[Senate Hearing 109-1134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1134
THE STATE OF THE U.S. TRAVEL
AND TOURISM INDUSTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE, TOURISM, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 22, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-404 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE, TOURISM, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota,
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona Ranking
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia Virginia
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BILL NELSON, Florida
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 22, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 1
Witnesses
Davidson, Todd, Executive Director, Oregon Tourism Commission;
Chairman, National Council of State Tourism Directors; Past-
Chair, Western States Tourism Policy Council................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Jacksta, Robert M., Executive Director, Traveler Security and
Facilitation, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security............. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Lavin, Hon. Franklin L., Under Secretary for International Trade,
U.S. Department of Commerce.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
LeDuc, James W., Ph.D., Coordinator for Influenza, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Nesbitt, Hon. Wanda L., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Pressler, Virginia ``Ginny'', M.D., MBA, FACS, Senior Vice
President, Strategic Business Development, Hawaii Pacific
Health......................................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Letter, dated June 16, 2006, to Dr. Virginia Pressler, M.D.,
Senior Vice President, Strategic Business Development,
Hawaii Pacific Health from Robert W. Schulz, M.D., Plastic
Surgeon, Straub Clinic & Hospital.......................... 56
Rasulo, Jay, Chairman, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts; Chairman,
Travel Industry Association; Chairman, U.S. Travel and Tourism
Advisory Board................................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Tisch, Jonathan M., Chairman, Travel Business Roundtable;
Chairman/CEO, Loews Hotels..................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Appendix
Bray, Charles W., President/CEO, International Association of
Amusement Parks and Attractions, prepared statement............ 59
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
Robert M. Jacksta............................................ 86
Hon. Franklin L. Lavin....................................... 64
James W. LeDuc, Ph.D......................................... 74
Hon. Wanda L. Nesbitt........................................ 69
Virginia ``Ginny'' Pressler, M.D., MBA, FACS................. 85
Jay Rasulo................................................... 79
Jonathan M. Tisch............................................ 87
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gordon H. Smith
to:
Todd Davidson................................................ 83
Hon. Franklin L. Lavin....................................... 63
Hon. Wanda L. Nesbitt........................................ 66
Jay Rasulo................................................... 77
Jonathan M. Tisch............................................ 81
THE STATE OF THE U.S. TRAVEL
AND TOURISM INDUSTRY
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic
Development,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H.
Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Dorgan and I
and the Co-Chairman, Senator Inouye, welcome you all here. We
call this hearing to order.
This is the Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic
Development. Today's hearing will examine the state of the U.S.
travel and tourism industry and potential barriers that may
affect America's competitiveness.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for rearranging their
schedules to appear before the Subcommittee. I especially want
to welcome Todd Davidson, from the Oregon Tourism Commission,
for taking the time to be here today. We thank you very much.
Travel and tourism has become one of the world's most
important sources of employment. It stimulates enormous
investment in infrastructure and provides governments with
substantial tax revenues. Most recent statistics show that
travel and tourism is one of the United States largest
employers, with 7.3 million jobs and a payroll of $163 billion.
Travel expenditures reached nearly $600 billion and generated
almost $100 billion in tax revenues for local, State, and
Federal Governments last year.
In my State of Oregon, travel and tourism is the number one
contributor to the gross state product and ranked among the top
three industries of Oregon, employing over 89,000 of my fellow
Oregonians.
Travel and tourism is firmly established as the number one
industry in many countries and the fastest growing economic
sector in terms of foreign exchange earnings and job creation.
In fact, many new tourism jobs and businesses are created in
small communities and often help those living in small
communities to be able to remain in those small communities.
But, despite its robust economic performance, tourism's
contribution to the prosperity of American life has not been
fully realized or taken advantage of as a powerful driver of
jobs, community development, small business growth, and
generator of export income. As the world is traveling in record
numbers, the United States has not taken full advantage of this
potential.
I'm concerned to hear that the U.S. has now fallen behind
France and Spain as only the third most popular travel
destination in the world, and may soon slip behind China. As we
focus on the development of a coordinated national travel and
tourism campaign, we must also review some of our burdens and
policies which may prevent international travel to the U.S. Our
international visitors need to know that America has secure
borders, but also open doors.
Again, we welcome you. And, Senator Dorgan, your comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
think this is a very important hearing to hold.
I really think it's time for us to rethink what we're doing
in this country with respect to travel and tourism. The tourism
industry is a very important industry. You described the jobs
and the contribution to the country's economy. But that
industry now labors under the shadow of 9/11, with all of the
resulting issues that have attended post-9/11 policies and
concerns here in this country.
I've spent a fair amount of time recently working on the
issue of cross-border travel with Canada. How difficult will we
make it for routine cross-border travel between the U.S. and
Canada? We have 70 million people that come south every year,
and the proposition of ``maybe they all ought to have a
passport'' was a proposition that I know will dramatically
reduce the cross-border travel for tourism and for commerce.
So, I mean, that's just one part of this. I've been working
with the State Department, the Commerce Department, and
Homeland Security, on those issues.
But I think, given what is happening in the world, given
the fact that we know America, at this point, is not very well
thought of in much of the world, there is concern about our
country and its policies, and some anger, and so on, I think we
should, at this point, consider what kind of--what kind of
impact a different kind of public policy might produce. We need
a public-sector/private-sector new partnership to promote
travel and tourism. You know, we appropriated, I think, $6
million to have some--a campaign to market the United States as
a travel destination. That's a tiny drop out of a small faucet.
And I think the opportunity, one, to entice foreign visitors to
come to this country as a destination, and, two, at the same
time to describe this country in very positive ways at a time
when we need that description across the world, I think, should
cause us to reevaluate what we have done in the past and what
we're doing now. There was a time when we had a department and
a full-blown campaign in the public-sector, saying, ``This is,
in significant ways, our responsibility, as well.'' I don't
think it is solely our responsibility, but I would like to see
us engage now in a new approach with the private sector in a
public-/private-sector partnership with an entirely new
campaign and a new approach and new resources. I know it's hard
to find those new resources, but one of the things that's very
important is what the rest of the world thinks of this country.
I can't think of a better way to address some of that than
through the right type of advertising, internationally, about
the United States, its advantages, its wonders, and its ability
to serve as a wonderful travel destination once again.
So, I'm really pleased you've called this hearing. You've
got some great witnesses. I have, down on the third floor, just
below us, an Energy hearing going on at exactly the same time,
so I won't hear all of the witnesses, but I'm anxious to work
with you and see if we can't develop a fresh approach and a new
direction with respect to these issues.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thanks, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Inouye?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. First, congratulations on scheduling this
hearing. And after listening to the profound remarks of my
colleague, Senator Dorgan, I'd just like to add this. I'd like
to welcome the witness from Hawaii--she's on the second panel--
Dr. Pressler. But the remarks of our colleague, I think, makes
good sense. The time has come for reappraisal.
And, with that, may I ask that my statement be made part of
the record?
Senator Smith. Without objection. It'll be included.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome our witnesses, and
in particular, Dr. Virginia Pressler of Hawaii, who will share with
this committee her unique perspective on tourism and healthcare.
Travel and tourism is an essential industry not only for my state
but also for the Nation. Travel and tourism is this country's second
largest services export industry and its third largest retail sales
industry, generating a $4 billion balance of trade surplus.
While the travel and tourism industry has shown resilience since
the terrorist attacks of September 11, America has become a less
desirable destination for international travelers. According to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, in 1992, the U.S. attracted 9.4 percent of
all international tourist arrivals from around the world. In 2004, the
U.S. attracted only 6 percent of total international arrivals.
Accordingly, our trade surplus related to tourism was $22.2 billion in
1992, but only $4 billion today.
The tourism industry provides a tremendous economic benefit to our
Nation, and like all industries, we must make necessary capital
investments to stay competitive. In fact, prior to 1997, the Federal
Government made capital investments in tourism through coordinated
advertising to international markets, and we held our own against the
world in attracting international visitors. However, the decline in
international visits began in 1997 when the U.S. stopped providing
funds for international advertising. The Federal Government reinstated
funding for international advertising in 2003, but we have a long way
to go to recover the lost market.
Another essential component is to ensure our borders are protected
for both Americans and visitors, but we must secure our borders in a
manner that still allows our international friends to feel welcome.
Many in the travel and tourism industry have expressed concerns with
the ongoing efforts of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of State to improve border security. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses about how to balance these important goals.
Senator Smith. So, we'll turn now to our first panel. We're
pleased to be joined by the Honorable Frank Lavin, Under
Secretary for International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. And Ambassador Wanda Nesbitt, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary, the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the
U.S. Department of State, welcome. And Mr. Robert Jacksta, who
is the Executive Director of the Traveler Security and
Facilitation, the Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. And Dr. James LeDuc, Influenza Coordinator,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, out of Atlanta,
Georgia.
Mr. Secretary, why don't we start with you?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANKLIN L. LAVIN,
UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Lavin. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and
Co-Chairman Inouye, I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak
on this topic. I'm very much in sympathy with the sentiment of
your remarks, opening up, and I want to thank you for your
leadership on this issue.
Let me offer some general comments on the industry.
I think, as a starting point, simply stated, our view is
that the travel and tourism industry in the United States is
strong, because the United States has the most innovative and
the most diverse travel and tourism industry in the world. We
have a range of experiences as varied as New York City to the
Alaskan wilderness to Disney World to Yellowstone to Waikiki to
our Nation's Capital, that no one can match. And, on top of
that, being a tourist destination second to none, we think we
have a support industry that is second to none with the
dedication to quality service, marketing, and entertainment.
And so, it is no surprise that the statistics show that the
number of international visitors to the United States is on
track to set a record-high number this year.
But, having said all that, the travel and tourism industry
in the United States also faces its share of challenges. As the
Senator alluded, the impact of 9/11, international pandemics
such as SARS, and even consolidation in the U.S. airline
industry have all contributed to the challenge the industry
faces. But I'll, if I can, elaborate on the statistics, then
talk a bit about the challenges.
This industry is a major contributor to our Nation's
economy. It represents some 2.6 percent of our GDP, generated
some $1 trillion in sales in 2005, and our figures show that
one out of every 16 Americans is employed by travel- and
tourism-related business, and 94 percent of those businesses
are classified as small businesses.
In 2005, the United States exported some $100 billion in
travel- and tourism-related goods and services to 49 million
international visitors. For perspective, total exports to
trading partners such as Germany and the United Kingdom were
$54 billion and $83 billion, respectively.
So, while the industry is strong and growing, in recent
years it has had to grapple with core challenges. Due to the
tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent impact
of SARS, the United States travel and tourism receipts and
international visitor arrivals declined sharply. We have a
chart which shows the receipts declined some 22 percent from
the peak of 2000 to the trough of 2003. So, this chart gives
you an indication of an industry, although fundamentally
strong, that has suffered in recent years from these events. In
fact, we could say few industries in the United States might
have felt the impact of that terrible day as much as this
particular industry.
Both the U.S. Government and the industry itself have
responded with a range of initiatives to protect our country
and to help the industry. The bottom line is this, nothing is
more important than the safety and security of Americans and
those who visit our Nation. We don't see an inherent conflict
between the goal of security and the goal of tourism
facilitation. And, indeed, an efficient system would underpin
both objectives. And I want to compliment my colleagues here at
the table who are looking at initiatives such as the Model
Airport Initiative and the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative, which we think meets both those objectives. It also
calls to mind the Visa Waiver Program, which stands out as a
mechanism that protects our country's security and helps
tourism. And it should be no surprise that 68 percent of our
visitors come from Visa Waiver Program countries. I think we
need to continue to search for ways to improve our visa process
so we do safely guard our borders, while providing responsive
service to legitimate travelers.
Looking ahead, we have several areas where we're trying to
focus our efforts. First, we are focused on facilitation of
Chinese group leisure travel to the United States. It is
currently part of our trade negotiations. The United States is
not an approved destination for Chinese tourists, and we're
working with Chinese officials to see if we can get that
changed and tap into the Chinese tourist market.
Second, in our view, two of the key drivers of tourism to
the United States are the Open Skies agreements and the Air
Traffic Liberalization agreements, and we continue to pursue
those in concert with the Department of Transportation.
Third, as the Senator alluded, we are conducting a Tourism
Promotion Program. We have had a 2-year run of advertisements
in the U.K., and we are launching in Japan. If the Committee is
interested, we have a tape of the advertisement, which we would
be happy to play at the conclusion of my remarks.
And, fourth, we are looking at how we best market to the
emergence of specialty tourism in areas, such as healthcare and
education, to take care of our very strong service industry and
those key sectors.
Finally, I would like to make a comment, if I may, on the
impact of Hurricane Katrina. We have had a special program in
the Gulf region to help promote tourism to that key market.
Airline traffic dropped to almost zero after Katrina. It has
now recovered about two-thirds. We've got another chart. We can
see the impact of Katrina. We've made a grant for tourism
promotion, just to help the people of the New Orleans region.
In conclusion, the industry in the United States is
rebounding from the shocks of 9/11. Since the last quarter of
2003, both arrivals and receipts have been on the rise. The
sector is on track to surpass the 2000 highwater mark, in 2006.
The U.S. industry is growing at twice the world rate in global
arrivals, and we want to create a positive climate by removing
business barriers at home and abroad, building bridges to new
markets, working with the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to
identify these impediments, and finding these public-private
solutions the Senator has alluded to. We are committed to
ensuring that the United States remains the finest travel and
tourism destination in the world.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lavin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Franklin L. Lavin, Under Secretary for
International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce
Chairman Smith, Chairman Stevens, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to update you on the status of the United
States travel and tourism industry. Thank you also for your leadership
in this important sector of our economy.
The travel and tourism industry in the United States is strong.
Simply stated, the United States has the most innovative and the most
diverse travel and tourism industry in the world. We offer experiences
as varied as New York City to the Alaskan wilderness, Disney World to
Yellowstone National Park, and Waikiki beach to our Nation's Capital.
The United States is a travel destination second to none. The travel
and tourism industry in the United States is the most capable in the
world, with a dedication to quality service, marketing and
entertainment. The prospect that international visitors in the United
States might set a new spending record this year is testament to these
facts.
The travel and tourism industry in the United States also faces its
share of challenges from the impact of 9/11, to international pandemics
such as SARS, to the continuing economic uncertainty of the airline
industry.
Tourism and the U.S. Economy
Let me give a brief overview of the industry before discussing
existing challenges.
The travel and tourism industry is a major contributor to our
Nation's gross domestic product (GDP). Travel and tourism represents
2.6 percent of GDP and generated more than $1 trillion of sales in 2005
alone. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Travel and Tourism Satellite
Accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, the United States exported nearly $103 billion in travel
and tourism-related goods and services to more than forty-nine million
international visitors. For perspective, total exports to trading
partners such as Germany and United Kingdom were $54 billion and $83
billion respectively. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is no surprise that the travel and tourism industry is one of
America's largest employers. Indeed, one out of every sixteen Americans
is employed by travel and tourism-related businesses, ninety-four
percent of which are classified as small businesses. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Travel and Tourism Satellite
Accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Trends and Challenges
While the United States tourism industry is strong and growing, in
recent years it has had to grapple with core challenges.
Due to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent
impact of the SARS outbreak, the United States' travel and tourism
receipts and international visitor arrivals sharply declined. As the
accompanying chart shows, receipts declined roughly 22 percent from the
peak in 2000 to a trough in 2003. However, the industry has proven its
resiliency recovering since 2003 to nearly record levels. Through 2005,
we are .5 percent (one half of 1 percent) off our record receipts
(exports) in 2000 and our arrivals are down just 4 percent from the
all-time high in 2000.
Let me now touch on how we are responding to the post-9/11
environment.
Safety and Security
When it comes to transportation policy, nothing is more important
than the safety and security of Americans and those who visit our
Nation. I would like to compliment the work of the Departments of
Homeland Security and State on this effort. We see no inherent conflict
between our goal of tourism facilitation and the goal of security.
Indeed, in our view, an effective system can move people in a rapid,
friendly manner while concurrently focusing on security. Allow me to
briefly review a few examples in this regard.
First, as an example of security initiatives that are efficient and
tourist-friendly, the Departments of State and Homeland Security
recently announced a ``model airport'' project to be implemented at
both the Houston International Airport and the Washington Dulles
International Airport. The goal of this initiative is to ensure a more
welcoming environment for foreign visitors through improved entry
procedures and passenger assistance measures.
Second, we are anticipating the implementation of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which will require all travelers,
including U.S. citizens, traveling to and from Canada, Mexico, the
Caribbean, and Bermuda to have a passport or other accepted document
that establishes the bearer's identity and citizenship to enter or re-
enter the United States. Technological advances will allow us to
strengthen border security and streamline the process to provide
efficient entry into the United States.
Third, we are also working with the Departments of Homeland
Security and State to assess various policies regarding the movement of
people across our borders should a pandemic influenza occur. Through
the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the United States is reaching
out to its neighbors to collaborate on a coordinated policy regarding
this issue. We are also collaborating with the Department of Health and
Human Services in the development of guidelines for industry response
should an outbreak occur.
Visas
One of the challenges to increasing tourism is the reluctance of
foreign travelers to accept the greater investment in time and effort
necessary to obtain a visa after 9/11, due to the heightened security
requirements and changes in the visa process. For example, the process
now requires an in-person interview.
