I found this article buried in the weekend news, and I’m unable to find much more on this obscure proposed bill.  Even though I doubt anything will come of it I still find interesting and somewhat bizarre.

Massachusett’s representative Ed Markey is proposing a bill to establish the “International Travelers Bill of Rights Act,” which would require travel companies to provide State Department warnings and related info on their websites. I assume this would include airline websites, in addition to big names like Orbitz and Expedia.

I am against it:

1. The state department already provides travel warnings, which are easily accessible to anyone. Those that book travel of any kind are adults, and thus capable of doing the necessary research on their destination. The government doesn’t need to hold their hand, or meddle into how companies handle a simple task like booking a hotel or flight beyond our borders.

2. Travel sites are already cluttered enough; littered with agreements to accept, ancillary promotions, and page after page of offers to accept or decline. This is in addition to the required process of making your reservation. I don’t want more pages to muddle through, simply to book a ticket from A to B.

3. This bill would make the U.S. appear even more of a nanny state paralyzed with fear. We’re supposed to be getting over that.

Reading the below bullet points it would seem HR 3099′s list of requirements are geared towards hotels and resorts, but that’s not specified.  Below are some general points, but they’re ambiguous and lack any sort of context.  I’m sure Costa Rica has a nurse or defibrillator SOMEWHERE in the country, but specifics aren’t found:

-State Department travel warnings and travel alerts
-Whether the destination employs a physician or a nurse
-Whether the destination has an automated external defibrillator and employs personnel trained in its use
-Whether the destination employs personnel trained in CPR
-Whether the destination employs a lifeguard, if there are swimming areas

Again, what is this referring too? Is Priceline required to know if EVERY hotel they partner with outside of the U.S. meets these factors?

If Markey is concerned about our U.S. citizens lacking the ability to research their destination in advance, then why not also include domestic information as well? Perhaps those traveling to Chicago from Boise should know about the recent uptick in crime. Why is it necessary to provide pages of “warnings” for Uruguay, but not Gary, Indiana?

Lastly, why does this only apply to the internet? Why shouldn’t a local company like “Dottie’s Travel Bee” be obligated to give the same info? Answer: It’s unenforceable, so why bother.

It’s unneeded, intrusive, and insulting to basic intelligence.

If Ed Markey or his crew reads this I would love further details. Perhaps he himself had a bad travel experience which is what brought this on. Fortunately I suspect we won’t be hearing much more of it.

From the Victora TX Advocate:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey has announced legislation intended to force Web sites that sell international travel to Americans to offer information about the health and safety conditions at their destinations.

Markey says the International Travelers Bill of Rights Act would keep Americans informed before they book a trip online.

The Democrat is a senior member of the House energy and commerce committee, which has jurisdiction over consumer protection. The required information would include State Department travel warnings and alerts, whether the destination employs a physician or a nurse and whether it has an automated external defibrillator and employs a person trained to use it.

Photo: Grace McCarthy/Webshots.

Related: Extreme Eating in the Nanny State
NYC to Ban iPods.

by James Van Dellen . Denver