has decreased since September 11. And it appears that the decline 

has had a real economic effect. According to the TIA, the decrease in tourism has 

resulted in a $140 billion decline in the economy and a loss of approximately 

230,000 jobs. 

And it’s not just foreign travel which has been deterred. American citizens also 

don’t want to deal with the hassle of traveling and since 9/11 this has cost our economy $25 billion dollars. As someone that flies to and from my home district to 

Washington each week, I can’t say I don’t blame them. 

I believe that H.R. 3232 has two features that the American taxypayer will appreciate in an attempt to spur more American tourism: zero cost to them and accountability from a non-partisan, non-political board. A fund will be set up where the private travel industry will contribute up to $100 million dollars, and a 14 member 

non-partisan, non-political board (comprised of one member of various industry sectors) will keep the spending of this money accountable. 

I’ve cosponsored this bill. I look forward to this moving through our committee 

While I’m not a cosponsor of H.R. 1776, I can see that this bill might have some 

merits. More disclosure for customers about who they are speaking with over the 

phone when it might relate to a private banking matter, a health issue, or any other 

everyday reason we use a call center is probably a good thing. 

I look forward to hearing from the panelists today. Thank you. 

125 


62207.093
126 


62207.094
127 


62207.095
128 


62207.096
129 


62207.097
130 


62207.098
131 


62207.099
132 


62207.100
133 


62207.101
134 


62207.102
135 


62207.103
136 


62207.104
137 


62207.105
138 


62207.106
139 


62207.107
140 


62207.108
141 


62207.109
142 


62207.110
143 


62207.111
144 


62207.112
145 


62207.113
146 


62207.114
147 


62207.115
148 


62207.116
149 


62207.117
150 


62207.118
151 


62207.119
152 


62207.120
153 


62207.121
154 


62207.122
155 


62207.123
156 


62207.124
157 


62207.125
158 


62207.126
159 


62207.127
160 


62207.128
161 


62207.129
162 


62207.130
163 


62207.131
164 


62207.132
165 


62207.133
166 


62207.134
167 

GEOFFREY FREEMAN, ANSWERS TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

1. Were previous government tourism advertising campaigns effective? 

Please explain why or why not. 

The United States government has not conducted a sustained, nationally coordinated promotion campaign. In 2005 and 2006, however, the Department of Commerce operated a pilot campaign to promote the United States as an international 

travel destination. Longwoods International, an economic consulting firm based in 

Toronto, Canada retained by the U.S. government, estimated that each dollar spent 

on travel promotion in the United Kingdom (UK) by the Commerce Department’s 

campaign returned $117 in increased travel spending in United States. 

Many countries around the world, and several U.S. states, operate effective travel 

promotion campaigns. 

Longwoods International has estimated that state travel promotion campaigns in 

Colorado and Michigan offer a 50-to-one return on investment (ROI) in terms of increased travel spending and a ROI of nearly three-to-one in terms of increased state 

tax revenue. 

The State of Florida estimates that its state travel promotion campaign returns 

three dollars in increased sales tax revenue for every dollar spent on promotion. 

The Australian government credits its national travel promotion campaign with 

greatly increasing Australia’s share of the international travel market. Australia estimates that, in 2006, its marketing program in the United States had an ROI of 

64-to-one in terms of increased spending by U.S. tourists and six-to-one in terms of 

increased tax revenue to the Australian federal government. 

Oxford Economics, an international economic consulting firm, estimates that the 

City of Philadelphia’s travel promotion campaign directed toward Western European 

travelers has an ROI of 44-to-one in terms of increased travel spending and threeto-one in terms of increased city sales and hotel tax revenue. 

Oxford Economics estimates that a moderately effective U.S. travel promotion program would have a 35:1 return on spending and a 6:1 return on tax revenues. 

2. Does advertising directly affect the level of international arrivals in 

the United States? Are there any studies or data to support this conclusion? (The Subcommittee is aware of the 2007 study published by Oxford 

Economics. Did the Travel Industry Association commission this study?) 

In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on March 20, 2007, Jamie 

Estrada, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing at the Department of Commerce discussed the positive outcome temporary marketing campaigns in the United 

Kingdom (UK) and Japan had on the U.S.’s ability to attract more international 

visitors. Mr. Estrada used economic data to show that the UK campaign returned 

$117 in spending on travel to and within the U.S. for every $1 spent on advertising. 

Mr. Estrada noted for the Committee that, ′′the promotion campaigns in the United 

Kingdom and Japan demonstrate that marketing the United States as a travel destination can be effective.′′ 

The 2007 study by Oxford Economics and Governor Tom Ridge which shows that 

a modestly funded nationally coordinated travel promotion campaign, combined with 

visa and entry reforms enacted last year by Congress, would attract 1.6 million new 

visitors per year, yielding $8 billion per year in new visitor spending and $850 million per year in new federal tax revenues was commissioned by the Discover America Partnership, which included TIA and dozens of other organizations. 

An earlier Oxford Economics study, commissioned by the UK government, concluded that the UK’s overseas travel promotion campaign yields a ROI of 47-to-one 

in terms of increased travel spending and six-to-one in terms of increased national 

tax revenue. 

Every U.S. state spends millions of dollars to attract domestic and international 

travelers. Every one of those states can testify that this spending leads to an increase in visitors. 

•

3. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, there are 

five main criticisms of having the Federal government involved in tourism, 

including: 

•Private industry can pay for it on its own; 

•The U.S. is already a top international tourism destination; 

• Advertising tourism will do little to reduce the U.S. trade deficit; 

• Visits to the U.S. have been climbing for years; and 

168 

•Little evidence exists that advertising affects tourists’ destination preferences, 

which are instead motivated by macro-variables, such as exchange rates. 