It is in the U.S. interest that visa applicants have ready access
to our services. We support our colleagues at the Departments of
Homeland Security and State in their efforts to administer a system
that safely guards our borders while providing responsive, friendly
service to potential visitors who we welcome.
Over the last few years, the Department of State has taken a number
of steps to improve the transparency, efficiency and predictability of
the visa process. These efforts have included adding new consular
positions, investing in automating outdated systems, and finding new
ways to streamline the visa process, while maintaining all necessary
security measures.
Over 68 percent of our overseas travelers come to the United States
from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries and 60 percent of all receipts
(exports) come from VWP countries. \4\ VWP enables nationals of 27
countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for
stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. This is an important
program to the U.S. travel and tourism industry and the discontinuation
of VWP would severely affect the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism
Industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For citizens of non-VWP countries, a visa is necessary for entry to
the United States. We must ensure that our visa policy excludes those
who would do our country harm, but be vigilant that legitimate
travelers are permitted entry. The Departments of State and Homeland
Security are working every day to strike the right balance between
``Secure Borders and Open Doors.''
Tourism Export Expansion
It is important for us to also consider various policies and
promotion issues affecting tourism.
Facilitation of Chinese Group Leisure Travel to the United States
There is significant potential for growth of Chinese tourism in the
United States. The impediments to this expansion lie in requirements
imposed on leisure travelers by the Chinese government. Specifically,
Chinese policies do not permit travel and tourism advertisements for
destinations, such as the United States, that do not have an ``approved
destination status'' agreement with China. This is currently part of
our trade negotiations, and we are hopeful that we will achieve
progress.
Air Linkages
The liberalization of air services between countries generates
significant additional opportunities for the airlines, consumers,
travel and tourism, and other industries. To date, the U.S. Government
has initiated and completed over 70 Open Skies bilateral agreements
with foreign countries. In addition, more liberalized (but not yet
``Open Skies'') agreements are in place with China and Japan. In
November 2005, the United States and the European Union reached an ad-
referendum agreement on an Open Skies agreement that would affect all
of its member countries.
Travel and Tourism Promotion
In the United States, the private-sector, states, localities and
destinations provide the bulk of travel and tourism promotion. Having
said this, in 2004, Congress directed the Department of Commerce to
conduct a $6 million campaign to market the United States as a travel
destination. A private-sector Travel and Tourism Advisory Board was
established, and they recommended allocating the funds to a pilot
program in the U.K., which is our Nation's largest tourism export
market which had suffered a decline after 2001.
The objectives for the Department of Commerce's U.S. Tourism
Promotion Program were to: (1) increase awareness of the United States
as a travel destination; (2) increase positive perception of the United
States as a travel destination; (3) increase interest and future intent
to visit the United States; and (4) increase economic benefits from
visitation.
A campaign was developed using the tagline ``You've Seen the Films,
Now Visit the Set TM ''. Using films featuring U.S.
destinations as a vehicle to showcase America as a desirable and
exciting long-haul destination for U.K. travelers. The cooperation of
all of the movie studios and actors resulted in securing these film
clips and images at no cost to the government.
An independent research schedule was developed to ensure the
highest standards of accountability for the campaign. The reports
concluded that the campaign met all of our goals. The advertising
increased awareness by reaching approximately 12.8 million people in
the U.K.. The advertising increased by 10 percentage points the number
of people who mentioned the United States as a ``dream destination''
(above those who did not see the campaign.) The campaign increased the
number of those who said they intend to travel to the United States by
approximately 2 million people. A high percentage of those intended
travelers actually converted into sales, with 362,000 visitors who saw
the campaign booking a trip to the United States.
This program was continued for a second year in the U.K., and a
second pilot program is being launched in Japan this month, again with
funding directed by Congress. An additional $4 million has been
appropriated, and we will continue to work with the Advisory Board to
devise the best use of these funds.
We hope that the private sector will consider these results as they
develop their own marketing strategies.
Specialty Tourism
A developing phenomenon in the U.S. tourism industry is in the
emergence of specialty tourists who visit our Nation to take advantage
of specific services, such as our healthcare and higher education
systems. While not necessarily a pure tourism purchase decision, some
elements of the travel and tourism industry play an important role in
the consumer decision-making process.
Medical
The United States continues to be the top destination for advanced
medical treatment and features many of the world's leading hospitals
and clinics. By 2001, foreign visitors to the United States spent
approximately $1.9 billion on medical treatment. Following a sharp
drop-off related to 9/11 and SARS, among other factors, these services
exports totaled $1.46 billion in 2002, $1.571 billion in 2003 and
$1.661 billion in 2004.
Foreign competition for these patients and others who might in the
past have preferred to visit the United States for treatment has been
growing in recent years.
Education
Travel to the United States for university, college, and community
college degree programs and specialized training courses by foreign
visitors represents another specialized form of travel. Education, or
``educational tourism,'' represents more than $14 billion in U.S.
services exports and is recovering from the setbacks of 9/11.
In both medicine and education, we believe strongly that the United
States offers the finest systems and institutions in the world and
encourage people to come here for their education and for advanced
medical treatment. These two areas provide some of the best ways to
build the reputation of the United States.
Gulf Coast Region
We are aware that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have devastated the
tourism industry in the Gulf Region. The challenges that affect many
businesses there are no less profound for the travel and tourism
industry. The Commerce Department has made a grant of $500,000 to the
Southeast Tourism Society to market the region to travelers. Our Travel
and Tourism Advisory Board held its first meeting after re-chartering
in New Orleans in March. At the Secretary's request they have submitted
a strategy for recovery of tourism in the region. The Secretary has
shared this document with the 16 members of the Tourism Policy Council
and they will discuss these recommendations at their next meeting in
July.
Travel to the affected parts of the Gulf Coast Region is
increasing. Airport operations at the New Orleans International Airport
dropped precipitously following Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005.
Airline arrivals and departures declined 93 percent in September 2005
compared to September 2004. Airline passenger traffic has since grown
to over 500,000 passengers a month from a low of 43,000 in September
2005.
Conclusion
The travel and tourism industry in the United States is rebounding
from the shocks of 9/11, and SARS, and is dealing effectively with the
continuing economic challenge of the airlines. Since the last quarter
in 2003, both arrivals and receipts have been on the rise. We
anticipate, all other things being equal, that the sector will surpass
the 2001 benchmark in 2006. The U.S. industry is growing at twice the
world rate in global arrivals.
We believe that the appropriate role for government is to create a
positive business climate by removing barriers within our own
government and working with other governments to remove market
impediments and build bridges to new markets. We are working with the
private sector to develop a national tourism strategy that will further
identify impediments to growth, and public-private solutions. We have
taken and continue to take action to support the recovery of the travel
and tourism sector in the Gulf Region. We are in discussions with our
trading partners to facilitate market access. Our goal is to develop a
comprehensive travel and tourism policy framework to foster the
development of the finest travel and tourism industry in the world.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ambassador Nesbitt?
STATEMENT OF HON. WANDA L. NESBITT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Nesbitt. Chairman Smith, Co-Chair Senator
Inouye, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to
talk about the efforts of the Department of State, and
specifically the Bureau of Consular Affairs, to meet our
commitment to the policy of secure borders and open doors.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summarized this
commitment at her confirmation hearing when she said, and I
quote, ``Our interaction with the rest of the world must be a
conversation, not a monologue, and America must remain open to
visitors and workers and students from around the world. We do
not, and will not, compromise our security standards, yet we
cannot close ourselves off from the rest of the world.''
We, in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, are very cognizant
of how our work impacts the travel and tourism industry. Our
mission is to strive for the ideal balance between protecting
our borders and promoting a vibrant, open, and global society
here at home. The challenge is not an easy one, but we firmly
believe that these objectives are not contradictory, that when
America is more secure for Americans, it is more secure for
everyone.
We are also very much aware of the economic benefits
generated by international visitors. When Assistant Secretary
Maura Harty or I speak to consular officers who are in
training, for example, we remind them that last year the United
States welcomed approximately 49 million foreign visitors, who
spent over $100 billion here on travel-related expenses. We
know that, beyond the dollar signs, the goodwill that we
engender among foreign visitors who come to the United States
either to attend school, do business with us, or experience
some of our cultural and tourist opportunities, that their
experience is priceless.
At the same time, we must balance the security requirements
of protecting our homeland. The context for today's U.S. visa
policy and security posture is September 11, 2001. In the
period following 9/11, we took a long, hard look at visa
procedures, and we implemented many changes. We continue today
to review those procedures regularly to make sure that we are
doing everything possible to make this country more secure for
our citizens and our guests.
Consular officers posted overseas are responsible for
adjudicating more than 7 million visa applicants annually in a
manner that both protects U.S. borders and facilitates the
travel of legitimate visitors and immigrants to the United
States. This work is the backbone of our ``Secure Borders and
Open Doors'' policy.
Today, 97 percent of approved travelers receive their visa
in 1 to 2 days. We have streamlined the clearance process for
those applicants who are subject to additional screening so
that they, too, can expect a prompt response. We continue to
make improvements by automating and updating visa processing
systems, with a view to achieving greater transparency,
efficiency, and predictability.
Since 9/11, we have added 515 new consular officer
positions around the world, we've enhanced training programs
and interviewing techniques and counterterrorism detection,
while continuing to emphasize the need for efficiency and the
importance of facilitating legitimate travel. We are also
exploring ways to use cutting-edge technology to facilitate the
visa process even further.
Just a few recent examples of some of the actions that our
Embassies and Consulates abroad have taken to facilitate travel
include things we've done specifically for the business
community. Many of our posts abroad now have formal programs
which they use to enroll major companies, and this permits
their employees to obtain expedited appointments. It permits
those foreigners who American businesses are inviting to the
United States to essentially go to the front of the line so
that there is no delay in their processing.
Here in Washington, we've created a Business Visa Center to
provide information to businesses who are inviting foreigners
to the United States for either business or other types of
conventions. We have made many efforts to increase the
transparency of the visa process for every category of visitor.
All of our posts maintain websites that provide up-to-date
information on how to apply for a visa, on what the wait time
is for an appointment so that they can plan ahead and they can
obtain the services they need well in advance of their trip.
We are also working to implement, in as smooth a manner as
possible, new legal requirements passed by the Congress as part
of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2002. As I'm sure you know, Mr. Chairman, that Act requires
that all travelers, including Americans, present a passport or
other secure document denoting identity and citizenship to
enter the United States. We plan to implement the requirement
through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and, from the
outset, we have reached out to business, to industry, and to
the general public to solicit their views. And we will continue
to do so.
From those interactions, we've learned, for example, that
many residents of border areas see a need for a less expensive
and more convenient travel document than a traditional passport
book. Those interactions were the genesis for the development
of a passport card, which was announced by Secretaries Rice and
Chertoff this past January. We continue to work with our
partners at DHS on the development of this card, and we are
confident that it will be a useful facilitator of cross-border
travel.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that the
Bureau of Consular Affairs is an active participant in the
Department of State's Avian Flu Working Group, chaired by
Ambassador John Lange, our Special Representative for Avian and
Pandemic Influenza. Our role is to provide, and to make sure,
that information is available to Americans who are residing or
traveling abroad, so that they can take whatever steps they
deem necessary to prepare for a potential outbreak. And, in the
event of an avian flu outbreak, Consular Affairs will stay in
contact with, and will assist Americans abroad, as much as
possible, within the limits of our authority.
I thank you, once again, for giving us this opportunity to
describe the measures that we are taking to improve the
passport and visa adjudication processes, and I'll be happy to
take any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Nesbitt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wanda L. Nesbitt, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State
Chairman Smith, distinguished members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about the efforts
of the Department of State and in particular, the Bureau of Consular
Affairs (CA), to balance border security objectives with our commitment
to ensuring the United States remains ``Open for Business.''
Introduction
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summarized this commitment
during her confirmation hearings when she stated ``Our interaction with
the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue, and
America must remain open to visitors and workers and students from
around the world. We do not and will not compromise our security
standards, yet if our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we
cannot close ourselves off from the rest of the world.''
As the Secretary's words illustrate so well, the Department of
State recognizes that this country is at its best when we remain true
to our finest principles, to our history, and our common ideals.
America is a Nation of immigrants, and has always welcomed visitors
from all over the globe, whether they come for tourism, business or
study. We recognize that our Nation's well-being is fortified by the
contributions--both the quantifiable and those we cannot measure--that
visitors make to our society.
The Department of State is cognizant of the economic benefits
generated by international visitors to the United States. Last year we
welcomed approximately 49 million foreign visitors and they in turn
spent over $100 billion here on travel-related expenses. On the
academic front, international students contribute approximately $13
billion annually to our economy as they pursue a wide range of
educational opportunities available in this country. Furthermore, we
continue to facilitate legitimate business travel to the United States.
Beyond the dollar signs, the good will that we engender among foreign
visitors who visit the United States, attend our schools, do business
with us, visit their family members, and experience some of the
cultural, economic and tourist opportunities that this country has to
offer, is priceless.
At the same time, however, we must balance the security
requirements of protecting our homeland. The context for today's U.S.
visa policy and security posture is, quite simply, September 11, 2001.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. Government moved quickly
to shore-up our Nation's border security and reassure American citizens
and international visitors alike that our Nation was safe and secure.
After conducting a top-to-bottom review of visa procedures and
implementing myriad changes since 2001, we continue working day after
day to make sure we have the strongest possible shield in place to
protect our country, our citizens--and our guests.
Our mission is to strive for the ideal balance between protecting
our borders and promoting a vibrant, open, and global society here at
home. While the challenge is not an easy one, we firmly believe that
these objectives are not contradictory. And when we make this country
more secure for American citizens, we make it more secure for everyone.
Visa Processing
Consular officers overseas in our Embassies and Consulates serve
literally on the front-lines of the global war on terror. We have the
responsibility for adjudicating immigrant and nonimmigrant visa
applications in a manner that protects U.S. borders and deters illegal
immigration, while continuing to ensure that family members of American
citizens can join them in the U.S., and allowing us to continue to
welcome legitimate visitors into our country. This is the essence of
the work we do and the backbone of the ``Secure Borders, Open Doors''
policy.
Today, 97 percent of approved travelers receive their visa in one
to 2 days. For the two-and-a-half percent of visa applicants who, for
national security reasons, are subject to additional screening, the
Department has streamlined the interagency process so that even this
small percentage of the overall number of applicants can expect an
answer promptly. We continue to make improvements by automating and
updating visa processing and screening systems so the overall result is
greater transparency, efficiency and predictability--for all our valued
visitors--while at the same time promoting security. For example, we
are working diligently to transition to 10-print biometric collection
and screening for both visa applicants and visa waiver travelers.
In order to adjudicate over 7 million visa applications annually,
the Department of State has created more than 515 consular positions
since September 2001. The Department has enhanced the training of
consular officers overseas in interviewing techniques and
counterterrorism, while continuing to also emphasize the need for
efficiency and the facilitation of legitimate travel. We are also
exploring ways to use cutting-edge technology to transform traditional
visa application methods. For example, at many posts applicants can use
an Electronic Visa Application form that reduces our data-entry times.
Despite numerous improvements and encouraging statistics on the
increased number of visas applications abroad, misperceptions about the
visa process still persist. This is true overseas, as well as here at
home. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, along with all U.S. Embassies and
Consulates, has been engaged in a variety of outreach efforts,
particularly to international students and the business community. We
want business people, exchange visitors, and tourists to know that
America's welcome mat is still out. We want everyone to know that the
Department of State is committed to ensuring that the visa application
process, or a misperception of it, does not serve as an impediment to
legitimate travel to the United States.
Travel Facilitation
The Department of State recognizes that business visitors and
tourists are essential to the economic security of our Nation. For that
reason, we have instructed all of our overseas posts to facilitate
legitimate business and urgent travel and we regularly survey them on
their efforts. Our Embassies and Consulates have responded in
innovative ways. Many have established formal business facilitation
programs that enroll major companies and permit their employees to
obtain expedited appointments, or expedited processing on the day of
interview. Others expedite appointments for groups or schedule group
appointments, and establish specific time blocks when business groups
may appear for an interview. Still others set aside specific time
blocks to allow certain categories of nonimmigrant visa applicants to
appear without a scheduled interview slot.
The Bureau has made efforts to increase the transparency of the
visa process to benefit every category of nonimmigrant visa applicants.
All our posts maintain websites that provide information on how to
apply for a visa. Each posts strives to make their website as useful as
possible; some have even worked directly with host governments to get
feedback on how their citizens navigate the site and how the United
States Government's information could be better communicated to that
audience. On the websites, visa applicants can also find estimated wait
times for a visa interview appointment. This feature enables business
people and tourists alike to plan and make arrangements for their
trip--regardless of whether they will spend that trip in an office
building or at an amusement park.
In addition to these initiatives, many of our Embassies and
Consulates have established business facilitation units to serve as a
point of contact for the business community. And our posts around the
world have integrated regular business visa training for consular
officers into their normal operations to update consular officers on a
country's economic conditions, provide information on the structure of
the country's business community, and discuss business visa
interviewing techniques.
In Washington, the Bureau has partnered with our Embassies and
Consulates to create a Business Visa Center, to assist U.S. companies
and convention organizers by explaining the visa process when they
invite employees or current and prospective business clients and
partners to the United States. The Business Visa Center provides
information to U.S. companies about the application process for visitor
visas for those seeking to travel to the U.S. for business purposes and
works with both the companies and the consular officers, when needed,
to communicate information effectively between U.S. businesses and
posts worldwide.
Here are some more specific examples of how our Embassies and
Consulates overseas are extending the welcome of the United States to
business travelers and tourists:
In addition to conducting active outreach with business
organizations, Mission India operates a very successful
Business Executive Program (BEP) designed to facilitate
legitimate business travel, develop relationships with business
with strong ties to the United States, and help visa officers
make more informed decisions. Employees of the hundreds of
companies in India registered in this program have separate
lines for screening and interviews.
Over 600 companies that are members of AmCham China have
been accepted into the Business Visa Program managed by Embassy
Beijing. Member companies' employees may apply at the Embassy
any day of the week and bypass the standard waiting period for
a visa interview. Over 10,000 business visa applicants were
processed through this channel last year.
Embassy Singapore instituted a walk-in procedure allowing
applicants to apply, be interviewed and (if approved) obtain
their visas within 1 day in many cases. They also discussed
establishing a business traveler facilitation program in
conjunction with AmCham Singapore, but the AmCham indicated
that such a program was not necessary or desirable as the
international business community is satisfied with Post's
current visa processing procedures and speed!
Our Consulate General in Sao Paulo established a Business
Travel program that includes U.S., multinational and well-known
Brazilian companies that routinely send business travelers to
the United States. The Consulate General receives requests
directly from the companies' H.R. departments by e-mail and
sets special, expedited appointments for prospective business
travelers in the afternoons. Any business traveler whose
company is not a participant in the business travel program may
also obtain an expedited interview by sending a faxed or e-
mailed request.
And finally, Embassy Seoul has enrolled 141 companies into
its Business Referral Program. Companies routinely conducting
business activities in the U.S. or with U.S.-based businesses
are eligible for the program. Member company employees receive
expedited visa appointments and speedier processing the day of
the interview.
CA's own statistics also show that visa issuances are on the
rise. The number of business and tourist visas issued rose to 3
million in 2005 and are being issued even more efficiently in
2006.
These are only a few of the many ways that the Department of State
supports business relationships between U.S. firms and their potential
clients, partners and customers all over the world.
Passports and WHTI
Another central component of our border security efforts is the
adjudication and issuance of U.S. passports. This document is among the
most valuable citizenship and identity documents in the world. As the
global community becomes more connected all the time, the demand for
passports continues to grow. Last year, we issued over 10 million
passports and we are well on the way to issuing about 13 million this
year. More recently, and in response to the surging demand, the Bureau
received approval to hire an additional 130 government personnel to
adjudicate passport applications. The Department has also made
commensurate increases in private sector staff at our passport
facilities.
We are also working on a significant initiative called the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative or WHTI that will affect travel to the
U.S. by American citizens as well as citizens of Canada, Mexico and
Bermuda. WHTI is our plan to implement a provision in the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that established a legal
requirement for American citizens and travelers from other countries in
the Western Hemisphere to enter the United States, beginning January 1,
2008, with a passport or other accepted form of documentation denoting
citizenship and identity. This requirement will apply to travel to the
United States from Canada, Bermuda, the Caribbean and Mexico as well.
The goals of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative are to
strengthen our border security and facilitate re-entry into the United
States for American citizens. This requirement streamlines the review
process so only a limited number of documents that denote citizenship
and identity can be presented at Ports of Entry, rather than one of
more than 8,000 different versions of documents currently in use today.
The Department of State is also engaged with our hemispheric
neighbors to make sure that they are aware of the requirements of WHTI.
We want to ensure that WHTI does not hinder the legitimate flow of
people and goods between our nations. Because WHTI represents a
significant change to current practice, we are planning to roll it out
in phases, and provide advance notice to the public to help people get
a passport or other secure document in time for their planned travel.
Throughout this process, we have been engaging the public,
including citizens, business leaders, and local government. Many
residents of border areas requested a less expensive, more convenient
travel document than the traditional passport book for land border
crossings.
As part of the Rice-Chertoff Initiative, Secretaries Rice and
Chertoff announced in January the development of a passport card that
carries the rights and privileges of a standard U.S. passport. The
passport card will be adjudicated and issued by the Department of State
to the exact same standards as the traditional book-style passport. The
card will be produced as part of a system of Border Management travel
documents called People, Access, Security, Service (PASS).
Conclusion
It is our government's fundamental commitment to balancing our
security needs with the openness of the United States that the
Department of State is striving to maintain each day. We have taken
extraordinary measures to make the passport and visa adjudication
processes more efficient and more accessible and we have done so with
an unwavering commitment to highest security standards. We believe
these actions benefit American public at home and abroad, as well as
the foreign citizens that visit our country by facilitating their
legitimate travel.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I thank you again for
inviting me to participate in this hearing and to explain the
Department's efforts to promote exchange through travel and trade
within the context of our commitment to Secure Borders and Open Doors.
I look forward now to answering your questions.
Senator Smith. Ambassador Nesbitt, just to clarify, will
the passport card replace the old passport?
Ambassador Nesbitt. No, it will not. We would issue both.
Senator Smith. You'd issue both because the card can't be
used everywhere.
Ambassador Nesbitt. That's correct.
Senator Smith. But where it can be used, it'll just be done
electronically, and, I suspect, easily.
Ambassador Nesbitt. That's our hope, certainly.
Senator Smith. That's the hope, OK.
Mr. Jacksta?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. JACKSTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRAVELER
SECURITY AND FACILITATION, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Jacksta. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman
Inouye. I am pleased to be here to represent DHS and Customs
and Border Protection today and to talk a little bit about what
we're doing with facilitation of travelers, as well as making
sure that our borders are secure.
The United States has over 7,000 miles of shared borders
with Canada and Mexico. We have 325 ports of entry. And each
day, CBP officers at the ports of entry must inspect close to
1.1 million travelers coming into the United States.
With that, last year we welcomed over 431 million
international travelers to the United States. During Fiscal
Year 2005, we saw close to 86 million travelers coming to our
airports. And that's the first year that we actually saw an
increase over the pre-9/11 numbers.
As the guardian of our borders, CBP is charged with the
management, control, and protection of our Nation's borders,
both at and between the official ports of entry. CBP employs
highly-trained, professional personnel, resources, and law
enforcement authorities to discharge our priority mission of
preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the
United States. Carrying out our important mission entails not
only improving security, but also extending our zone of
security out from the United States.
Our strategy uses advance electronic information and an
automated risk-management system that identifies and targets
high-risk travelers well before their arrival into the United
States. CBP has also initiated partnerships with other
governments and the private sector, and created trusted, vetted
traveler programs to identify low-risk travelers and allow them
to quickly pass through our borders.
At our Nation's ports of entry, CBP uses sophisticated
detection technology to rapidly screen high-risk cargo for
weapons, radiation, and other contraband. In addition, all CBP
officers receive antiterrorism training, which enables them to
recognize, identify, and interdict individuals who pose a risk
to the United States.
In Fiscal Year 2005, over 84,000 individuals were
apprehended at the ports of entry trying to cross the border
with fraudulent documents. On an average day, CBP intercepts
more than 200 fraudulent documents, arrests over 60 people at
the ports of entry, and refuses entry to hundreds of
noncitizens, a few of which are criminal aliens and are
attempting to enter the United States.
Currently, there are thousands of different documents that
a traveler can present to CBP officers when attempting to enter
the United States, creating a tremendous potential for fraud.
Standard documents will eliminate the time-consuming, manual
process of reviewing and validating a host of distinct birth
certificates and driver licenses. Having standardized documents
will enable an automated reading and vetting of the
information, which will enable us to increase traveler
facilitation.
As part of our layered approach to border security, CBP
employs a host of trusted-traveler programs. This includes the
SENTRI program, which is down on the southern border, the Free
and Secure, FAST program, which is for commercial travelers on
the northern border and on the southern border, as well as the
NEXUS program, on our northern border. These programs
facilitate the crossing of low-risk travelers and commercial
truck drivers at the land borders through dedicated lanes. To
date, approximately 225,000 individuals are enrolled in these
programs and are currently using the systems. These are
programs that have been worked, together with the Canadians and
the Mexicans, who both participate in the program with us.
At the center of our targeting is the CBP's National
Targeting Center, where CBP personnel use automated targeting
systems to analyze advance information about passengers before
they arrive in the United States. This allows us to take
appropriate action when flights arrive at our ports of entry.
Today, CBP collect biometrics on certain non-U.S. citizens
at air, land, and sea locations, through the US-VISIT system.
This system checks the individual against a fingerprint-based
watchlist of known or suspected terrorists and other criminal
information. The US-VISIT program has substantially added to
CBP's screening capabilities to process travelers in a timely
fashion.
We also have the Immigration Assistance Program, where we
have officers stationed overseas to screen individuals before
they get on planes to the United States. We have the Carrier
Liaison Program, which is a program that we work with the
industry. We have trained their employees to discover
fraudulent documents and to discover possible individuals
trying to enter the United States illegally. We have trained
close to 1,200 individuals this past year.
In addition, we have various working programs with the
Department of State and with other agencies, trying to ensure
that we protect the borders by making sure that our officers
are aware of the various responsibilities and the laws that are
needed to be enforced.
We have the Model Ports of Entry Program, where we've
identified both the Dulles and Houston Airports as locations
where we are going to work with the industry and the airport
authorities to improve the processing.
And, finally, we are working with CDC/HHS to ensure that we
have a plan, a program, and a response to a possible threat of
avian flu.
These are some of the programs that we are trying to ensure
we can facilitate low-risk travelers, and, at the same time,
make sure that individuals that are a threat are identified,
and appropriate actions are taken at our ports of entry.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacksta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert M. Jacksta, Executive Director, Traveler
Security and Facilitation, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Dorgan, distinguished
members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss
how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving forward on
programs that will provide traveler facilitation while still providing
the level of security required to protect the United States. This is an
enormous challenge. We have over 7,000 miles of shared borders with
Canada and Mexico, 325 official ports of entry, and each day DHS
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers must inspect more than 1.1
million passengers and pedestrians. However, last year alone, CBP
welcomed over 431 million travelers through official ports of entry.
During Fiscal Year 2005, CBP processed a record 86 million air
passengers arriving from abroad, the first year that the number of air
passengers has exceeded pre-9/11 levels.
CBP is charged with the management, control, and protection of our
Nation's borders, both at and between the official ports of entry. As
America's front-line border agency, CBP employs highly trained and
professional personnel, resources, expertise and law enforcement
authorities to discharge our priority mission of preventing terrorists
and terrorist weapons for entering the United States. Carrying out our
extraordinarily important mission entails not only improving security
at and between our ports of entry along the entire length of our land
and maritime borders, but also extending our zone of security beyond
our physical borders.
CBP has implemented a ``smart border'' strategy to provide security
and enforce U.S. laws both at and between ports of entry, as well as
extending our security zone beyond our own borders. This strategy uses
advance, electronic information and an automated risk management system
that identifies and targets high-risk cargo and people well before
arrival in the United States. CBP has also initiated partnerships with
other governments and the private sector trade community, and created
trusted, vetted traveler programs, to identify low-risk cargo and
people and allow them to quickly pass through the border, thereby
freeing up CBP resources to focus on unknown, higher-risk traffic. At
the ports of entry, CBP uses sophisticated detection technology to
rapidly screen high-risk cargo for weapons, radiation, and other
contraband. All CBP officers receive antiterrorism training to better
enable them to recognize, identify, and interdict individuals who pose
a terrorist risk.
The standardization of travel documents is a critical step in
securing our Nation's borders. Currently, there are thousands of
different documents that a traveler can present to CBP officers when
attempting to enter the United States, creating a tremendous potential
for fraud. Standardized documents will also eliminate the time-
consuming, manual process of reviewing and validating a host of
distinct, and sometimes illegible and unverifiable, birth certificates
and other identity documents. Having standardized documents will enable
automated reading and vetting of the information, which will also be
essential to increased traveler facilitation.
In Fiscal Year 2005, over 84,000 individuals were apprehended at
the ports of entry trying to cross the border with fraudulent claims of
citizenship or documents. Moreover, on an average day, CBP intercepts
more than 200 fraudulent documents, arrests over sixty people at ports
of entry, and refuses entry to hundreds of non-citizens, a few dozen of
which are criminal aliens that are attempting to enter the United
States.
On March 23, 2005 in Waco, TX, President Bush, along with Canadian
Prime Minister Martin and Mexican President Fox, unveiled the Security
and Prosperity Partnership for North America (SPP), a blueprint for a
safer and more prosperous continent. The Leaders agreed on an ambitious
security and prosperity agenda, which will keep our borders closed to
terrorists and open to trade. The three leaders established
ministerial-level Security and Prosperity working groups. Secretary
Chertoff chairs the security agenda while Secretary of Commerce, Carlos
Gutierrez, chairs the prosperity agenda.
The Leaders met again this year on March 31 in Cancun to review
progress and renew commitment to enhance the security, prosperity, and
quality-of-life of the citizens within North America. The leaders
announced the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council
(NACC). The Council will be made up of members of the private sector
from each country who will meet annually with security and prosperity
Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an
ongoing basis. CBP looks forward to its role in working with the NACC.
As part of a layered approach to border security, CBP employs a
host of programs. CBP's existing ``trusted traveler'' programs are also
being evaluated for expanded use at our land borders. These include the
Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), Free
and Secure Trade (FAST), and NEXUS programs. These programs facilitate
the crossing of low-risk, frequent travelers and commercial truck
drivers at the land borders through exclusive, dedicated lanes. To
enroll in these programs, travelers must provide proof of citizenship,
a Border Crossing Card (BCC) or other visa, if required, as well as
other identity documentation, such as a driver's license or ID card. An
intensive background check against law enforcement databases and
terrorist indices is required, and includes fingerprint checks and a
personal interview with a CBP officer. To date, approximately 225,000
SENTRI, NEXUS, and FAST cards have been issued. Over the next few
months, we expect to increase the number of locations at which they can
be used. These programs are implemented in partnership with the
governments of Canada and Mexico, and many citizens of these countries
participate in the programs.
At the center of our targeting efforts is CBP's National Targeting
Center (NTC), where CBP personnel use the Automated Targeting System
(ATS) to analyze advance information about passengers before they
arrive in the Untied States. The NTC employs sophisticated risk
assessment rules and algorithms based upon strategic intelligence about
terrorist threat, and incorporates data from numerous national
intelligence and law enforcement databases, to screen all passengers
traveling to the United States for potential terrorist connections or
terrorist risk factors.
CBP collects biometrics on certain non-U.S. citizens at primary in-
air and sea ports and at secondary in-land ports and, through the US-
VISIT system, checks the individual against a fingerprint-based
watchlist of known or suspected terrorist, wants and warrants,
immigration violations, and other criminal history information as well
as to determine whether the person is the same one previously
encountered by DHS or State. The US-VISIT Program has substantially
added to CBP's screening capabilities without impacting CBP's ability
to process travelers in a timely fashion. At the ports of entry, CBP's
Counter-Terrorism Response Unit can conduct intensive questioning and
inspection, search, and interview of individuals. CBP has developed
clear and comprehensive policies for responding when we encounter a
terrorist watch-listed individual or suspected terrorist.
In partnership with the private sector and state and local
governments, DHS and the Department of State have introduced a pilot
``model airport'' program to ensure a more welcoming environment for
foreign visitors. The pilot projects at the Houston and Dulles airports
entail such features as customized video messages for the public with
practical information about the entry process, improved screening and
efficient movement of people through the border entry process, and
assistance for foreign travelers once they have been admitted to the
United States.
The Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) extends our zone of security
outward by screening overseas passengers before they board aircraft
destined for the United States. IAP teams identify high risk and
terrorist watch-listed passengers using the Automated Targeting System
in CBP's National Targeting Center, and advise the airline whether the
passenger will be admissible to the United States upon arrival.
The Carrier Liaison Program (CLP) was developed to enhance border
security by increasing commercial carrier effectiveness in identifying
improperly documented passengers destined to the United States. The
primary method for accomplishing this mission is by providing technical
assistance and training to carrier staff. Technical assistance includes
publication and distribution of information guides, document fraud
summaries and alerts. In addition, CBP is developing the 24/7 Carrier
Response Center phone line that provides real-time entry requirements
and document validity advice to carrier staff worldwide. The U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL)
supports CLP in multiple ways, to include providing FDL Document Alerts
to the CLP for distribution to airline personnel.
The CLP provides training on U.S. entry requirements, passenger
assessment, fraudulent document detection and imposter identification
using state-of-the-art document examination material, equipment and
training tools. Training is customized to meet the needs of specific
carriers or locations based on performance analysis or emergent
circumstances. Training is delivered at U.S. ports of entry and at
airports abroad by experienced CLP officers. CLP officers also assist
carriers to develop and implement strategies to reduce travel document
abuse.
In January 2005, CBP created the Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit
(FDAU) to collect documents, provide the ports with analysis of
document trends and intelligence information, and to target persons
being smuggled into the United States using fraudulent documents. By
the end of December 2005, the FDAU received 40,875 fraudulent documents
confiscated at ports of entry and mail facilities. Working with the
FDAU, CBP will increase this number in the future.