How do you respond to these criticisms? 

•The greatest deterrents to visiting the United States today are misperceptions 

of the American entry experience and a lack of information on American security 

policies. Therefore, a credible and effective promotion campaign must be devised in 

partnership with the U.S. government. That’s why the public-private partnership, 

embodied in H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion Act, makes perfect sense. The bill requires the private sector to fund 50 percent of a travel promotion program, but the 

government must be a partner to (a) enable the entity to effectively communicate 

ever-changing U.S. security and entry policies, and (b) speak overseas as ′′the USA′′ 

rather than a hodge-podge of private companies and individual destinations. Travel 

promotion is less of an issue of ′′who pays,′′ and more an issue of ′′who speaks.′′ •The position of the United States as a top international tourism destination has 

slipped steadily since 9/11. In 2000, the U.S. market share of the worldwide international arrivals stood at 7.5 percent; by 2007 that share had dropped to 6.3 percent. Where as the U.S. for many years ranked as the world’s third most visited 

destination, the most recent data show that America has fallen to 4th place among 

the world’s most visited destinations (behind China). Finally, in 2007 the U.S. welcomed two million fewer overseas visitors than it did in 2000 - despite an extraordinarily weak dollar. • International travel is a significant export in our economy. As America’s largest 

service export, travel and tourism plays a key role in the U.S. economy including 

helping to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. In 1996, international travel provided the 

United States with a $26 billion positive trade balance. The positive balance of trade 

fell to $18 billion in 2007. The Return on Investment (ROI) data for travel promotion campaigns in Australia and Great Britain cited in the answers to earlier 

questions clearly demonstrate that national travel promotion campaigns are effective. Based on those data, it is clear that a nationally coordinated U.S. travel promotion campaign would result in annual export growth for international travel to 

the U.S. and a reduction in America’s trade deficit. •The United States welcomed 57 million international visitors in 2007 - a 10 percent increase over 2006. Yet, ′′Long-haul′′ or ′′overseas′′ travel trends (which, by definition, exclude Canada and Mexico) reveal a significant and growing problem; the 

growth in U.S. overseas arrivals in the last several years is lower than the growth 

in global overseas travel. Here are the numbers: In 2000, the United States welcomed 51 million international visitors: 25 million from North America and 26 million from overseas. By 2007, the United States welcomed 57 million visitors, but the 

breakdown had shifted dramatically: 33 million from North America and only 24 

million from overseas. Making matters worse, there are 35 million more people 

around the world traveling long-haul today than in 2000. Not only did the United 

States fail to capture any of these new travelers, we lost two-million long-haul visitors. The United States, through passivity and inaction, has ceded a critical market 

to the rest of the world. 

•The ROI data cited in the answer to question 2 clearly demonstrate that nationally coordinated travel promotion campaigns are effective. Macro variables affect 

travel patterns, but the data show that travel promotion consistently has a very 

large positive impact on attracting additional travelers. 

4. H.R. 3232’s findings note that the recent tightening of entry requirements to the United States has reduced the growth rate of international 

visits. If this is the case, why not focus our initial tourism promotion efforts on reform of entry requirements and procedures instead of chartering 

a non-profit advertising campaign? 

In 2007, the Discover American Partnership issued a three-point plan to strengthen America’s security and fix our country’s travel crisis titled A Blueprint to Discover America. The report calls on the U.S. government to: 

1.Create a 21st century visa system; 

2.Modernize and secure our ports of entry; and 

3.Change global perceptions of America through coordinated communications. 

Over the past year and a half, the travel community has worked with Congress 

and the Administration to meet these three objectives. Significant improvements in 

the visa process and various entry procedures have been achieved. Some of these 

improvements include: 

• Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): New countries will be added to 

the VWP pending compliance with new security requirements. Expansion of the 

VWP improves the entry process for millions of legitimate foreign travelers. 

• Increased Staffing at International Airports: Two hundred more Customs and 

Border Protection officers will be hired at America’s top 20 international airports, 

169 

thereby alleviating some of the staffing constraints at the nation’s busiest ports of 

entry. • Authorization of the Model Ports of Entry Program: America’s top 20 international airports have been designated as ′′model ports of entry,′′ which means they 

will receive funds to increase staffing, develop better queuing procedures and improve customer service. Congress appropriated $40 million in FY 2008 for the model 

ports program. • International Registered Traveler Program: Global Entry, an international registered traveler program was launched in 2008 as a pilot in seven U.S. airports to 

ease the flow of pre-screened frequent international visitors who pose a low security 

risk to the U.S. 

The travel community has worked with Congress and the Administration to accomplish these first steps and will continue to press the federal government to build 

the most secure and efficient travel process. However, the U.S. government has no 

coordinated means for communicating these changes to overseas travelers nor is the 

U.S. promoting itself as a travel destination. Welcoming more visitors from around 

the world does require improving the visa system and the entry experience, but 

doing so is of marginal benefit if the government does not tell the rest of the world 

about these improvements. 

5. How does H.R. 3232 guarantee that all parts of the United States will 

benefit from increased tourism, not just popular destinations like Washington, D.C., and New York City? Put another way, advertisements must 

target a particular location. How does H.R. 3232 ensure that places like 

Williamston, N.C., and Milledgeville, Georgia, are mentioned in tourism 

promotion advertisements by the Corporation for Travel Promotion? 