As you are aware, Avian Influenza, or ``bird flu,'' is a highly
contagious viral infection that has the potential to threaten our
economy and the public health. The goals of the Federal Government's
response to a potential pandemic are to stop, slow, or otherwise limit
the spread of a pandemic to the United States and to sustain our
infrastructure and mitigate the impact to our economy. CBP must be
prepared to maintain essential services, mitigate against the spread
and consequences of a pandemic, and protect our workforce and the
public. CBP is working with our DHS partner agencies, as well as the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop an
effective strategy for entry-exit procedures and travel restrictions
during a pandemic.
CBP officers are committed to the highest standards of professional
conduct. We want to assist the millions of legitimate travelers who
pose little or no threat, in gaining proper entry into the U.S., both
safely and efficiently. As part of this effort, CBP recently
implemented a campaign to educate travelers. Here are some of the best
pieces of advice CBP can provide to travelers to help them have a safe,
efficient and enjoyable trip abroad:
Declare everything you are bringing in from abroad, even if you
bought it in a duty-free shop. All passengers arriving on a plane must
complete a CBP declaration form. This declaration prevents the
unintentional introduction of prohibited items, such as fruits and food
products that could introduce devastating diseases and pests into the
United States, and severely damage U.S. agriculture. If items purchased
abroad are intended for personal use or as gifts, they are eligible for
duty exemptions. If they are intended for resale, they are not. If any
duty is owed, a CBP officer will assist you in paying that duty.
Many travelers look forward to bringing home special food items
from abroad. However, it is important to ``know before you go'' which
items can and cannot be brought into the United States from abroad.
Every food product, fruit and vegetable must be declared to a CBP
officer, and must be presented for inspection. It is important to
remember that the rules and regulations are in place to protect the
American economy, plant and animal wildlife, and the health of the
American people.
Members of the Subcommittee, I have outlined a broad array of
initiatives today that, with your assistance will help CBP continue to
protect America from terrorist threat while fulfilling our other
important traditional missions. But our work is not complete. With the
continued support of the Congress, CBP will succeed in meeting the
challenges posed by the ongoing terrorist threat and the need to
facilitate an ever-increasing number of legitimate shipments and
travelers.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
Doctor----
Dr. LeDuc. LeDuc, yes. Jim LeDuc.
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. LeDUC, Ph.D.,
COORDINATOR FOR INFLUENZA,
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. LeDuc. Good morning, Senators. Thank you for the
invitation.
It's my pleasure to discuss with you today the very
important global threat that we face in pandemic influenza.
During my comments, I'll summarize for you, very briefly, the
worldwide situation with regard to avian influenza, then
describe some of the preparedness activities that we've
undertaken, both within the United States and globally.
Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza infections in both
animals and humans have spread significantly since the
beginning of this year. The World Organisation for Animal
Health, the OIE, has received reports of millions of infected
domestic poultry and wild birds in more than 50 countries in
Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. As of the 20th of
June of this year, the World Health Organization has reported a
total of 228 human infections, and more than half of those have
ended in death.
Almost all human cases have been directly or indirectly
associated with exposure to sick or dying poultry, although
limited human-to-human transition cannot be ruled out in a few
instances. Ongoing careful laboratory analysis of virus
isolates from these outbreaks has documented continued genetic
and antigenic changes in the viruses. But, importantly, there's
no evidence to suggest that the virus has acquired the ability
to be easily transmitted from person-to-person.
As part of our global preparedness efforts, we continue to
work very closely with the World Health Organization and other
international organizations to build national capacity within
nations at risk so that they are better prepared to recognize
and investigate possible outbreaks of avian influenza. This
involves assistance in training and outbreak investigation
techniques and building adequate laboratory capacity so that
appropriate clinical specimens are obtained and fed into the
WHO Global Influenza Network for comprehensive
characterization. This critical first line of defense is
essential for early recognition of a potential pandemic and
will allow us to attempt to aggressively control an outbreak
early on, onsite, before it spreads. This foundation of
international collaborations is the first pillar of our
national strategy to defend against pandemic influenza. An
outbreak anywhere is a threat everywhere.
We are making similar investments with State and local
governments to better prepare for the possibility of pandemic
influenza. We have built upon the existing laboratory response
network, first created to diagnose diseases of bioterrorism
potential, so that they can also rapidly and accurately
diagnosis avian influenza, should suspect cases occur in their
communities. And we're working very closely with State and
local officials to develop and exercise plans to respond to
pandemic influenza. Part of these efforts is the augmentation
of the Strategic National Stockpile to include stocks of
antiviral drugs and other essential items that will help each
community respond to a potential pandemic.
And, finally, significant investments have been made to
enhance our national vaccine production capabilities so that a
vaccine against pandemic influenza can be produced and
delivered as quickly as possible. It's important to stress,
however, that we will need to have the virus causing the
pandemic in hand before we can make an effective vaccine; thus,
a critical product of our international collaborations is to
ensure that we have access to pandemic virus strains early on
as quickly as possible.
In closing, let me say that we clearly recognize the
devastating economic and societal impact that a global
influenza pandemic would have on all sectors of our national
economy. We take our responsibility as the protector of our
Nation's health very seriously, and our goal is to provide the
most accurate information, guidance, and recommendations as
quickly as possible, based on solid scientific facts and proven
intervention strategies. We're working hard to coordinate our
efforts, as you've heard, with other government agencies, with
State and local communities, and with the private sector, as
well as with our international partners. The investments that
we are making will help us to better prepare for pandemic
influenza, and they'll also help us to address the threat of
bioterrorism, as well as the next SARS or other emergent
diseases.
Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. LeDuc follows:]
Prepared Statement of James W. LeDuc, Ph.D., Coordinator for Influenza,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and
Human Services
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to provide an update on the potential for an influenza
pandemic and to give you a status of public health preparedness,
specifically related to travel and trade issues. Although most of my
testimony will focus on the current threat of avian influenza A (H5N1),
it is important to keep in mind that a pandemic could emerge from other
influenza strains and that continued national and global vigilance is
essential. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are leaders in this
effort, working in close partnership with colleagues from the
Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, and Homeland Security,
state and local leaders, and many other organizations in the United
States and throughout the world.
The Current Status of H5N1 Influenza Virus
Highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in both
animals and humans has spread significantly since the beginning of
2006. As of June 21, 2006, the World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE) had received reports of infections in millions of domestic
poultry and wild birds in more than 50 countries in Asia, the Middle
East, Africa, and Europe. As of June 21, the World Health Organization
(WHO) had confirmed human cases of H5N1 influenza in 10 countries:
Azerbaijan, Cambodia, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq,
Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam. As of June 21, WHO had confirmed a total
of more than 225 human cases since January 2004, with an overall
fatality rate of greater than 50 percent. Although almost all cases of
human infection with the H5N1 virus appear to have resulted from some
form of direct or close contact with infected poultry, some clusters
indicate that the possibility of limited human-to-human contact,
particularly infection within family clusters, merits close attention.
In addition, scientists at CDC, WHO, and other organizations have
documented ongoing genetic changes in the virus. These changes have
important implications for our preparedness efforts in developing
influenza pandemic vaccine.
Despite the detection of some genetic changes, scientists have not
yet observed fundamental changes in the virus's genetic structure that
might allow H5N1 viruses to be transmitted more efficiently from person
to person. If such changes were to occur, they would heighten our
concern about the virus attaining the capacity for sustained, rapid
human-to-human transmission, which is necessary for a pandemic to
occur. What we have begun to see is an increasing number of situations
where limited human-to-human spread may have occurred among family
members who have had close contact with individuals infected with the
virus.
Whether the H5N1 virus evolves into the next pandemic or a pandemic
originates from another highly pathogenic influenza strain, continued
preparedness is essential. Seasonal influenza causes about 200,000
hospitalizations and 36,000 deaths in the United States each year. In
economic terms, seasonal influenza in the United States costs about
$37.5 billion annually in healthcare costs and lost productivity. Based
on evidence from influenza pandemics in the 20th century, computer
models, and other research, CDC estimates that a moderate influenza
pandemic could cause about 865,000 hospitalizations and 209,000 deaths
in the United States. A severe pandemic could cause an estimated 9.9
million hospitalizations and 1.9 million deaths in the United States.
In addition, unlike seasonal influenza, a pandemic could begin at any
time of year and could seriously disrupt both domestic and global
travel, trade, and other social and economic infrastructure for months
or years. It is extremely difficult to calculate estimates of the
economic impact a moderate or severe influenza pandemic may have on the
United States or on other nations.
Comprehensive, Highly Collaborative Preparedness Planning
CDC and scientific colleagues throughout the world generally agree
that as the influenza virus continues to evolve, an influenza pandemic
is likely at some point and could be extremely difficult to contain.
The comprehensive, highly collaborative preparedness planning now
underway is vital to minimize the impact of such an event. CDC plays a
major role in executing public health strategies established by HHS and
other departments. These strategies are focused on: ensuring early
detection and reporting; a high capacity for laboratory and
epidemiological investigations; containment and rapid responses to
outbreaks; and sharing of and training on best practices to benefit
from lessons learned as we move forward. Public health is one component
of much broader preparedness planning founded on guidance from the
World Health Organization and the President's National Pandemic
Influenza Preparedness Strategy. CDC public health preparedness fits
within the framework of the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza
Implementation Plan published on May 3, 2006, by the White House
Homeland Security Council (HSC), ongoing coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State
(DOS), and execution of strategies described in the HHS Pandemic
Influenza Preparedness Plan released in November 2005. CDC and other
HHS agencies are finalizing and exercising their own internal
operations plans in conjunction with the strategies, objectives, and
performance measurements contained in overarching preparedness plans
developed by HSC, DHS, HHS, and other departments and organizations.
Preparedness Measures Related to Trade and Travel Issues
Using the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 emergency supplemental funds that
Congress appropriated to further public health preparedness for an
influenza pandemic and its regularly appropriated funds, CDC has begun
implementing key projects, many in partnership with other
organizations. These projects are grouped broadly under the areas of
increasing laboratory capacity and research, improving domestic and
international surveillance, strengthening resources for containment and
rapid response, and strengthening public communications activities. I
will describe a few of the projects that relate most directly to trade
and travel.
Laboratory Capacity and Research
The capacity on early detection and reporting of outbreaks caused
by H5N1 and other highly pathogenic influenza viruses depends first on
strong laboratory capacity and research. The results of these
initiatives would have a major impact on travel and trade concerns:
CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within HHS, and
global partners such as WHO have made significant progress in
monitoring changes in the H5N1 virus since they first caused
human infections in 1997 and have continued to develop pandemic
influenza vaccine reference candidates. CDC and NIH are
cooperatively testing candidate reference vaccines, including a
series of pre-clinical and clinical trials to evaluate their
safety and dosage requirements. The number of H5N1 vaccine
doses on hand is calculated on the basis of different dosage
requirements. Interested manufacturers are working closely to
prepare limited quantities of these candidate vaccines. This
research will be essential both to promptly identify an actual
pandemic influenza strain that can be used to make an
appropriate vaccine and to have manufacturing and other
resources ready to test, produce, and distribute a pandemic
vaccine as quickly as possible.
CDC and its partners regularly monitor the effectiveness of
antiviral medications that could be used to help with treatment
during early and later stages of an influenza pandemic. Limited
epidemiological evidence suggests that one group of antiviral
medications, neuraminidase inhibitors, may be effective in
fighting H5N1 virus infection when administered promptly and in
sufficient quantities. No clinical evidence to date suggests
that resistance in H5N1 viruses to neuraminidase inhibitors is
present among viruses circulating in birds or untreated humans.
Current neuraminidase inhibitors licensed for use in the United
States are oseltamivir (TamifluTM) and zanamivir
(RelenzaTM). CDC works closely with several
manufacturers to maintain these antiviral medications, along
with other vital resources, in the U.S. strategic national
stockpile, for distribution domestically when needed to high-
risk priority groups. HHS, DOS, and the Department of Defense
(DOD) also work together to help place strategic antiviral
supplies in areas of the world where outbreaks are likely to
happen, in an effort to contain early pandemic influenza
outbreaks as closely as possible to their source.
CDC has as one of its major responsibilities the development
and testing of new rapid diagnostic tests. CDC distributes
these tests to the domestic Laboratory Response Network (LRN)
laboratories and to those the LRN certifies for use in making
preliminary identifications of H5 viruses. This saves time in
the diagnosis by allowing more efficient and rapid provisional
diagnosis locally at the LRN labs, with CDC providing
subsequent confirmatory testing in its BSL-3-enhanced
laboratories. Since December 2005, CDC has made major advances
in new rapid diagnostic tests and is now supplying diagnostic
tests for H5N1 virus to LRN-certified laboratories. The FY 2006
Emergency Supplemental funds are making it possible for CDC to
increase the pace of its research in this area.
CDC continually analyzes genetic sequence data as the H5N1
virus evolves and supplies viruses and the sequence data, in
coordination with WHO and the countries of origin, to certified
public and private scientific facilities in the United States
and throughout the world.
HHS recently announced contracts to further both current
egg-based vaccine development technology and novel, cell-based
technology. The egg-based research will help scientists and
manufacturers develop interim solutions that could be
particularly important should a pandemic begin in the next one
or 2 years. The new emphasis on cell-based research could
advance a process to significantly increase the quantity of
influenza vaccine produced during a similar amount of time as
egg-based technology takes. Funding for both types of research
continues to be an essential component of the Nation's
comprehensive national pandemic influenza preparedness.
Domestic and International Surveillance
Domestic and international surveillance networks are essential in
analyzing and reporting on potential threats to travel and trade:
CDC has worked with numerous partners since 1990 to
strengthen its domestic surveillance network for seasonal
influenza and other public health threats. Now, as part of the
comprehensive National Response Plan, CDC continues to enhance
this network and is facilitating active partnerships between
states and private healthcare facilities, such as hospitals,
that detect and report cases of suspected influenza infections.
Although our role in this area is limited, it is essential that
states and private healthcare facilities work together to build
greater overall capacity to detect and report potential
pandemic influenza outbreaks as quickly as possible. The system
depends on strong, longstanding working relationships among
many health professional groups, as well as on utilizing
advances through technologies.
International surveillance is equally critical in preparing
for an influenza pandemic. CDC serves as one of the four WHO
Global Collaborating Centers for Influenza. In this capacity,
CDC plays a vital coordinating role in ongoing global
surveillance of continually evolving influenza viruses. To
strengthen its own international surveillance, CDC has invested
for a number of years in country and regional training for many
nations that now are directly affected by H5N1 influenza. With
the help of FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental funds, CDC is
establishing an on-ground regional presence with Global Disease
Detection (GDD) Response Centers in five key global areas:
Egypt, Guatemala, Kenya, Thailand, and PR China. This is part
of CDC's efforts to strengthen global surveillance capacity by
establishing a network of Global Disease Detection and Response
Centers strategically placed in each of the six WHO regions.
Each GDD Response Center will design and implement key
interventions aimed at the early identification and containment
of pandemic health threats, whether an act of terrorism or the
natural emergence of a deadly infectious pathogen like pandemic
influenza. To provide additional support internationally, the
agency has enhanced collaborations with WHO regionally and in
its Geneva headquarters and has made resources available
bilaterally to 13 countries, with more targeted in the coming
months. The agency also has posted expert influenza
coordinators within three countries that have been hit by the
H5N1 virus: Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Posting additional
influenza experts in countries and regions that have been
hardest hit in recent months is a high priority of the agency.
Within the Federal Government, CDC coordinates this and other
efforts with DOS and DOD. In particular, the U.S. Naval Medical
Research Units (NAMRU) in Indonesia and Egypt are playing a
valuable role in prompt confirmatory testing of H5N1 samples
from human cases.
Surveillance of wild and migratory birds, as well as small
and large flocks of poultry, has become increasingly important
as the H5N1 virus has spread across continents. CDC is working
in concert with many groups, including the Wildlife
Conservation Society, the Smithsonian Institution, the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the
Interior (DOI), and international organizations such as the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and OIE
to assure comprehensive global surveillance of poultry and
migratory bird pathways, and in collaboration with Federal
partners to ensure the importation and exportation of healthy
poultry and fowl.
Containment and Rapid Response
Protection of travelers and integrity of safe trade depend on
containment and rapid response actions. This is one of the most
important areas in which CDC is strengthening its capacity:
CDC is a leader in a USDA-coordinated multi-agency,
scenario-based plan to help ensure a seamless response to the
first animal and human outbreaks caused by H5N1 virus or other
highly pathogenic influenza strains in the United States. A
``playbook'' of possible scenarios for first outbreaks has been
developed, and CDC will participate with other agencies in
conducting exercises with these scenarios in the coming months.
Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, CDC also
works with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors on public health
issues related to the detection and containment of influenza
virus infection at out borders. CDC serves on a border working
group that includes representatives from Canadian and Mexican
public health departments to plan and implement border
guidance.
CDC regularly updates HHS regulations to prohibit the
transfer of dangerous select agents into the United States. In
the case of highly pathogenic influenza strains such as the
H5N1 virus, CDC is acting quickly to prohibit entry of birds
and bird-products from countries with confirmed or suspected
cases.
Using regularly appropriated funds and Supplemental
Emergency funds from FY 2005 and FY 2006, CDC has significantly
enhanced vital quarantine stations at key points of entry,
which provide first-line defense to detect and evaluate
potentially infectious diseases arriving in the United States.
Key roles for the quarantine stations include working in
concert with state and local health departments and with other
Federal partners to address community mitigation of outbreaks
due to highly contagious diseases, and preparing for influenza
pandemics using 21st century approaches to traditional non-
pharmaceutical interventions. These types of interventions
include voluntary isolation and quarantine, social distancing,
and infection control strategies. The partnerships are
essential to prevent importation and interstate spread of
communicable diseases through U.S. ports of entry and in
ensuring a coordinated, effective response to emerging disease
threats. Sixteen of these quarantine stations currently are in
international airports across the United States, and two others
are located at major points of entry across the southern land
border; two additional stations are scheduled for opening by
the end of Calendar Year 2006. Depending on resources, CDC
plans to increase the number of quarantine stations to as many
as 25 in FY 2007.
Through $350 million in FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental
funding, CDC is administering HHS collaborative agreements with
62 grantees--50 states, six U.S. territories, and six large
metropolitan areas. The collaborative agreements are helping
these grantees move forward on their preparedness efforts,
including identification of potential gaps and carrying out
exercises of components of their preparedness plans.
CDC is working closely with partners at the Department of
Labor and HHS to identify research gaps regarding personal
protective equipment for use during an influenza pandemic and
to update guidance for the public, first responders, and other
health professionals. Developing effective guidance is a high-
priority area that also is highly complex, requiring unified
national guidance on use of masks, respirators, and other
resources, as well as decisions about how to store, distribute,
and replace these materials quickly during an influenza
pandemic.
CDC and other agencies also are developing practical
guidance on non-pharmaceutical interventions that will be
especially important during the early months of an influenza
pandemic. This includes guidance for healthcare facilities and
general public infection control, social distancing practices,
isolation procedures, criteria for school and business
closures, and voluntary quarantine measures if necessary.
Additionally, CDC is enhancing its research agenda around the
effectiveness of various non-pharmaceutical interventions that
will be necessary to mitigate the impact and contain a pandemic
influenza virus internationally, at our borders and within
communities in the United States.
Communications
Travel and trade concerns are closely allied with the need for
timely, accurate information for the public, health professionals,
businesses, and other groups. HHS and CDC work closely together to
provide a broad-based approach to public communications activities,
including efforts that incorporate risk communications principles that
will be essential when a pandemic occurs. This system of communications
activities already is helping alert and educate the public, health
professionals, authorities, and others about practical action to take
in preparation for an influenza pandemi:.
The HHS www.pandemicflu.gov website, the CDC Traveler's
Health web section (www.cdc.gov), the CDC Information Hotline,
the Health Alert Network, and the Epi-X alert network are
primary components of a multi-faceted public communications
initiative.
CDC and other agencies also collaborate with DHS on
developing practical guidance for the private sector,
educational institutions, and other priority groups preparing
for a pandemic.
HHS is nearing the end of a series of comprehensive state
pandemic influenza planning summits across the country that
have significantly raised awareness of the potential impact of
an influenza pandemic. These summits have served in many cases
as an initiative for new levels of contacts between the Federal
Government and state and local preparedness groups. CDC has
been a leader in each of these events and continues to follow-
up with states, territories, and tribal leaders.
From a communications perspective, the administration of the
state and local collaborative agreements noted above provides a
highly effective forum for CDC and grantees to communicate
frequently, which helps to integrate effective risk
communications principles into overall pandemic communications
planning and activities.
Challenges
Despite these important strides, our Nation is not yet where we
need to be in our public health preparedness for the next influenza
pandemic. HHS has led advances in many areas that will contribute to a
quick and effective response. CDC, NIH, the Food and Drug
Administration, and other HHS agencies are committed to the best
possible preparedness and response to an influenza pandemic. The
advances we are making have resulted from three major factors:
dedication to the highest science-based standards, a spirit and history
of collaborative learning and action, and the necessary public and
private support of required fiscal and human resources.
We face some significant challenges. A pandemic will require rapid
response on many levels--from U.S. communities to areas across the
world. Rapid outbreak response requires rapid detection, seamless
reporting, prompt, transparent information sharing, and strong, ongoing
core laboratory and research capacity. The next influenza pandemic is a
multi-year threat that requires a multi-year approach to fiscal and
human resources. This is particularly important as the Federal
Government seeks ways to encourage ongoing involvement of partners such
as vaccine manufacturers, as well as continued state and local
preparedness. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information
with you. I am happy to answer your questions.
Senator Smith. Doctor, we read of bird flu in other
countries among those handling chickens and ducks and other
things, and I'm wondering, do we have any instance of that
coming into the U.S.? I'm not aware of one.
Dr. LeDuc. There have been cases of highly pathogenic avian
influenza in the United States, but only in poultry. I'm
unaware of any human cases----
Senator Smith. Human, yes.
Dr. LeDuc.--in the United States.
Senator Smith. So, nothing as it relates to travel that has
been----
Dr. LeDuc. No, no.
Senator Smith.--brought through an airport, that you know
of.
Dr. LeDuc. No, not that I'm aware of.
Senator Smith. OK.
Mr. Secretary, I know there is always a debate as to what
the role of tourism ought to be within the Federal Government,
whether you leave it to the market or government can do more to
make it a sparkplug. Some countries even have Cabinet-level
secretaries in charge of tourism. Do you believe tourism has a
sufficient place in the Federal Government?
Mr. Lavin. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree that tourism
definitely needs a strong voice in the Federal Government. I
can assure you, the Secretary of Commerce--beyond my particular
role, the Secretary himself--has personally committed to seeing
that the tourism industry in the United States is strong and
successful. And I know he participates personally with our
Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. He charged the Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board to develop a national tourism strategy.
He personally convened the meeting of the Advisory Board in New
Orleans after Katrina to, again, ask them what could be done to
put a recovery program into place. So, he is personally
committed to the success of that industry.
Senator Smith. It's my understanding that the Department of
Commerce recently received the results from a one-year tourism
promotion campaign in the United Kingdom. Is that correct?
Mr. Lavin. That is correct, sir.
Senator Smith. Can you share any of the results of that $6
million we spent in the U.K.?
Mr. Lavin. Right. We've spent $6 million in advertising in
the United Kingdom, and then we are in the middle of a $4
million campaign right now in Japan. And we run a series of
surveys before and after, to test the effectiveness. And we
ended up with a number of statistics that we thought were
significant, in terms of the impact they had on awareness of
the U.S. as a tourism destination and the number of tourists
who've subsequently visited the U.S. and had seen those ads.
And I think, in the latter category, we ended up with something
like 380,000 or 360,000 tourists who had visited the U.S. and
had seen the ads. Is that correct; 360,000? In the former
category, I think we determined that awareness of the United
States went up by just over 10 percent.
Senator Smith. Was there any uptick, in terms of tourism
from the United Kingdom to the United States because of this?
Mr. Lavin. Well, there certainly is an uptick because of
tourism advertising from the United Kingdom, and we can also
discern that a number of these tourists saw the ads. It's----
Senator Smith. Yes.
Mr. Lavin.--a bit more conjectural, Mr. Chairman, to----
Senator Smith. Yes.
Mr. Lavin.--determine how to--how do we ascribe the role of
the ad in shaping that decision?
Senator Smith. Sure. I also understand you have a clip.
Mr. Lavin. We do have. I'd be happy to show the Senators
the ad.
Senator Smith. We'd love to see it.
[Video presentation.]
Senator Smith. The only way that could have been any
better, is if Oregon had been mentioned.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Hawaii, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Very good.
Senator Inouye, questions?
Senator Inouye. I note in your testimony that 97 percent of
visa applications are processed in 1 or 2 days. Is that
correct, Madam Secretary?
Ambassador Nesbitt. Not exactly, sir. The 97 percent are
people who have been interviewed and approved for a visa. Once
they're approved, then they get their visa within 1 to 2 days.
Senator Inouye. Is the visa policy uniform throughout the
world, or are certain countries favored?
Ambassador Nesbitt. It's uniform throughout the world, in
the sense that there is set legislative criteria that every
applicant has to meet in order to qualify for a visa, and that
criteria is the same everywhere throughout the world.
Senator Inouye. Now, for example, do you have group
issuance in all countries?
Ambassador Nesbitt. No, we don't have group issuance
anywhere. We interview, and we're required to interview, every
individual and make a judgment about every individual.
Senator Inouye. You don't have any group issuance?
Ambassador Nesbitt. Not to my knowledge, sir. There are
many instances in which there are performers, and we would have
the entire group come at the same time. But we----
Senator Inouye. Then why are we working on a special
program for the Chinese for group issuance?
Ambassador Nesbitt. That's a little bit different. We do
not--we are not considering group issuance. The Chinese--and
perhaps my colleague from Commerce would like to discuss it a
little further--the Chinese do have certain agreements under
their approved destination status program. And, some of the
agreements that they currently have provide for group
issuances. One of the reasons we have not reached an agreement
with the Chinese is that we can't do group issuances.
Senator Inouye. Do we have pre-clearance in most countries?
Ambassador Nesbitt. The Department of State does not have
pre-clearance during the visa process, but the Department of
Homeland Security has pre-clearance or pre-inspection in 14
locations in 5 countries at present.
Mr. Jacksta. I think I can answer that, sir. We have pre-
clearance in Canada, Aruba and in the Bahamas, where we have
CBP officers stationed in those locations to inspect the
individuals before they get on the plane to the United States.
When the flight arrives in the United States, that allows them
to go to the domestic terminal directly.
Senator Inouye. None in the European countries?
Mr. Jacksta. In the European environment, we have what we
call the IAP program, the Immigration Assistance Program, where
we station officers--a few officers over in Poland, in the
Netherlands, and the U.K. They work with the airlines to assist
with the review of documentation to ensure only individuals
that have the proper documentation get on the planes to the
United States.
Senator Inouye. Do we do that in Latin America? South
America?
Mr. Jacksta. Right now, there is nothing that we do in
those locations with the pre-clearance or the IAP programs, but
we are looking at additional locations, and hopefully we'll be
able to expand the programs to those locations that are the
highest risk for possible fraudulent documents and individuals
using fraudulent documents to get into the United States.
Senator Inouye. Do we have that in Asia?
Mr. Jacksta. In Asia, right now, we do not. But we're also
looking at certain airports overseas, in Asia, that we think
would be the right places to go to have our officers do
prescreening of certain travelers to ensure that there aren't
fraudulent documents being utilized to get into the United
States. Our strategy is to extend the border out and to stop
the individuals before they get on the airlines, which poses a
security risk.
Senator Inouye. I've been receiving communications from the
Republic of Korea about special visa arrangements. What is the
status of those discussions?
Ambassador Nesbitt. I believe you're talking about the Visa
Waiver Program, sir. South Korea has been interested, for many
years, in qualifying for the Visa Waiver Program, and we have
ongoing discussions with them about what the requirements are.
Ultimately, that's a decision that would be made not purely by
the State Department, but in conjunction with DHS, once Korea
meets all of the legislative criteria for the Visa Waiver
Program.
Senator Inouye. I was told that we discontinued our program
we had in selling tourism in Europe, internationally. Is that
correct?
Mr. Lavin. The active promotional program run by the
Federal Government is the ad campaign which we've run for 2
years in the United Kingdom. There are a range of other
promotional programs. Most tourism promotion in the United
States is handled by localities or municipalities or by private
companies. But, at the Federal Government level, the only
program we've run is this 2-year program in the U.K., Senator.
Senator Inouye. Is it true that most European countries
have the person in charge of tourism in a Cabinet position?
Mr. Lavin. I couldn't speak to what most European countries
do. I think we are probably one of the largest markets in the
world that doesn't centrally direct tourist promotion from a
national level. And if you look in markets such as Australia or
Germany, it is typically done through a national body; whereas,
in the United States it is typically done by states and
localities.
Senator Inouye. I see. Well, things have improved.
My last question is to the Doctor, here. Are we prepared?
Dr. LeDuc. Are----
Senator Inouye. I know this is a broad question.
Dr. LeDuc. Are we prepared for a----
Senator Inouye. A pandemic.
Dr. LeDuc.--pandemic of avian influenza? We're certainly
more prepared than we were yesterday, and we continue to be
making efforts to prepare both the Nation and globally.
There clearly is a tremendous amount of work yet to be
done. And I think the magnitude of the problem is such that
it's not going to be an easy fix. I think this is a marathon,
as opposed to a sprint, as our Director likes to say.
Senator Inouye. I believe I saw a movie, not too long ago,
where a plane was approaching the United States and it was
discovered that one of the passengers had avian flu, or
something like that, and they didn't know what to do. What
would you suggest, if that ever happened?
Dr. LeDuc. We have in place a number of quarantine stations
at our international air facilities. I think the total number
of quarantine stations are 18 today, and will be 20 by the end
of either this year or next year, I forget which. And I know
that there is a desire to increase that number to at least 25
so that all the major air and land crossings have a quarantine
station. The scenario would be that if there was a--and this
happens with some regularity--if there's a passenger that
becomes ill on an airline, they call in advance, the airplane
is met, the individual is handled locally at the airport, put
into isolation, if appropriate, and taken directly to medical
facilities. We have medical officers at many of our quarantine
stations, and the goal is to have them at all of them.
Senator Inouye. And that process is now in place?
Dr. LeDuc. Yes, sir. There are 18 in place today. Not all
of those have medical officers, but the majority do.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
Ambassador Nesbitt, I just have one question, then need to
get--one additional question--then we need to go to the second
panel before--I think some votes are scheduled shortly after
11.
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is nearing a
deadline without any clarification on how this will be tested
or implemented. At least that's my understanding. The cruise
industry is also very concerned about the phasing-in of this
Travel Initiative, beginning with air and sea travel in
December 2006; and then land travel in 2007. They're concerned
about confusion of the passengers on what documentation they
will need, and when. I wonder if you agree with that concern,
and how we can avoid all the confusion that might result.
Ambassador Nesbitt. We're certainly aware of the concern,
and we understand the concerns associated with it. The January
1, 2008, deadline is set in law, so we are doing our best to
try and meet that deadline. The division between having an
implementation date that applies to air and sea, versus land-
border crossings, that decision was arrived at in an effort to
try and obtain the benefits of going to a reduced number of
documents as soon as possible. And since most travelers who fly
internationally already use a passport, the thinking was that
it would be less burdensome and could be implemented earlier,
and that we would then be able to give people more time to
prepare for the land-border crossings.
But, yes, we're aware that there are concerns about that,
and we will try to address them.
Senator Smith. That's great.
Thank you all for your testimony. We want to express our
appreciation for what you do to promote tourism and to
facilitate it. And thank you so very much.
Our second panel will have four witnesses: Mr. Jay Rasulo,
Chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts; Mr. Jonathan Tisch,
who is the CEO and Chairman of Loews Hotels; Mr. Todd Davidson,
Executive Director, Oregon Tourism Commission; and, finally,
Dr. Virginia, or ``Ginny,'' Pressler, Senior Vice President of
Strategic Business Development at Hawaii Pacific Health, and
she is Senator Inouye's witness.
Senator Smith. Mr. Rasulo, why don't we start with you?
STATEMENT OF JAY RASULO, CHAIRMAN, WALT DISNEY PARKS AND
RESORTS; CHAIRMAN, TRAVEL INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION; CHAIRMAN, U.S. TRAVEL AND TOURISM
ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Rasulo. Great, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our Nation's travel and tourism
industry, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to
discuss America's competitive position within the fast-growing
world travel and tourism market.
I speak today from three perspectives. First, as 2006
Chairman of the Travel Industry Association, which represents
the $600-billion U.S. travel industry, I also serve as Chairman
of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. This is a panel
of the industry's top CEOs that is charged with advising the
Department of Commerce on the creation of national strategy to
compete for a greater share of the world's growing travel and
tourism market. And, finally, I'm Chair of Walt Disney Parks
and Resorts, which operates 11 theme parks on three continents,
a top-rated cruise line, and 32,000 hotel rooms. Here in the
U.S., our vacation businesses are responsible for creating
175,000 jobs, while contributing nearly $9 billion in economic
revenue each year to their local economies.
In each of these roles, I've spent a lot of time assessing
the future of the world travel and tourism market. There are
three realities about that market that I'd like to share with
you today.
The first reality is that, in terms of future job creation
and economic impact, travel and tourism is one of the most
significant growth industries in the world. Country-to-country
travel is expected to double over the next 15 years, driving a
huge share of the world's job creation, economic growth, and
tax revenue. This is a market that is well worth the United
States winning.
The second reality is that, within this fast-growing
market, consumer expectations, their behaviors, and their
booking patterns are evolving at breakneck speed. Today's world
travelers not only have more money to spend, they have an
increasing number of worthwhile destinations to choose from,
they have better access to information, and they expect a
higher level of service and ease of movement than ever before.
In short, they expect travel destinations to compete for their
business. Countries that adapt to these two realities will
position themselves to reap a windfall of new jobs and economic
growth.
And that brings me to the third reality: The United States
will have to adopt a much more competitive mindset in order to
reap the benefits of the windfall I've just described. The days
in which we were able to rely simply on reputation and word-of-
mouth to attract international travelers are long gone. In
order to succeed in this new world market, we have to compete.
To illustrate this reality, I'd like your permission to
show a short video that has been prepared by our sister brand
at Disney, ESPN, which illustrates the high stakes involved in
this growing competition.
Senator Smith. Go right ahead.
[Video presentation.]
Senator Smith. Hence, the need of this hearing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rasulo. So, that's clearly an outcome that we do not
want to see. But my fear is that we will, unless we adjust our
game plan.