The role of the Corporation for Travel Promotion is to more effectively communicate U.S. travel policies to prospective international travelers. As it relates to 

travel promotion specifically, the goal is to promote international travel to the 

United States as a whole. It is not the purpose of this program to promote any specific destination. Any scenes of America shown in such promotions will feature rural 

and urban America and will be geographically balanced in order to highlight all regions of the country. The places in America that stand to benefit the most from a 

national-level communications and promotion campaign are those that can least afford to do promotion on their own - smaller and more rural destinations. 

6. Section 5(b) of H.R. 3232 establishes a travel promotion fund to partially fund the Corporation for Travel Promotion. This section caps annual 

transfers from the fund at $100 million. Why was this level chosen? Why 

not, for example, a level of $50 million? 

Brand Architecture, one of the foremost travel promotion consulting firms in the 

world, built a strategic travel promotion spending plan for the United States. The 

purpose of this plan was to determine what the United States would need to spend 

per traveler to compete in top global markets for international visitors. Brand analyzed foreign competitors’ marketing programs as part of its research and ultimately 

concluded that for the United States to run the most effective travel promotion program it would need to spend between $150 million to upwards of $200 million per 

year. Since the Corporation will need to devise a travel promotion campaign that 

will recoup significant losses in overseas travel plus communicate new and changing 

security programs, it is appropriate for H.R. 3232 to cap the growth of the program 

at the maximum recommended amount. For charts detailing Brand’s spending plan 

see Appendix A and B. 

H.R. 3232’s structure enables the funds for the travel promotion program to grow 

to $200 million. As noted, $100 million of the total will come from transfers from 

the Travel Promotion Fund collected through the Treasury. However, no funds collected by the Treasury will be transferred until the private sector first invests monies in the fund. Therefore, reaching the $100 million cap in funds from the Treasury 

will depend largely on the private sector’s ability to raise $100 million in matching 

funds. We believe the $100 million cap in Treasury funds provides accountability 

to the program by limiting its size to one that will provide the most benefits to the 

U.S economy. Decreasing the $100 million cap to $50 million would inhibit the Corporation’s ability to meet the funding recommendations of leading marketing experts for a competitive and effective travel promotion program; ultimately, hurting 

the goal of giving the U.S. a competitive advantage in the global travel market. 

7. Section 5(c) requires the Corporation for Travel Promotion to contribute matching funds annually to those transferred to it from the travel 

promotion fund established in section 5(b) of the bill. Furthermore, section 

5(c) (2) permits the Corporation to make up to 80 percent of its matching 

contributions in the form of goods and services, whose fair-market value 

the Corporation would determine. I am concerned that this would be incenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:31 Jan 07, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-146 CHRIS
170 

tive for the Corporation to overvalue its in-kind contributions in order to 

contribute less in overall matching funds. What is your opinion of lowering 

the 80 percent level of in-kind contributions (to perhaps 20 percent) and 

directing a Federal agency (e.g., the Department of the Treasury) to determine the value of those contributions instead of the Corporation? 

As the private sector component of the Corporation for Travel Promotion is funded 

entirely on voluntary contributions, it is important to provide contributors with a 

variety of ways to support promotion activities. Examples of extremely valuable inkind contributions include: 

•Television, radio and/or print advertising time/space; 

• Material and/or advertising production; 

•Travel costs for journalists on ′′familiarization′′ trips; and 

•Provision of paid consultants or staff to offer counsel to the Corporation. 

Permitting significant in-kind contributions (80%) increases the likelihood of a 

successful travel promotion program by: 

• Enabling broader (beyond the travel industry) and deeper private sector support; 

•Lessening the Corporation’s dependency on budget cycles or strong economic 

times in order to access cash contributions; and 

• Unlocking greater matching funds thereby enhancing the depth and breadth of 

America’s travel promotion efforts. 

In order to provide a fair mechanism for determining the value of in-kind contributions, the Board of Directors of the Corporation could be required to provide 

the Secretary of Commerce with market value determination procedures that (a) define market value, and (b) provide an independent mechanism of valuing all donated 

goods and services. 

8. H.R. 3232 institutes a new fee for foreign travelers who use the Electronic System of Travel Authorization (ESTA), a federally administered 

program. Such a fee would arguably constitute Federal revenue and therefore be property of the American taxpayer. This being the case, do you believe that using these fees to fund the Corporation is an outlay of Federal 

revenue and therefore a cost to the American taxpayer? 

The fees transferred to the Corporation from the ESTA program should not be 

considered a cost to the American taxpayer. It is current practice for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State to use fees collected 

from foreign nationals to pay for various security and immigration programs. The 

fee collections protect the U.S. taxpayer from paying for programs primarily utilized 

by foreign nationals. Instead of counting on DHS to seek appropriated funds from 

Congress to run ESTA, Congress afforded DHS the fee authority it needs to run the 

program using funds collected from foreign nationals. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has indicated in its ESTA rule that it will implement an ESTA fee 

in the future, if it is necessary to operate the program. Considering that DHS did 

not request any newly appropriated funds from Congress to run the program in 

2009, the year the program is being launched, it is likely that a fee will be necessary. H.R. 3232 would collect a nominal $10 fee above the fee DHS decides to collect from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travelers to run the ESTA program. Aside 

from being the primary users of ESTA, VWP travelers will also be beneficiaries of 

the travel promotion campaign because they will learn about ESTA and other U.S. 

entry policies through the campaign. 

Furthermore, the long-term viability of both ESTA and the travel promotion program is improved by using a fee mechanism that will be easy to project from year 

to year instead of relying on the appropriations process which can be unpredictable. 