Although visitation continues to rise in the U.S.--and this
year, we are projected to reach an all-time high--the rest of
the world is doing even better and outpacing our growth. In
fact, since 1992, America's share of the world travel market
has fallen 35 percent. Had the U.S. grown as quickly as the
rest of the world over this period, we could have added $286
billion in economic revenue to the U.S. economy and millions of
additional jobs.
In order to recapture our share of this growing market,
there are two investments that we must make. First, we must ask
people to visit us by investing in a nationally-coordinated
marketing strategy to move the United States higher on the list
of dream destinations. Second, we must invest in creating a
first impression of hospitality and friendliness at our
borders. Relatively small investments in these two areas will
yield very high returns.
For each 1 percent of market share that we gain back, $12.3
billion is added to the U.S. economy, 150,000 more jobs are
created, and $2.1 billion in additional tax revenue is raised.
And I'm pleased to say that the Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board is now engaged in putting together a recommended national
strategy to address these two areas. We expect to formally
submit this recommended strategy to Secretary Gutierrez later
this summer.
I'll conclude by highlighting an even greater reward, the
opportunity to win hearts and minds around the world by
signaling that our doors are open and that our welcome mat is
out.
We all took notice of the recent Pew Global Attitude
Survey, which found that the opinion of the United States had
fallen in many parts of the world. In today's environment,
America's image and reputation matter more than ever, and the
Pew Survey was a wake-up call that a great--the greater
character of our country and the friendliness of our people are
not adequately reflected in world opinion.
I suggest that my industry, the travel and tourism
industry, can be a powerful partner to help overcome these
misperceptions. I also add that the simple act of asking people
to visit us, whether through marketing or friendlier borders,
will communicate a great deal about our country, as well. It
will demonstrate to the world that we're an open, welcoming,
and friendly society, and the millions of travelers who accept
the invitation will then meet our people and experience our
values firsthand, generating the kind of positive word-of-mouth
that marketers can only dream of. With apologies to Von
Clausewitz, tourism is diplomacy by other means.
Considering the world we live in today, we simply can't
afford not to invest in this type of grassroots public
diplomacy. With the right investment, we can lay out the
biggest, brightest, and most alluring welcome mat the world has
ever seen.
Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rasulo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jay Rasulo, Chairman, Walt Disney Parks and
Resorts; Chairman, Travel Industry Association; Chairman, U.S. Travel
and Tourism Advisory Board
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Nation's travel and tourism
industry, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
America's competitive position within the fast-growing world travel and
tourism market.
I speak today from three perspectives.
First, as 2006 Chairman of the Travel Industry Association, which
represents the $600 billion U.S. travel industry.
I also serve as Chairman of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board, a panel of the industry's top CEOs that is charged with advising
the Department of Commerce on the creation of a national strategy to
compete for a greater share of the growing world travel and tourism
market.
And finally, I am Chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, which
operates 11 theme parks on three continents, a top-rated cruise line,
and 32,000 hotel rooms. Here in the U.S., our vacation businesses are
responsible for creating 175,000 jobs, while contributing nearly $9
billion in economic revenue each year to their local economies.
In each of these three roles, I have spent a great deal of time
assessing the future of the world travel and tourism market. There are
three realities that I'd like to talk about today.
The first reality is that in terms of future job creation and
economic impact, travel and tourism is one of the most significant
growth industries in the world. Country-to-country travel is expected
to double over the next 15 years, driving a huge share of the world's
job creation, economic growth and tax revenue.
This is a market that is well-worth winning.
The second reality is that within this fast-growing market,
consumer expectations, behaviors and booking patterns are evolving at
breakneck speed. Today's world travelers not only have more money to
spend, they have an increasing number of worthwhile destinations to
choose from, they have better access to information, and they expect a
higher level of service and ease of movement than ever before.
In short, they expect travel destinations to compete for their
business.
Countries that adapt to these two realities will position
themselves to reap a windfall of new jobs and economic growth.
And that brings me to the third reality: The United States will
have to adopt a much more competitive mindset in order to reap the full
benefits of the windfall I've just described.
The days in which we were able to rely on reputation and word-of-
mouth alone to attract international travelers are long gone. In order
to succeed in this new world market, we will have to compete.
To illustrate this reality, I'd like your permission to show a
short video, produced by our sister brand, ESPN, which illustrates the
high stakes involved in this growing competition:
[ESPN VIDEO]
This is an outcome we do not want to see. But my fear is that we
will . . . unless we adjust our game plan.
Although visitation continues to rise in the U.S., and this year we
are projected to reach an all-time high, the rest of the world is doing
even better and outpacing our growth.
In fact, since 1992, America's share of the world travel market has
fallen 35 percent.
Had the U.S. grown as quickly as the rest of the world, we could
have added $286 billion in economic revenue to the U.S. economy, and
millions of additional jobs.
In order to re-capture our share of this growing market, there are
two investments we must make.
First, we must ask people to visit us, by investing in a
nationally-coordinated marketing strategy to move the United States
higher on their list of dream destinations.
Second, we must invest in creating a first impression of
hospitality and friendliness at our borders.
Relatively small investments in these two areas will yield a very
high return, bringing billions in revenue and millions of additional
jobs to the United States.
And I'm pleased to say that the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board
is now engaged in putting together a recommended national strategy to
address these two areas.
We expect to formally submit this recommended strategy to Secretary
Gutierrez later this summer.
I will conclude by highlighting an even greater reward--the
opportunity to win hearts and minds around the world, by signaling that
our doors are open and our welcome mat is out.
We all took notice of the recent Pew Global Attitudes Survey, which
found that opinion of the U.S. has fallen in many parts of the world.
In today's environment, America's image and reputation matter more
than ever. And the Pew Survey was a wake up call that the great
character of our country and the friendliness of our people are not
adequately reflected in world opinion.
I suggest that my industry--the travel and tourism industry--can be
a powerful partner to help overcome these misperceptions.
And I'd also add that the simple act of asking people to visit us--
whether through marketing or friendlier borders--will communicate a
great deal about us as a country.
It will demonstrate to the world that we are an open, welcoming and
friendly society.
And the millions of travelers who accept the invitation will then
meet our people and experience our values firsthand, generating the
kind of positive word-of-mouth that marketers can only dream of.
With apologies to Von Clausewitz, tourism is diplomacy by other
means.
Considering the world we live in today, we can't afford not to
invest in this form of grassroots public diplomacy.
With the right investment, we can lay out the biggest, brightest,
most alluring welcome mat the world has ever seen.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Tisch?
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN M. TISCH, CHAIRMAN, TRAVEL BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE; CHAIRMAN/CEO, LOEWS HOTELS
Mr. Tisch. Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman Inouye, thank you
for the invitation.
I'm Jonathan Tisch. I am the Chairman and CEO of Loews
Hotels. I'm also the Chairman of the Travel Business
Roundtable, an organization with 85 members representing
various aspects of the travel and tourism industry, retail,
sports, publishing, and our mission is to educate our
policymakers about the significant economic and social
contributions our industry makes to this country.
I also wear a third hat. I serve as Chairman of NYC &
Company, which is New York City's travel, tourism, and
visitor's agency.
Along with our strategic partner, the Travel Industry
Association of America, the Travel Business Roundtable
represents all sectors of the $650-billion U.S. travel and
tourism industry. As you've heard, 5 years after 9/11, the good
news is that people are traveling, once again. But the real
promise of travel and tourism lies not in what has occurred,
but what we can still achieve. International travel is on the
rise; however, we are uncertain if we will reach pre-9/11
numbers this year. In addition, the uptake in international
visitation, it should be noted, is largely attributable to
increases in visitors from Canada.
Today, I'd like to discuss some of the barriers that impede
travel within, but especially to, the United States, their
consequences on our Nation's economy, social and homeland
security issues, and ways which the industry can help lift the
barriers while helping to secure our borders.
Please be mindful that there is no industry more committed
to finding the proper balance between security at our Nation's
borders and facilitating free and open commerce and travel
across those same borders. As we saw on 9/11, a terrorist
attack can cripple our entire industry.
The four barriers I'd like to discuss today are the WHTI,
entry-exit procedures and visa policy, the perception of the
hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, and, as Jay mentioned, the
deteriorating image of U.S. around the world.
The travel and tourism industry fully supports the homeland
security intent of WHTI, which calls for fewer and more secure
travel documents for those traveling across our borders. We
have never questioned why, or if, WHTI should be implemented.
We are concerned with how and when. The land-border deadline is
approaching, but no procurement for alternate travel documents
has been issued, nor has any testing of cards or readers been
conducted, and time for mounting a public education campaign
and issuing the cards to the millions who will need them is
running out.
TBR and TIA commend Chairman Ted Stevens and Senator
Patrick Leahy for their amendment to the immigration reform
bill extending the statutory deadline to June 1, 2009. We
realize that a straight extension is not the entire solution to
WHTI, but it's a good first step to ensure that there is enough
time to get it right.
While the newly created visa business centers have helped
alleviate some of the hassles of international travel, there
are still under-staffed Consulates, long interview wait times,
and very long trips to get to the interview. The average visa
wait time in Brazil is 70 days, while the average in India is
132 days. These lengthy times are clearly unacceptable.
Fortunately, wait times in countries such as China and
Korea have been reduced, due to additional staffing and
expansion of interview hours. Being in the hotel business, we
all understand that you never get a second chance to make a
first impression. When a guest arrives, he should be looked in
the eye, greeted with a smile, and offered world-class service.
If our front desk agent does that, I increase my odds of the
guest returning to my hotel. The same should apply to visitors
to our country.
CBP and Transportation Security Administration inspectors,
as well as consular officers overseas, should receive customer
service training and be evaluated based on their performance in
keeping with new professional standards. In addition, staffing
levels should be closely monitored to utilize inspectors'
efficiency and avoid backlogs.
When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it wiped out one
of the Nation's most vibrant and rapidly growing travel and
tourism economies. There will be a long recovery time.
Unfortunately, international travelers and Americans alike
still perceive the devastation and despair immediately
following Katrina as the current norm. We must reverse this
image. Travel and tourism was the heart and soul of the Gulf
Coast. The region is beginning its recovery, but the area still
vitally needs additional housing for workers to return to the
area, and, more importantly, aid for changing the negative
perception of the area. A promotion campaign to let the world
know the once-devastated region is now open for business is
desperately needed. We suggest a one-time appropriation to the
Mississippi Gulf Coast and New Orleans Convention and Visitors
Bureau to support this effort.
The final barrier I'd like to mention is one that Jay
mentioned a moment ago, and that's America's deteriorating
image abroad. The impediments we erect at our borders
contribute to the ever-worsening image of our country overseas.
Studies consistently show that when international travelers
come to our country and experience American culture and
hospitality firsthand, their perceptions of America, and
Americans, change, almost without exception, for the better.
So, in addition to serving as an important economic
generator, travel and tourism is a very, very vital vehicle for
diplomacy. As a Nation, we are not using this vehicle
effectively. At a time when the U.S. is the travel bargain of
the world, we are still losing international travel market
share. Worldwide international travel increased at a rate of 52
percent between 1992 and 2004, but, as you've heard, our
overall market share has declined by 35 percent.
Now that I've laid out our most difficult obstacles, let me
pose a few solutions.
The following are recommendations for Congress on how to
alleviate the negative, unintended impacts of these barriers
while continuing to strengthen border security.
Grant an extension for WHTI, and work closely with State
and DHS to effectively implement it.
Direct the State Department and DHS to work with travel and
tourism experts to include customer service and hospitality
training in CBP and consular office curriculum and to assist in
evaluating the inspection area for more effective queuing
techniques and smarter use of staffing.
And appropriate one-time funding to promote the Gulf Coast
as a travel destination that is, as we say in New York City
after 9/11, open for business.
As you're aware, Secretary of State Rice and DHS Secretary
Chertoff announced their joint vision for Secure Borders and
Open Doors on January 17. Our industry fully endorsed this
initiative and was encouraged by the announcement. We are now
awaiting government action. The industry can play a significant
role in both consular and customs officer training in the Model
Ports of Entry program at Washington, Dulles, and Houston
airports to help carry out this vision.
The industry is also working with the Commerce Department
through the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. We're
currently devising the Gulf Coast tourism revitalization
recommendations and comprehensive national tourism policy
recommendations, both commissioned by Secretary Gutierrez. It
is essential that the public- and private-sectors work together
to remove the barriers facing legitimate travelers wishing to
visit the U.S.
Marketing and promotion are also key pieces to the overall
strategy. As an industry, we believe that a nationally-
coordinated marketing strategy is a crucial investment that we
all must make. It's not enough to alleviate the burdens on
travelers; we must also notify those travelers that the welcome
mat has been rolled out.
My final recommendation is one that Senator Dorgan
mentioned while he was with us this morning, and that is for
the private sector and the public sector to work more closely
together. We, at the Travel Business Roundtable, for the past 5
years, have been calling for a Presidential Advisory Council on
Travel and Tourism, comprised of public, private, and
nonprofit-sector individuals, and Federal, State, and local
officials, whose goal it is to advance policy matters that
impact tourism development. Most major nations, as you've
heard, have made travel and tourism promotion and policy
coordination of tourism issues centerpieces of their national
economic growth plan. The United States must make the travel
and tourism industry's growth a national priority, as well.
In summary, the travel and tourism industry is an integral
part of making America's economy, borders, and international
relations strong. Our impact is clear. We must maximize our
potential.
Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to answering
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tisch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan M. Tisch, Chairman, Travel Business
Roundtable; Chairman/CEO, Loews Hotels
Introduction
Good morning. I am Jonathan Tisch, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Loews Hotels, and Chairman of the Travel Business
Roundtable. Loews Hotels, headquartered in New York City, operates 16
distinct properties across the United States and 2 in Canada, including
The Loews Regency in New York City and our most recent addition to the
Loews family, The Madison, a Loews Hotel, here in Washington, D.C. The
company employs more than 7,000 people across the U.S. The Travel
Business Roundtable (TBR) is a CEO-based organization originally
established to continue the momentum of the 1995 White House Conference
on Travel and Tourism. TBR's mission is to educate elected officials
and policymakers about the importance of our industry on the Nation's
economic and social well-being. Along with our strategic partner, the
Travel Industry Association of America (TIA), we represent all sectors
of the U.S. travel and tourism industry.
Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Dorgan, thank you for holding
this important hearing on the state of the U.S. travel and tourism
industry. It was my honor to have testified before this Subcommittee
almost 4 years ago to report on the industry as it was beginning to
recover from the horrific effects of September 11, 2001. At that time,
our industry united to focus on getting travelers back on planes, in
hotels and restaurants and to our theme parks, museums and shopping
centers. The collective efforts of diverse travel and tourism interests
have helped restore a great deal of confidence in travel to and within
the U.S.
Current State of the Industry
The travel and tourism industry defines the service economy across
the globe, expecting to generate $6.5 trillion of economic activity
around the world in 2006. \1\ Our industry creates jobs and careers; we
fulfill important social policy goals, such as moving people from
welfare to work; we contribute more than $99 billion in tax revenue for
local, state and Federal Governments that support essential services;
and we are one of very few industries that creates a multi-billion
dollar trade surplus. We are a significant presence in all 50 states
and 435 Congressional districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ World Travel and Tourism Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the industry is comprised of approximately 18 distinct
sectors, natural disasters, government mandates and global challenges
can and do create industry unity. When Hurricane Katrina debilitated an
entire region and destroyed once vibrant commerce, the industry united
to help New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast begin rebuilding.
When the U.S. Government promulgated a biometric passport deadline that
the U.S. Government could not meet, the industry united to ensure that
Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries had sufficient time to produce the
most secure travel documents possible. When studies showed (and
continue to show) that the deteriorating international opinion of
America and Americans could be changed when international travelers
actually visit the U.S., the industry united to offer our services as a
public diplomacy tool.
Five years after 9/11, people are traveling again; industry
employment is strong, directly providing 7.3 million U.S. jobs; and the
industry continues to be an economic generator, accounting for roughly
$645 billion in direct travel expenditures, $163 billion in direct
travel-generated payroll and a $4 billion balance of trade surplus, to
help offset a worsening national trade deficit. \2\ So, you may ask, if
the industry has recovered since 9/11 and is currently healthy, why are
we here today to discuss the current state of the travel and tourism
industry? Simply stated: We could do much more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Travel Industry Association of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real promise of travel and tourism lies not in what has
occurred but rather in what can yet be achieved--for America as an
interdependent part of a global economy, in dissuading an increasingly
hostile and skeptical world about our country and its people, and for
border security policies that can protect our homeland without
discouraging essential international commerce.
International travel to the U.S., which reached its peak in 2000
with 51.2 million visitors, hit its low in 2003 with only 41.2 million
visitors. Since that time, international travel has been increasing
steadily, reaching 49.4 million in 2005; however, we are still
uncertain if we will reach pre-9/11 numbers this year. \3\ In addition,
the uptake in international visitation is largely attributable to
Canadian travel. In 2005, Canadian travel surpassed pre-9/11 levels
with an increase of 2 percent. However, travel from overseas was still
far from hitting the 2000 mark, down 16.5 percent. Apparently, we have
much work to do to get overseas travelers back to the U.S. In addition,
our strongest travel market, Canada, faces new challenges with the
impending implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today I would like to discuss some of the barriers that impede
travel within--but especially to--the United States, their consequences
for our Nation's economic, social and homeland security, and the ways
in which this industry can help lift the barriers while helping to
secure our borders. It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but
allow me to explain further.
In April, the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC), in partnership
with TBR and TIA, hosted the 6th Annual Global Tourism Summit here in
the Nation's Capital. Corporate and government travel and tourism
leaders attended from all across the globe. It may surprise some of you
to know that most developed countries have Cabinet-level officials
focused solely on generating tourism, and more than 130 countries have
official, government-sponsored tourism offices. These nations have
recognized that a coordinated national tourism policy fulfills numerous
domestic goals, including job creation, expanding trade surpluses and
creating economic vitality on a multi-regional basis within their
countries. These nations also spend hundreds of millions of dollars on
tourism promotion because they see a tremendous return on investment.
During the summit, I frequently heard the question from our
international counterparts, ``Do you still want us to come here?''
These visitors were asking in reference to the barriers--from the
sometimes cumbersome visa process to the tighter requirements of WHTI
to the long and unwelcoming inspections by Customs and Border
Protection officials at U.S. ports-of-entry. International travelers
are experiencing a certain ``hassle factor'' just to enter the U.S.
that lends to a perception of ``fortress America.''
As I enumerate the barriers that impede travel to the U.S. and hurt
us in the global marketplace, please be mindful that there is no
industry more committed to finding the proper balance between security
at our Nation's borders and facilitating free and open commerce and
travel across those borders. As we saw on 9/11, one terrorist attack
can and will cripple our entire industry.
What follows should update the Subcommittee on where our industry
currently stands and where it hopes to go.
Barriers to Travel
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
The travel and tourism industry fully supports the homeland
security intent of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004, calling for Customs and Border Protection officers to inspect
fewer and more secure travel documents for those traveling across our
borders. We have never questioned why or if the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative, or WHTI, should be implemented. We are concerned
with how and when.
Our greatest concern about WHTI is Federal communication and
cooperation. The Departments of State (State) and Homeland Security
(DHS) are working together to release the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) on the air and sea WHTI deadline, scheduled for the end of this
year. With that deadline only 7 months away and cruise travelers
currently booking their winter trips, we do not know what the
requirements will be. The absence of this rulemaking could cost the
cruise lines millions in lost business.
An even larger problem involves the January 1, 2008 deadline for
land-border travel. TBR and TIA support the concept of a PASScard,
which was introduced jointly by State and DHS in January, as a lower-
cost, easier-to-obtain and easier-to-carry variation of the passport.
However, State and DHS cannot agree on what type of technology will be
incorporated in the PASScard. Therefore, no procurement has been issued
nor has any testing of cards or readers been conducted, and time for
mounting a public education campaign and issuing the cards for the
millions who will need them is running out.
As the deadline approaches with no certain timeline in place from
State and DHS, the travel and tourism industry is supportive of making
sure there is sufficient time to implement WHTI effectively. If our
northern border is congested on January 1, 2008 due to a poorly
implemented WHTI, not only will the security of our borders be
compromised but our relationship with our largest trading partner will
also be damaged. TBR and TIA commend Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) for their amendment to the immigration reform bill
extending the statutory deadline by 17 months to June 1, 2009. We
realize that a straight extension is not the entire solution to WHTI,
but it is a good first step to ensure that there is enough time to
``get it right.''
The U.S. Government has done little to pursue a true bilateral
solution to WHTI with Canadian officials. The success of the NEXUS
frequent traveler program at our northern border argues for increased
cooperation with the Canadian government.
The arrests of 17 terrorists in Canada on June 2 and 3 illustrates
that terrorism still threatens our borders. While this incident is
disheartening, it is also encouraging in that these terrorists were
apprehended before they were able to attack. The capture of these men
was the result of cooperative counterterrorism investigations between
U.S. and Canadian officials. This example shows us that working on a
bilateral approach to WHTI with the Canadian government on the
development of alternate travel documents is essential for ensuring our
northern border is as secure as possible.
As with biometric passports for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries
one year ago, we must secure the appropriate amount of time to do the
job at hand properly. Our allies around the world deserve that, and our
security demands it.
Perception of the Gulf Coast
Almost one year ago, the worst natural disaster this country has
ever seen ripped through our Nation's Gulf Coast, destroying homes,
families, businesses and a way of life. Hurricane Katrina, followed by
Hurricanes Rita and Wilma also wiped out one of the Nation's most
vibrant and rapidly growing travel and tourism economies. Overall, in
the affected areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the travel
and tourism industry accounted for 260,000 jobs and a payroll income of
$3.7 billion. In 2004, the industry generated $18.3 billion in travel-
related sales for the region. Many in our industry, like so many
others, lost everything.
In Katrina's aftermath, the industry showed great leadership and
cooperation. Travel and tourism was the heart and soul of the Gulf
Coast. The region is beginning its recovery; New Orleans welcomed
350,000 visitors to Jazz Fest, and three of the Mississippi Gulf Coast
casinos have reopened and are operating at full capacity.
Unfortunately, international travelers and Americans alike still
perceive the devastation and despair immediately following Katrina as
the current norm. We must erase these images. TBR and TIA, on behalf of
the industry, offered policy recommendations to Congress immediately
following the hurricanes. Many tax provisions were included in the
hurricane relief package passed by Congress and signed by the President
in December, but tax incentives for conventions and other visitors to
the area, additional housing for workers to return to the area, and
most importantly, a promotion campaign to let the world know the once
devastated region is now open for business are still desperately
needed.
The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (USTTAB), of which I am
a member, has issued recommendations to Commerce Secretary Carlos
Gutierrez at his request that detail these lingering needs, and we
would be happy to share them with the Subcommittee.
Entry-Exit Procedures and Visa Policy
As stated earlier, overseas visitors have been traveling to the
U.S. less frequently since 2000. According to the U.K. Travel
Barometer, since 2004, U.K. citizens are consistently attributing the
top barrier to travel to the U.S. as entry procedures, from poor
information about requirements to long visa processing times. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an overseas traveler arrives in the United States, his first
point-of-contact is a CBP officer, and it could take up to 2 hours in
line before this exchange even takes place. Being in the hotel
business, I understand that you never get a second chance to make a
first impression. When a guest arrives, he should be looked in eye,
greeted with a smile and offered world-class service. If our front desk
agent does just that, I increase my odds of his returning to my hotel.
The same should apply to guests of our country. CBP and Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) inspectors, as well as consular officers
overseas, should receive customer service training, and be evaluated
based on their performance in keeping with new professionalism
standards.
In addition, staffing levels must be closely monitored to utilize
inspectors efficiently and avoid backlogs. As reported by USA Today on
Monday, wait times in security lines still vary widely across the
country. While TSA screener staffing has increased in locations such as
Kahului Airport in Maui, where wait times are minimal, staffing has
been decreased at Orlando International Airport, where wait times have
in some cases exceeded 50 minutes.
Leaders in the industry have offered our expertise in these areas
to work with DHS and State to conduct training at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and consult with airports on queue
management and creating a more welcoming atmosphere. The industry is
working closely with State and DHS on a Model Ports-of-Entry program
using Washington Dulles and Houston as pilot airports. The objective is
to begin carrying out the Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision, which I will
discuss in more detail later in my testimony.
While the newly created Visa Business Centers have helped alleviate
some hassles of the international traveler, the burdens on travelers
due to understaffed Consulates, long interview wait times and long
trips to the interview are not eased. For instance, the average visa
wait time in Brazil is 70 days, while the average in India is 132 days.
Considering the informal goal within the State Department is not having
wait times exceed 30 days, these lengthy wait times are unacceptable.
Fortunately, not all the news is bad since wait times in countries like
China and Korea have been reduced due to additional staffing and
expansion of interview hours. Ultimately, it comes down to providing
sufficient resources (staff, interview space, etc.) to both effectively
screen visa applicants and efficiently process those individuals who
simply wish to travel here for pleasure, business, study or exchange.
The travel and tourism industry knows about hospitality and
maximizing resources and staff. Our offer to extend our services to
State and DHS still stands, and we hope to be called upon soon.
Public Diplomacy
In addition to serving as an important economic generator, travel
and tourism is a vehicle for diplomacy. As a Nation, we are not using
this vehicle effectively. At a time when the U.S. is the travel bargain
of the world, we are still losing international travel market share.
Worldwide international travel increased at a rate of 52 percent
between 1992 and 2004, but America's share of that lucrative travel
market declined by 35 percent. \5\ America, formerly the most visited
travel destination in the world, is now third, behind France and Spain
and still declining. The U.S. used to be the most aspirational
destination for international travelers; it is now sixth. \6\ The
barriers I have enumerated not only discourage travelers from coming
here, they also contribute to an ever-worsening image of the U.S.
abroad. Studies consistently show that when international travelers
come to the United States and experience American culture and
hospitality firsthand, their perceptions of America and Americans
change, almost without exception, for the better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ World Tourism Organization.
\6\ The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, our Nation's image is continuing to deteriorate. In
March 2005, the Lowy Institute conducted the most comprehensive
national survey ever in Australia. Australians were asked to identify
the most highly esteemed countries in the world. Japan, a nation at war
with Australia just 60 years ago, ranked first; China came in second;
and the U.S. trailed significantly behind. Australians were then asked
to name the two greatest threats to world peace. The overwhelming
majority of Australians ranked both Islamic fundamentalism and the
United States of America as the two greatest threats. The Pew Research
Center reported that the percentage of British citizens having a
favorable view of the United States fell from 75 percent in the Summer
of 2002 to just 56 percent in June 2006.
The new Pew Global Attitudes Project study released last week
showed that these attitudes are not improving. The study examined
opinions of the U.S. in 15 countries. Of the 11 countries surveyed in
both 2005 and 2006, only 3 had a more favorable opinion of the U.S.
than in the previous year. Significant downturns were seen in Spain,
where only 23 percent of the Spanish public have a favorable opinion of
the U.S., down from 41 percent last year. Another significant drop was
in India, where 56 percent had positive views of America as opposed to
71 percent in 2005.
Fortunately, travel and tourism can help to reverse those trends. A
1-percentage point increase in international travel would mean 7.6
million more visitors who could return to their home countries as
Ambassadors for the United States. \7\ That same mere 1 percentage
point increase would have a huge impact on the U.S. economy: an
additional $12.3 billion in spending across the U.S.; 150,000 more
jobs; $3.3 billion in new payroll; and $2.1 billion in new Federal,
state and local tax revenues. The numbers speak for themselves. We must
act now to create momentum on what will take years to rebuild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Travel Industry Association of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airline Taxes and Airline Modernization Funding
There are two critical areas of concern to the travel and tourism
industry specifically facing the U.S. airline industry. First, airlines
and their passengers paid almost $16 billion last year in 15 separate
taxes and fees to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and DHS.
These taxes have contributed to the difficulties U.S. airlines continue
to face as they recover from the effects of 9/11. Congress should
seriously assess the effects this significant tax burden has on
business, leisure travelers and the aviation industry.
Second, there is a critical need to upgrade the U.S. Air Traffic
Control Organization. Last year, U.S. airline operations grew to a
record 11.5 million departures with carriers transporting 736.6 million
passengers. Experts are projecting the demand for air traffic control
to triple over the next 20 years. The airspace above major metropolitan
areas is already congested and is rapidly approaching saturation. This
growth reinforces the need to modernize our antiquated ATC system and
implement technology upgrades that will accommodate the growing demand
being placed on the system. This Committee will have the opportunity to
play a pivotal role in addressing these concerns next year when the
Airport and Airways Trust Fund Act will be reauthorized. We strongly
encourage you to use this historic opportunity to support the
technologies and user-based funding that will accommodate the needs and
growth of this vital part of our national infrastructure.
State and Local Excise Taxes
While not a Federal governance issue, another obstacle facing the
travel industry throughout the Nation is the increasing tax burden that
is being placed on the traveling public.
Whether it is hotels, car rentals or any other travel-related
service, these customers--both leisure and business travelers--are more
and more the subject of discriminatory taxes imposed by state and local
authorities, often to fill the general treasury. These taxes are
politically expedient because they target ``tourists'' and other ``out-
of-towners.'' Put another way, they are ``visitors, not voters.'' Worse
yet, there is often no special benefit for travelers, nor a direct
connection between the use of funds and those paying the taxes. It is
just seen as easy money. These tourism taxes threaten to diminish the
multiplier effect that tourism brings, and the effect may well be a net
loss of overall tax and tourism revenue.
Industry Recommendations
The following are recommendations for Congress on how to alleviate
the negative, unintended impacts of these barriers while continuing to
strengthen border security:
Grant an extension for WHTI and work closely with State and
DHS to effectively implement it;
Direct the State Department and DHS to work with travel and
tourism experts to include customer service/hospitality
training in CBP and consular officer curriculum, to assist in
evaluating the inspection area for more effective queuing
techniques and smarter use of staffing;
Appreciate travel and tourism's immense potential as a
vehicle for enhancing our image around the globe;
Appropriate one-time funding to the New Orleans and
Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention and Visitor Bureaus to
promote the Gulf Coast as a travel destination that is ``open
for business;'' and
Make travel and tourism a national policy priority.
Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision
As you are aware, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and DHS
Secretary Michael Chertoff on January 17 announced their ``Secure
Borders and Open Doors in the Information Age'' initiative (RCI). Even
before September 11, 2001, and especially since that time, the travel
industry has been calling for homeland security initiatives that
protect our country but also protect our economic and social vitality.
In her remarks, Secretary Rice expressed her gratitude specifically to
the travel and tourism industry as a private partner who contributed to
this vision.
The three broad categories within the Rice-Chertoff Vision include:
(1) Renewing America's Welcome with Improved Technology and Efficiency,
(2) Travel Documents for the 21st Century, and (3) Smarter Screening.
These are issues we have been trying to bring to light over the past 5
years, as travel and tourism is at the heart of all of them.
Our industry fully endorsed RCI and was encouraged by its
announcement. We are now awaiting government action. As previously
stated, the industry can play a significant role in both consular and
customs officer training and the model ports-of-entry program. We
eagerly await the announcement of the public-private advisory committee
to lead these efforts, and we look forward to partnering with State and
DHS to turn these ideas into reality.
USTTAB Policy Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations for Gulf Coast tourism
revitalization commissioned by Secretary Gutierrez, he also called upon
the USTTAB to develop comprehensive national tourism policy
recommendations. The proposal, which is under development, will
highlight three main areas: public diplomacy and ease of travel,
marketing and promotion, and return on investment. It will be submitted
to the Secretary this fall, and is the result of collaboration among
all Board members and the industry as a whole.
U.S. Destination Marketing Campaign
As I have discussed throughout this testimony, the public- and
private-sectors must work together to remove the barriers facing
legitimate travelers wishing to visit the U.S. However, once the
burdens are alleviated, it will be just as important to notify those
travelers that the welcome mat has been rolled out. As an industry, we
believe that a nationally-coordinated marketing strategy is a crucial
investment that we all must make.
Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism
Most major nations in the world have made travel and tourism
promotion a centerpiece of their national economic growth plans. To
facilitate that goal, each of these nations has made policy
coordination of the many and overlapping issues affecting this industry
a policy priority. The United States should and must make tourism a
national priority.
TBR has long advocated for a Presidential Advisory Council on
Travel and Tourism, whose mission would be to help the U.S. retain its
edge against its competitors as the premier travel destination in the
world and to promote public diplomacy through travel to America. The
Council would be created by Executive Order as a Federal advisory
committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Its members
should be public, private and nonprofit sector individuals, and
Federal, state and local officials. These members would represent a
diverse range of business, government and nonprofit organizations with
experience relating to policy matters impacting tourism development.
The Council would pursue five essential objectives:
Raise awareness of the economic importance of travel and
tourism and the unique role of tourism in promoting public
diplomacy;
Foster tourism policy development and coordination within
the Federal Government;
Demonstrate how effective tourism policy can be implemented;
Develop appropriate benchmarks to measure tourism policy
success; and
Create a crisis plan in the event of another catastrophic
attack on U.S. soil.
Based on the information presented here today, I think you will
agree that such an entity would be invaluable for achieving our shared
goals.
Conclusion
On June 7, the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the Department of
Commerce announced that real tourism output increased at an annual rate
of 5.5 percent in the first quarter of 2006, the industry's fourteenth
consecutive quarter of positive growth. In addition, on June 14, the
Federal Reserve released its beige book findings for mid-April to early
June, citing that the economy expanded during this period but that the
growth is slowing down. In seven of the 12 Fed districts, travel and
tourism was cited as one of the region's most active industries. The
Fed is keenly aware of the impact of travel and tourism economies in
each of these districts, whether positive or negative.
The travel and tourism industry is an integral part of making
America's economy, borders and international relationships strong. The
companies and associations represented here today appreciate the
opportunity to share our thoughts and suggestions. We look forward to
continuing our efforts to elevate the industry's importance and to
working with this Subcommittee and full Committee as we move forward.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Travel Business Roundtable--Membership
Jonathan M. Tisch, Chairman, Travel Business Roundtable; Chairman/
CEO, Loews Hotels
Adelman Travel Group
Affinia Hospitality
Air Transport Association
American Express
American Gaming Association
American Hotel & Lodging Association
American Resort Development Association
American Tours International
Asian American Hotel Owners Association
ASSA ABLOY Hospitality
Baltimore Area Convention & Visitors Authority
Business Travel News
Carey International Inc.