A fee mechanism provides Congress with the opportunity to support the security of 

the VWP and increase travel and tourism without having to increase taxes on the 

American public to pay for the programs. 

Finally, a fee-based system rather than an appropriation ensures that Congress’s 

desire for a travel promotion program is protected against bureaucratic maneuvering or Administration lethargy. In 2003, Congress appropriated $50 million to 

the Department of Commerce for a modest travel promotion program. Due to Commerce’s inability to spend the money, more than $40 million was rescinded and 

Congress’s desire for a travel promotion program was not met. 

9. Section 5(b)(2) of H.R. 3232 permits the Secretary of the Treasury to 

transfer monies from the travel promotion fund to the Corporation for 

Travel Promotion at least quarterly. As these funds would come in the form 

of fees required of foreign travelers by a federally administered program, 

namely the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), should 

these transfers be subject to the annual Congressional appropriations process? Please explain your opinion. 

171 

The fees transferred to the Corporation should not be subject to the annual Congressional appropriations process. Please see the answer to question 8. 

10. Section 7 of H.R. 3232 permits the Corporation for Travel Promotion 

to invest funds it has received. Some of these funds would come in the form 

of transfers from the travel promotion fund, which would be funded by fees 

assessed to foreign visitors who use the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. It is likely that the Corporation would be able earn extra income from these investments and thereby have control of more funds than 

would otherwise have been transferred to it by the Treasury. It is also possible that the Corporation could lose money in its investment - money, it 

should be reiterated, that partially comes from the Treasury. This being 

the case, why should the Corporation be permitted to invest funds it has 

received from the Federal government? Second, would this authority to invest circumvent control that the Treasury might have over the Corporation’s budget? Please explain your opinion. 

TIA interprets Section 7 of H.R. 3232 to be an accountability measure used to ensure that the Corporation will only invest funds it has in-hand in obligations of the 

United States. We do not have a position on whether or not the entity should be 

permitted to invest funds. 

11. Section 5 of H.R. 3232 permits the Corporation for Travel Promotion 

to borrow up to $10 million from the Treasury in order to establish itself. 

This loan would be subject to an interest rate meant only to help the Treasury recoup losses on the loan due to the effects of inflation. Instead of this 

rate, do you believe that the prevailing rate of interest should be charged 

to the Corporation, as with any other loan, so that the Treasury can earn 

money on its investment? Please explain your opinion. 

TIA supports the language included in Section 5 of H.R. 3232 which guarantees 

that the reimbursement of the $10 million loan include interest at a rate determined 

by the Treasury to ensure that there is no loss of real purchasing power to the 

Treasury. While we do not have a position on whether that rate of interest should 

change, we believe the current structure will allow Treasury to receive a significant 

return on investment on these funds. As mentioned in a previous question, Oxford 

Economics estimates that a moderately effective U.S. travel promotion program 

would have a 35:1 return on spending and a 6:1 return on tax revenues. 

12. Building on the last question, section 5 of H.R. 3232 also stipulates 

that the initial loan from the Treasury to the Corporation for Travel Promotion must be repaid within five years. Section 5 contemplates no penalty 

for non-repayment of the loan. What happens if the Corporation fails to 

repay this loan in time or worse, defaults? Do you believe that a penalty 

should be included in section 5 as a consequence of failure to repay the 

loan in time or defaulting on the loan? 

TIA would support inclusion of legislative language in Section 5 that would improve the accountability for the repayment of the $10 million Treasury loan either 

through a formalized repayment system or a penalty for failure to repay the loan. 

13. Data from the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration show that international arrivals in the United States have steadily increased since 2007. An entry fee, such as the one proposed by H.R. 

3232, may serve as a further disincentive for visitors to come to the United 

States, thus possibly reversing this trend. Do you think this is accurate? 

Please explain your opinion and provide supporting evidence. 

While total overseas travel to the United States has steadily increased since 2007, 

′′overseas′′ travel which excludes Mexico and Canada is actually down 8 percent 

from 2000. This is an important distinction because overseas visitors spend an average of $4,000 per trip while, the average Canadian and Mexican visitor spends an 

average of $1,200 per trip. As America’s economy slows, overseas visitors are a 

greater stimulant - driving spending, creating jobs and producing billions of tax dollars for localities, states and the federal government. Furthermore, before 9/11, the 

United States traditionally welcomed more overseas visitors than North American 

visitors. 

Clearly, the travel community would not endorse a fee on international travelers 

if it thought it would lead to a decline in travel. To the contrary, experience and 

research demonstrate that a fee-funded program will have a significant return on 

investment. A 2007 study by Oxford Economics shows that a modestly funded nationally coordinated travel promotion campaign, combined with visa and entry reforms enacted last year by Congress, would attract 1.6 million new visitors per year, 

yielding $8 billion per year in new visitor spending and $850 million per year in 

new federal tax revenues. 

172 

Furthermore, the travelers from visa waiver countries who would pay the fee are 

avoiding the expense ($131) and the enormous inconvenience associated with obtaining a visa. A nominal $10 fee on travelers who, on average, spend $4,000 per person 

to visit the United States is a reasonable and affordable convenience charge. Lastly, 

other countries with fees and travel promotion campaigns have continued to see an 

increase in international arrivals. Please see the chart below: 

173 


62207.135
174 

14. Do you think that the duties assigned by H.R. 3232 to the Corporation 

for Travel Promotion, such as spreading information abroad about U.S. 

entry requirements and generally promoting tourism, could be performed 

by already-existing U.S. agencies? If not, please explain why. 

The Travel Promotion Act blends the best of both worlds - public sector policy expertise and accountability with private sector marketing expertise and execution. 

While individual government agencies are doing what they can with their existing 

budgets to develop communication plans about new and changing security policies, 

and to increase travel, the reality is that most do not have the necessary dedicated 

resources and expertise to communicate security changes for each new and evolving 

program or to counter the misperceptions about the entry process that confuse and 

discourage travelers. H.R. 3232 creates a mechanism to dedicate significant resources (without increasing U.S. taxes) for a well-funded, nationally coordinated 

travel promotion program. This public-private partnership model has garnered 

strong bipartisan support from Congress because it seeks to utilize both the government and the private sector. 

15. The Corporation for Travel Promotion’s board would be made up of 

representatives from the tourism and travel industry. One of the main duties of the Corporation would be to spread information about U.S. entry 

policies abroad. Should the Corporation’s board be expanded to include 

someone competent in immigration issues, for example a representative 

from the American Immigration Lawyers Association? 

The goal of the Corporation for Travel Promotion is to share information with 

short-term, non-immigrant visitors traveling to the United States for business, 

pleasure and other temporary purposes. TIA encourages experts from the Departments of Homeland Security and State to provide counsel and guidance to the Board 

in the areas of visa and immigration policy. While we believe the current structure 

will include individuals competent in these areas, TIA is not opposed to the inclusion of an individual whose primary expertise is immigration. 

16. Because the Corporation for Travel Promotion would deal with issues 

that touch upon the jurisdiction of several Federal agencies, including the 

Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, State, and Treasury, do you 

believe that those agencies also should have oversight authority over the 

Corporation? 

Yes, and these agencies and others that either have jurisdiction over travel entities or provide programs or services relating to international travel are members of 

the Tourism Policy Council. This Council will consult on a regular basis with the 

Corporation for Travel Promotion in order to provide timely information and expertise to better inform the communications and promotion activities of the Corporation. 

17. H.R. 3232 would update the membership of the Tourism Policy Council (TPC), an interagency body that seeks to ensure that U.S. policies and 

programs facilitate and enhance travel to the United States. Do you believe 

that including the Corporation in the TPC would give a private sector organization a unique and inappropriate position among government agencies responsible for the development of public policy? 

The Tourism Policy Council (TPC) was created well before the events of September 11, 2001, and its mission and work should appropriately evolve to meet the 

new challenge of balancing border security with international travel facilitation. By 

including the Corporation in the TPC, it affords the Corporation the opportunity to 

exchange information with all the appropriate federal agencies in order to ensure 

the success of the communications and promotion programs - and vice versa. H.R. 

3232 simply formalizes a long tradition of the TPC to seek counsel from outside experts and dialogue with the travel community. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ED WHITFIELD

1. The Corporation receives a $10 million loan from the Treasury for initial startup costs. How will the Corporation generate funds to repay the 

loan? Will the Corporation have revenues? 

The Corporation staff will lead an effort to raise money from the private sector, 

and entities such as the Travel Industry Association and other private sector partners will play an active role in supporting such efforts. Funds raised will be used 

to match dollars generated by the ESTA-related fee, but the federal government is 

not obligated to contribute any money unless the private sector first produces funds 

to be matched. 

175 

2. The budget of the corporation could reach $200 million by the third 

year. How will money be used? What are the preliminary cost estimates for 

services necessary to fulfill the goals of the corporation? 

The activities of the corporation will be governed by the board of directors established by the Act. A survey of other large-scale national travel promotion campaigns 

conducted by the consulting firm Brand Architecture International suggests those 

programs spend 40-50 percent of their budget on advertising, 2-4 percent on market 

research, 10-15 percent on providing practical travel information, including information on security and entry policies, 2-3 percent on providing information via the 

Internet, 15 percent on fairs, trade shows and workshops, and the balance on miscellaneous other activities. 

The government of Australia, with a population one-fifteenth of that of the United 

States, spends more than $100 million (U.S. dollars) per year on overseas travel promotion. The Australian travel promotion effort is a successful one and serves as a 

good benchmark for a minimum level of effort on the part of the United States. 

3. What portion of the Corporation’s budget will be required to pay salaries and expenses? 

The Board of the Corporation will be responsible for hiring staff and setting salaries. Accountability measures in the bill require the Corporation to submit a report 

with a comprehensive and detailed inventory of amounts obligated or expended by 

the Corporation during the preceding fiscal year to the Commerce Secretary and 

Congress. Furthermore, the Corporation must also submit a copy of its forthcoming 

budget to the Commerce Secretary together with an explanation of any expenditure 

provided for by the budget in excess of $5,000,000 for the fiscal year. Finally, the 

Corporation shall make its budget information available to the public and shall provide public access to the budget and explanation on the Corporation’s website. 

4. What mechanisms are there to ensure the private sector fulfills its 

matching funds requirement? 

Section 5 of H.R. 3232 requires that no funds be made available for travel promotion until non-Federal sources have provided an amount in the aggregate equal 

to 50 percent or more of the funds made available from Federal Sources. In subsequent fiscal years, non-Federal sources must provide an amount equal to 100 percent of the amount made available from Federal sources. 

The private sector will be motivated to contribute matching funds by their desire 

to see a nationally coordinated promotion campaign succeed, the leverage they will 

achieve by participating in the campaign and the ROI they will receive (in the aggregate) for their contributions. 

The benefits of increased international travel to the United States are too great 

for the private sector to ignore. 

5. Under the legislation, the corporation can use up to 80% of in-kind 

goods and services from industry for its required matching funds. What 

type of goods and service do you anticipate will be provided that could 

total $80 million dollars per year? 

As the private sector component of the Corporation for Travel Promotion is funded 

entirely on voluntary contributions, it is important to provide contributors with a 

variety of ways to support promotion activities. Examples of extremely valuable inkind contributions include: 

•Television, radio and/or print advertising time/space; 

• Material and/or advertising production; 

•Travel costs for journalists on ′′familiarization′′ trips; and 

•Provision of paid consultants or staff to offer counsel to the Corporation. 

Permitting significant in-kind contributions (80%) increases the likelihood of a 

successful travel promotion program by: 

• Enabling broader (beyond the travel industry) and deeper private sector support; 

•Lessening the Corporation’s dependency on budget cycles or strong economic 

times in order to access cash contributions; and 

• Unlocking greater matching funds thereby enhancing the depth and breadth of 

America’s travel promotion efforts. 

In order to provide a fair mechanism for determining the value of in-kind contributions, the Board of Directors of the Corporation could be required to provide 

the Secretary of Commerce with market value determination procedures that (a) define market value, and (b) provide an independent mechanism of valuing all donated 

goods and services. 

6. How will the corporation ensure that its matching fund obligation is 

honored fairly among all the interested parties? 

176 

All contributions to the Corporation for Travel Promotion are completely voluntary. There is no obligation to contribute or ensure that contributions are ′′fairly′′ 

distributed among entities. 

7. Is there a penalty for private sector entities that fail to contribute to 

the annual private sector matching fund? 

The funds raised by the private sector for purposes of financing the Corporation 

for Travel Promotion are purely voluntary in nature; it would not be appropriate 

or legal for there to be penalties assessed on specific travel organizations that does 

not contribute. Knowing that if the U.S. had kept pace with global overseas travel 

since 2001, it would have had an additional 46 million visitors, $140 billion in visitor spending, $23 billion in tax receipt is proper incentive for the private sector to 

contribute to the travel promotion program. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. CLIFF STEARNS

1.In your opinion, to what extent, if any, will the initiation of a fee (tax) 

on foreign travelers from Visa Waiver Program countries have on the Corporation’s attempt to improve America’s image abroad? Do you anticipate 

a negative reaction? 

The best mechanism the United States has for improving its image in the world 

is by increasing the number of international visitors to our country. A study by the 

Discover America Partnership revealed that those who have visited the United 

States are 74% more likely to have a favorable opinion of the country. A travel promotion program is imperative to welcoming more visitors to the country. 

Clearly, the travel community would not endorse a fee on international travelers 

if it thought it would lead to a decline in travel. To the contrary, experience and 

research demonstrate that a fee-funded program will have a significant return on 

investment. A 2007 study by Oxford Economics shows that a modestly funded nationally coordinated travel promotion campaign, combined with visa and entry reforms enacted last year by Congress, would attract 1.6 million new visitors per year, 

yielding $8 billion per year in new visitor spending and $850 million per year in 

new federal tax revenues. 

Furthermore, the travelers from visa waiver countries who would pay the fee are 

avoiding the expense ($131) and the enormous inconvenience associated with obtaining a visa. A nominal $10 fee on travelers who, on average, spend $4,000 per person 

to visit the United States is a reasonable and affordable convenience charge. Lastly, 

other countries with fees and travel promotion campaigns have continued to see an 

increase in international arrivals. Please see the chart below: 

177 


62207.135
178 

PATRICK LONG, RESPONSES TO QUESTION FROM HON. BOBBY L. 

RUSH

This current discussion of federal tourism policy and the appropriate role of the 

federal government specific to tourism, as well as the questions below, in my mind 

fall into the categories of function, structure, and funding. In absence of a federal 

office that would provide oversight of all federal tourism functions and coordinate 

all federal programs that support tourism and which could be the public partner in 

any comprehensive public-private partnership, the debate centers around if and how 

best, to craft a private-sector promotional program, how to fund it, and how to position it for oversight within the Federal system.. 

With any proposed promotional program such as the one being considered there 

will be differences of opinion and hopefully, healthy debate. It appears in this case 

that such is happening although already substantial support has been shown for 

this legislation with 236 members of Congress signing on as co-sponsors. H.R. 3232 

does not propose a federal tourism office; its scope is narrowed to a travel promotion 

component. But, sanction and oversight from the federal government is still necessary for this promotional effort in order to insure a funding mechanism sufficient 

to make the whole effort worthwhile as well as to ensure the integrity of its implementation. 

Tourism is clearly an important economic engine for the U.S.-at all levels of geopolitical jurisdictions. In most cases, state governments have found a mechanism to 

allow for the expenditure of public funds for the management and promotion of tourism; they typically do so within the framework of a designated state office. The 

questions you have posed below are important and thoughtful questions; hopefully 

they can be resolved within the available timeframe. 

1. Were previous government tourism advertising campaigns effective? 

Please explain why or why not. 

There have been a number of effective international advertising campaigns, particularly the ′′America! Catch the Spirit′′ effort in the mid 80’s under the then, 

USTTA. The existence of the international regional offices to support tourism provided additional support. States like Illinois and Florida and cities like Chicago and 

Las Vegas seem to find acceptable return on their advertising dollars. 

2. Does advertising directly affect the level of international arrivals in 

the United States? Are there any studies or data to support this conclusion? (The Subcommittee is aware of the 2007 study published by Oxford 

Economics. Did the Travel Industry Association commission this study?) 

I am not familiar with the Oxford Economics study but the most acceptable government sources for data on this matter seem to come from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis and the OTTI. It would be best to ask them to conduct a trend analysis 

on arrivals and match that with factors which have affected these arrivals. 

3. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, there are 

five main criticisms of having the Federal government involved in tourism, 

including: 

• Private industry can pay for it on its own; 

• The U.S. is already a top international tourism destination; 

• Advertising tourism will do little to reduce the U.S. trade deficit; 

• Visits to the U.S. have been climbing for years; and 

• Little evidence exists that advertising affects tourists’ destination preferences, which are instead motivated by macro-variables, such as exchange 

rates. 

How do you respond to these criticisms? 

I would question whether visits to the US have been climbing for years as available data indicates a steady decline from 2001 to last year. Arrivals to my knowledge have improved percentage-wise recently but that is calculated off a declining 

number. Many major US industries (e.g. agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, fishing, energy) receive some type of government support/investment and have some 

type of public-private partnership even though they do not have the positive balance 

of trade results that tourism can report. It is not quite clear why the hesitation by 

congress to support the tourism industry in some minimal fashion. Suggesting that 

the exchange rate is the only force that affects arrivals does not take into consideration that the tourism research literature seems to indicate an effective marketing 

(not simply advertising) program can make a difference. Canada and New Zealand 

both appear to have effective public-private funding models which should be analyzed in light of our country’s needs. 

179 

4. H.R. 3232’s findings note that the recent tightening of entry requirements to the United States has reduced the growth rate of international 

visits. If this is the case, why not focus our initial tourism promotion efforts on reform of entry requirements and procedures instead of chartering 

a non-profit advertising campaign? 

A multiple prong approach here would seem to make sense as with many situations. Making it efficient and easier to enter the US is an important step; in addition, regularly reminding potential travelers that we have an incredible array of 

products and services would seem to make for a nice combined effort. 

5. How does H.R. 3232 guarantee that all parts of the United States will 

benefit from increased tourism, not just popular destinations like Washington, D.C., and New York City? Put another way, advertisements must 

target a particular location. How does H.R. 3232 ensure that places like 

Williamston, N.C., and Milledgeville, Georgia, are mentioned in tourism 

promotion advertisements by the Corporation for Travel Promotion? 

There is no guarantee at this point and that should be a consideration in crafting 

this bill. Options might include a geographically-balanced regional distribution of 

the proposed corporation board or a balance of representation of small, medium and 

large tourism entities. It could be that national travel regions or themes be identified each year (rural, cultural, sports, family, etc.). I personally feel there needs to 

be representation of truly rural-based communities on this board, not simply recognized, although smaller, high end resort destinations. The reality is that if those 

who are the potential private sector large financial supporters do not feel represented on this proposed corporation board and thus not feel they have an active 

voice, it could be a deterrent to their full participation. 

6. Section 5(b) of H.R. 3232 establishes a travel promotion fund to partially fund the Corporation for Travel Promotion. This section caps annual 

transfers from the fund at $100 million. Why was this level chosen? Why 

not, for example, a level of $50 million? I am not aware why the $100 million figure was selected but suspect whoever 

chose that figure thought it was reasonable in light of the amounts being spent by 

our competitors, both close and distant. That amount is not unreasonable, particularly if the revenue projections from the visa waiver fee can support this level of 

funding. This figure can be adjusted at some later point depending upon emerging 

factors or new information; a sliding scale might even be considered which could be 

implemented over time. 

7. Section 5(c) requires the Corporation for Travel Promotion to contribute matching funds annually to those transferred to it from the travel 

promotion fund established in section 5(b) of the bill. Furthermore, section 

5(c)(2) permits the Corporation to make up to 80 percent of its matching 

contributions in the form of goods and services, whose fair-market value 

the Corporation would determine. I am concerned that this would be incentive for the Corporation to overvalue its in-kind contributions in order to 

contribute less in overall matching funds. What is your opinion of lowering 

the 80 percent level of in-kind contributions (to perhaps 20 percent) and 

directing a Federal agency (e.g., the Department of the Treasury) to determine the value of those contributions instead of the Corporation? 

To maintain integrity with taxpayers it probably is best to have a third-party determination or a designated government agency make this call. Such oversight also 

might deter a bit the criticism that any geographically dominant major tourism company or destination would only be thinking about its immediate region in determining its level of donation whether cash or in-kind. The industry would appear to 

be receptive to an adjustment of the balance of in-kind and cash contributions. 

8. H.R. 3232 institutes a new fee for foreign travelers who use the Electronic System of Travel Authorization, a federally administered program. 

Such a fee would arguably constitute Federal revenue and therefore be 

property of the American taxpayer. This being the case, do you believe that 

using these fees to fund the Corporation is an outlay of Federal revenue 

and therefore a cost to the American taxpayer? 

The argument can be made that this effort is funded by new dollars generated 

by non-US residents but if such revenue flows through a government agency that 

should be acknowledged and dealt with appropriately for the integrity of the process. If I am correct, all 50 states have publicly funded tourism marketing programs 

and these programs and the manner in which they are publicly funded, seem to be 

acceptable. One should be thoughtful how a financial audit would present this and 

how such would be interpreted. 

9. Section 5(b)(2) of H.R. 3232 permits the Secretary of the Treasury to 

transfer monies from the travel promotion fund to the Corporation for 

180 

Travel Promotion at least quarterly. As these funds would come from in the 

form of fees required of foreign travelers by a federally administered program, namely the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), 

should these transfers be subject to the annual Congressional appropriations process? Please explain your opinion. 

I am not familiar enough with the appropriations process in this case to respond 

to this question. The guide here should be maintaining full integrity of the process 

and full disclosure in whatever decision is made. There is too much at stake for this 

program to appear that it is not fully above board. 

10. Section 7 of H.R. 3232 permits the Corporation for Travel Promotion 

to invest funds it has received. Some of these funds would come in the form 

of transfers from the travel promotion fund, which would be funded by fees 

assessed to foreign visitors who use the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. It is likely that the Corporation would be able earn extra income from these investments and thereby have control of more funds than 

would otherwise have been transferred to it by the Treasury. It is also possible that the Corporation could lose money in its investment - money, it 

should be reiterated, that partially comes from the Treasury. This being 

the case, why should the Corporation be permitted to invest funds it has 

received from the Federal government? Second, would this authority to invest circumvent control that the Treasury might have over the Corporation’s budget? Please explain your opinion. 

I see the argument and concern here but not sure how to recommend this issue 

be best handled. The issues of investment, potential losses, oversight authority and 

penalties take a good deal more thought than current timing allows. I suppose one 

way to handle this would be to deduct any loses from investments from future yearly allocations. 

11. Section 5 of H.R. 3232 permits the Corporation for Travel Promotion to borrow up to $10 million from the Treasury in order to establish itself. 

This loan would be subject to an interest rate meant only to help the Treasury recoup losses on the loan due to the effects of inflation. Instead of this 

rate, do you believe that the prevailing rate of interest should be charged 

to the Corporation, as with any other loan, so that the Treasury can earn 

money on its investment? Please explain your opinion. 

Providing a preferential rate of interest makes it more difficult to justify this 

whole endeavor to the American public. If such a rate were provided it would be 

in the best interests of the Corporation Board to add to its charge educating the 

American public on how international tourist expenditures positively affect the 

countries revenue flow, taxes, business development, etc., both nationally and on a 

more local basis. 

12. Building on the last question, section 5 of H.R. 3232 also stipulates 

that the initial loan from the Treasury to the Corporation for Travel Promotion must be repaid within five years. Section 5 contemplates no penalty 

for non-repayment of the loan. What happens if the Corporation fails to 

repay this loan in time or worse, defaults? Do you believe that a penalty 

should be included in section 5 as a consequence of failure to repay the 

loan in time or defaulting on the loan? 

Not quite sure how a penalty would be collected should the situation arise if payment could not be made in the first place. The industry will have its reputation on 

the line here and I doubt would want the negative publicity that would go with a 

′′foreclosure′′ as it would affect any public-private partnership or support from government for many years to come. 

13. Data from the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration show that international arrivals in the United States have steadily increased since 2007. An entry fee, such as the one proposed by H.R. 

3232, may serve as a further disincentive for visitors to come to the United 

States, thus possibly reversing this trend. Do you think this is accurate? 

Please explain your opinion and provide supporting evidence. 

I do not feel that a fee of up to $10 would be a deterrent particularly when such 

fees are common in so many other countries we travel to. Regarding the increase 

in 2007 of international arrivals, after so many years of decline, one year ′′doth not 

a trend make′′. 

14. Do you think that the duties assigned by H.R. 3232 to the Corporation 

for Travel Promotion, such as spreading information abroad about U.S. 

entry requirements and generally promoting tourism could be performed 

by already-existing U.S. agencies? If not, please explain why. 

I suppose an agency such as the U.S. Foreign Commercial Services could do so 

to some degree where they are located. The reality is what agency would it be asVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:31 Jan 07, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-146 CHRIS
181 

signed to do this and how good a job would they do? What potentially could be lost 

is a concentrated, targeted, coordinated, sustained effort of promotion within the 

context of the travel experience by people trained and highly motivated to do so. 

The federal government does not have a great track record recently of providing 

such service and it can so easily become politicized. 

15. The Corporation for Travel Promotion’s board would be made up of 

representatives from the tourism and travel industry. One of the main duties of the Corporation would be to spread information about U.S. entry 

policies abroad. Should the Corporation’s board be expanded to include 

someone competent in immigration issues, for example a representative 

from the American Immigration Lawyers Association? 

I see no reason why not--the number of Corporation Board members should be 

dictated by reason and in a manner that ensures having the best representation to 

make this whole effort work. I would argue there needs to be representation from 

rural areas which typically attract immigrant workers for agriculture, landscaping 

and tourism, and badly need assistance in the planning, implementation and promotion of their tourism industry. 

16. Because the Corporation for Travel Promotion would deal with issues 

that touch upon the jurisdiction of several Federal agencies, including the 

Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, State, and Treasury, do you 

believe that those agencies also should have oversight authority over the 

Corporation? 

There may be legal reasons that I am not aware of that would dictate the reporting relationship. Additionally, the proposed legislation identifies a number of government departments which I suspect anticipate substantial involvement. That 

being said, it becomes increasingly complex the more departments this corporation 

would be required to report to. I would look to the most streamlined but acceptable 

reporting process that meets the needs of these various departments. I suspect there 

are models in other situations within the federal government from which to draw 

from to address this dilemma. 

17. H.R. 3232 would update the membership of the Tourism Policy Council (TPC), an interagency body that seeks to ensure that U.S. policies and 

programs facilitate and enhance travel to the United States. Do you believe 

that including the Corporation in the TPC would give a private sector organization a unique and inappropriate position among government agencies responsible for the development of public policy? 

On-going communication with the major federal agencies (TPC) is absolutely critical to success but likely could be accomplished by naming the Corporation to an 

ex-official member status. 

Æ