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Cendant Corporation
Cendant Hotel Group
Choice Hotels International
Coca-Cola North America
Delaware North Companies Inc.
Destination Marketing Association International
D.K. Shifflet & Associates Ltd.
FelCor Lodging Trust
Four Seasons Regent Hotels & Resorts
Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau
Greater Ft. Lauderdale Convention & Visitors Bureau
Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau
The Hertz Corporation
Hilton Hotels Corporation
Hyatt Hotels Corporation
InterContinental Hotels Group
International Association for Exhibition Management
International Council of Shopping Centers
International Franchise Association
Interstate Hotels & Resorts
JetBlue Airways Corporation
Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority
Loews Hotels
Marriott International, Inc.
Marriott North American Lodging Operations
Maryland Office of Tourism Development
McDermott, Will & Emery
The Mills Corporation
Nashville Convention and Visitors Bureau
National Basketball Association
National Business Travel Association
National Football League
National Hockey League
National Restaurant Association
Nederlander Producing Company of America
New York University
Northstar Travel Media, LLC
NYC & Company
Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
Strategic Hotel Capital Inc.
Taubman Centers, Inc.
Tishman Construction Co.
Travel Industry Association of America
UNITE HERE
United States Chamber of Commerce
The United States Conference of Mayors
Universal Parks & Resorts
USA Today
Vail Resorts, Inc.
Virginia Tourism Corporation
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
Washington, DC Convention and Tourism Corporation
Waterford Group, LLC
The World Travel & Tourism Council
Zagat Survey, LLC
The Travel Business Roundtable (TBR), a strategic partner to
the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA), is a CEO-
based organization representing all sectors of the travel and
tourism industry. The mission of TBR is to educate elected
officials and policymakers about the importance of the travel
and tourism industry to the Nation's economy.
TIA Board of Directors
Roger Dow, President/CEO, Travel Industry Association of America
(TIA)
AAA
Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
American Bus Association
American Express Company
American Resort Development Association
American Society of Travel Agents
Amtrak (National RR Passenger Corporation)
ARAMARK Parks & Resorts
Arizona Office of Tourism
Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
Best Western International, Inc.
Bloomington Convention & Visitors Bureau
Bluegreen Resorts
Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau, Greater
Busch Entertainment Corporation
California Ski Industry Association
California Tourism
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Carnival Cruise Lines
Cendant Hotel Group, Inc.
Chicago Convention & Tourism Bureau, Inc.
Choice Hotels International
Circle Line Sightseeing Cruises
CityPass Inc.
Creative Hotel Associates
Delaware North Companies
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Destination Marketing Association International
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.
Expedia, Inc.
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
Finger Lakes Visitors Connection
Fred J. Lounsberry & Associates
Freeman
Herschend Family Entertainment Corp.
Hertz Corporation, The
Hilton Hotels Corporation
Hyatt Corporation
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
InterContinental Hotels Group
J.D. Power and Associates
LA INC. The Convention & Visitors Bureau
Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority
Loews Hotels
Louisiana Office of Tourism
Marriott International
Maryland Office of Tourism Development
Massachusetts Office of Travel & Tourism
Meredith Corporation
MGM MIRAGE
National Geographic Society
Nevada Commission on Tourism
North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film & Sports Development
Northstar Travel Media, LLC
NYC & Company
Oregon Tourism Commission
Orlando/Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau
Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, Greater
Planet Hollywood International, Incorporated
Polynesian Cultural Center
Preferred Hotel Group
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Sabre Holdings
San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism
Southeast Tourism Society
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
State of Texas, Office of the Governor, Economic Development and
Tourism
Tauck World Discovery
Texas Travel Industry Association
Tourco
Tourism Massachusetts
U.S.V.I. Department of Tourism
United Airlines, Inc.
Universal Parks & Resorts
USA Today
Vanguard Car Rental USA
Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing
Virginia Tourism Corporation
VISIT FLORIDA
Walt Disney Parks & Resorts
Western Leisure, Inc.
Wyndham International
TIA is the national, nonprofit organization representing all
components of the $650 billion travel industry. With over 2,100
members, TIA's mission is to represent the whole of the U.S.
travel industry to promote and facilitate increased travel to
and within the United States.
Senator Smith. Mr. Tisch, it is very interesting, your
comment about hospitality training. I know Marriott and Hyatt
have such a program for their employees. I imagine Loews does
as well.
Mr. Tisch. Yes.
Senator Smith. I believe I understood your testimony that
the U.S. Government, as it interfaces with tourists, ought to
have that same training. Is there anything like that going on?
Mr. Tisch. We, as an industry, have offered up our
assistance to the State Department and DHS. If you look at
Model Ports, we are starting to work with them. We just have
not seen the progress that, as an industry, we had hoped for.
Senator Smith. So, they're not necessarily doing that.
They're not utilizing the private assets.
Mr. Tisch. To the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Davidson, thank you for coming from Oregon. Tell us
what we're doing in Oregon.
STATEMENT OF TODD DAVIDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OREGON TOURISM COMMISSION; CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF STATE TOURISM DIRECTORS; PAST-CHAIR,
WESTERN STATES TOURISM POLICY COUNCIL
Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to be here
and to have traveled here last night, although it was supposed
to be yesterday afternoon that I arrived, but 3 hours on the
tarmac in Chicago delayed me just a little bit as thunderstorms
over Indiana slowed us down.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Todd
Davidson, and I have the privilege and pleasure of serving as
the Executive Director of the Oregon Tourism Commission. I also
serve as Chair of the National Council of State Tourism
Directors and Past-Chair of the Western States Tourism Policy
Council.
It's my pleasure to appear before you today, and I commend
you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, for holding this hearing
here today, in a timely and in an important manner.
In many states, tourism is a primary driver of that state's
socioeconomic future. It's often identified as a major
employer, contributor to the gross state product, and an engine
for small business growth and development.
In Oregon, due to the important position that tourism has
taken in the state's economy, the state legislature enacted the
Tourism Investment Proposal in 2003. This significant piece of
legislation implemented a 1-percent statewide lodging tax and
dedicated 100 percent of the revenue to Travel Oregon, taking
our budget from $3 million annually to an estimated $8.5
million annually.
Oregon is now experiencing growth rates in visitor
expenditures in the range of 7 percent per year, our fastest
rate of growth in the past 5 years. And in 2005, as you noted,
Senator, visitor spending in Oregon reached nearly $7.5
billion.
But as substantial as the economic contributions of travel
and tourism are for Oregon and for this Nation, they could be
greater. And the fact that in 1992, the U.S. received over 9
percent of all international travelers in the world, but, by
2004, had fallen to garnering only 6 percent, should be of
concern to us all.
Since 9/11, homeland security needs have understandably
been given highest priority. The travel and tourism industry
supported efforts to improve homeland security, and has worked
closely with Congress and the Departments of State and Homeland
Security to address those needs. Yet, often policies with the
laudable goal of improving national security result in
discouraging international visitors from coming to the U.S. The
barriers to international travel that have been discussed, that
are posed by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and by
entry-exit procedures and visa policies, have been well
explained this morning in the testimony of the Travel Business
Roundtable and the Travel Industry Association. I add my strong
support to their positions and their policy recommendations.
I also strongly endorse the recommendation that the Federal
Government needs to reenter the global tourism marketplace, in
partnership with the travel and tourism industry, to show the
world that the U.S. is a desirable and a welcoming destination.
In addition, it must be noted that not all challenges
facing the industry are solely focused internationally. For
both domestic and international travelers, a safe and efficient
transportation system is indispensable. And not only are safe
roads essential, but some roads are compelling attractions in
their own right, as evidenced by the National Scenic Byway
Program. This program recognizes those byways that have unique
scenic, historic, and cultural qualities. These are the roads
that Americans love.
In Oregon, we've found that our Scenic Byways Program
creates desirable attractions for domestic and international
visitors alike. Oregon's award-winning Guide to Scenic Byways
highlights our natural attributes and our attractions, and it
proposes itineraries for our visitors to use in planning their
trips. This is one of the most popular pieces for our
international guests. And this guide, and many of the
enhancements to Oregon's Byway Program, have been developed
with funding from the Federal Highway Administration.
Yet, according to a recent study by Cambridge Systematics
for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the existing revenue streams
into the Federal Highway Trust Fund leave gaps of $23 billion
to $48 billion a year in meeting the Federal share of capital
investments necessary to both maintain and improve the Nation's
highway system, respectively. The same study projects that the
Highway Trust Fund could be in deficit as early as 2008, well
before the end of the SAFETEA-LU authorization period. I
strongly encourage the Federal Government to take action to
address the potentiality of a Highway Trust Fund going into
deficit.
I also share the concern about the need to upgrade the U.S.
Air Traffic Control Organization, and join in urging this
committee to address these concerns next year, when the Airport
and Airways Trust Fund is reauthorized.
In addition, I urge Congress to continue full funding for
the Essential Air Service Program, because many rural
communities depend on the assistance from this program to
maintain their air service, and many travelers, likewise, then
rely on this air service to visit rural destinations and our
public lands.
Indeed, America's public lands are not only preservers of
our natural resources and our natural heritage, but they are
icons of the American experience and popular attractions for
millions of visitors. In Oregon, over 50 percent of the state's
land mass is in public ownership, and nowhere, as you know,
Senator, is the prominence of iconic grandeur afforded to
Oregon more powerfully than on these public lands--in Crater
Lake National Park, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Park,
the entire Oregon coast, the Mount Hood National Forest, just
to name a few--yet, these public lands face manifold
obligations.
To focus on just one example specifically, the Mount Hood
National Forest serves 4 million people a year that visit the
national forest. More than a million people receive their
drinking water from Mount Hood. The total forest acreage is 1.1
million acres, with 17 percent designated as wilderness. There
are 812 miles of recreational trails and 268 resident wildlife
species, including seven that are endangered. Pressures on the
Federal public lands are complex, and we're beginning to see
trends in visitation stagnate, and even decline, for some
national parks and Federal lands.
To avert that outcome, I urge that Congress carefully
examine the vital role of Federal lands as attractions for our
visitors, and that the Federal land agencies be given the staff
and budgets necessary for them to budget their dual mission of
preserving the resources while providing for the enjoyment of
the public.
Now, I'm confident that all of today's testimony has
illuminated the fact that travel and tourism policy currently
involves several levels of our Federal system of government.
The Federal Tourism Policy Council that was established by
Congress in 1981 has performed a useful role in this regard,
but it has been handicapped by limited authority and a lack of
participation by senior policymaking officials. For this
reason, I strongly endorse the recommendation of the Travel
Business Roundtable for establishment of a Presidential
Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism. The stature and
credibility such a Presidential Council would make, it would
result in making it a promising vehicle to formulate,
coordinate, and oversee public policies affecting travel and
tourism.
We know the industry has a tremendous impact on the U.S.
economy, and its potential economic and diplomatic impact could
be even greater by addressing these aforementioned barriers.
I appreciate the opportunity to present these ideas and
suggestions, and I'm happy to answer questions and provide
further information.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Davidson, Executive Director, Oregon Tourism
Commission; Chairman, National Council of State Tourism Directors;
Past-Chair, Western States Tourism Policy Council
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Todd Davidson and I have the privilege and pleasure of serving as the
Executive Director of the Oregon Tourism Commission, the official
tourism office for the State of Oregon.
It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today on behalf of the
Oregon Tourism Commission, the National Council of State Tourism
Directors (NCSTD), and the Western States Tourism Policy Council
(WSTPC).
The NCSTD, a council of the Travel Industry Association of America,
brings together the tourism directors from all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories--and their staffs. The NCSTD
serves state/territory tourism offices as:
A common, unified voice.
A catalyst for developing programs that benefit all states
and territories.
A harmonizer in the diversity of needs, priorities and
values.
The mission of the NCSTD is to provide a forum for the exchange of
ideas and leadership on travel industry issues impacting states and
territories.
The WSTPC is a regional consortium of thirteen western state
tourism offices, including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. The WSTPC mission is to support public policies
that enhance the capacity of tourism and recreation to have a positive
impact on the economy and the environment of states and communities in
the West.
We commend you, Mr. Chairman, as well as Senator Dorgan and the
other members of the Subcommittee, for holding this important and
timely hearing. Travel and tourism is a significant part of the
Nation's economy and we believe its economic impact will be even
greater if the industry and the Federal Government can work together to
develop and implement appropriate public policies.
Size and Scale
Although nearly everyone is a tourist at one time or another,
usually many times over, and although one would be hard put to identify
a state, a Congressional District, or a region that does not attract
tourists--to the delight of local businesses--the size and scale of
travel and tourism is often not fully appreciated.
A top-line summary would disclose that travel and tourism is one of
America's largest employers, with 7.3 direct travel-generated jobs (one
in every eighteen U.S. non-farm jobs is in travel and tourism) and $163
billion in travel-generated payroll. It is one of America's largest
retail sales industries, producing $645 billion in direct travel
expenditures and nearly $100 billion in Federal, state and local tax
revenue. And travel and tourism is one of America's largest service
exports, with $93.3 billion spent by international visitors in the
U.S., resulting in a $4.0 billion balance of trade surplus for our
country. (2004 data)
In Oregon, in recognition of the important position that tourism
has taken in the state's economy, the state legislature enacted the
Tourism Investment Proposal in 2003, which implemented a 1 percent
statewide lodging tax and dedicated 100 percent of the revenue to
Travel Oregon to carry out its mission. This legislation took our
budget from 47th in the U.S. at $3 million/year to an estimated $8.5
million annually.
And today, Oregon is experiencing growth rates in visitor
expenditures in the range of 6.5-7.5 percent growth each year--our
fastest rate of growth in the past 5 years. And I am thrilled to stand
before you today and celebrate the fact that visitor spending in Oregon
reached nearly $7.5 billion last year!
Through every program, great idea and minor tweak the Oregon
Tourism Commission implements--we strive to never take our eyes off of
the prize--it's about jobs. Good jobs for Oregonians.
Jobs where they can learn work maturity skills and jobs where
they can establish their careers.
Jobs where they can become part of a major multi-national
corporation and jobs where they are the sole-proprietor--
showing up every morning to unlock the door.
Today, more than 88,000 Oregonians owe their jobs to visitors
traveling and spending dollars, Euros, Yen and other currencies in our
state.
Unfulfilled Potential
As substantial as the economic contributions of travel and tourism
are for the Nation, they could be greater. With regard to the
international market, for example, the U.S. is just now returning to
the level of international visitors that we had before 9/11, buoyed
primarily by the growth of Canadian travel to the U.S. Despite that
recovery, the U.S. share of the global tourism market declined 36
percent between 1992 and 2004, when world tourism grew 52 percent. The
fact is that in 1992 the U.S. received 9.4 percent of all international
travelers but by 2004 the figure had fallen to 6 percent.
While declining global market share was occurring prior to 9/11,
national policies dictated by homeland security concerns have
exacerbated this trend by making international travel to the U.S. more
protracted and less convenient.
While the figures may not be as stark for the unrealized potential
of increased domestic travel, where steady increases have been the rule
for more than half a century, the potential for expansion is apparent
when barriers to growth posed by infrastructure shortcomings are
understood.
Barriers to International Visitation to the U.S.
For many years, the U.S. has not fully appreciated the economic and
diplomatic importance of the global tourism market. As a Nation, we
have not sufficiently recognized that millions of international
visitors to the U.S. are a vital export for our Nation, whose
expenditures for food, accommodations, travel, admissions and shopping
have a highly positive impact on our balance of trade and support
millions of American jobs. We have not completely realized that the
experiences of millions of international visitors interacting with
Americans from every walk of life make a significant contribution
toward showing the world what we are about as a people. We have not
understood that we as a Nation are engaged in an intense competition
with other nations for this global tourism market and that, without a
commitment from the national government to engage in that competitive
marketplace, we are severely disadvantaged in that competition.
As noted above, even before 9/11, our competitive global tourism
position was slipping. Even before 9/11, our systems for distributing
and processing visas and for inspecting and welcoming international
visitors were inadequate. Even before 9/11, the Federal Government had
abandoned its modest efforts to promote and market our Nation as a
prime global tourist destination. Since 9/11, these problems have
become worse.
Since 9/11, homeland security needs have understandably been given
the highest priority and this has meant stricter visa requirements and
tighter border control and inspection processes. The travel and tourism
industry has supported efforts to improve homeland security and has
worked closely with Congress and with the Departments of State and
Homeland Security to address those needs. The industry has been
impressed especially by the January 17, 2006, announcement of the Rice-
Chertoff Joint Vision and has pledged full cooperation in its
implementation. Yet, it is clear to our industry that too often
policies with the laudable goal of improving national security have had
the inadvertent consequence of discouraging international visitors from
coming to the U.S.
The barriers to the facilitation of international travel posed by
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and by entry-exit
procedures and visa policies are well explained in the testimony today
of the Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and the Travel Industry
Association of American (TIA) and we express our strong support for the
positions and policy recommendations advocated by Mr. Tisch and Mr.
Rasulo on behalf of their two organizations.
There is no need here to reiterate the reasoning and the
explanations provided by TBR and TIA. We would like, however, to
emphasize the potential negative impact of the WHTI on western states.
Seven of the thirteen WSTPC states border directly on Canada or Mexico
and all thirteen of these states receive large numbers of international
tourist-visitors, especially from Canada. We do not challenge the need
for more secure and verifiable identification requirements for
travelers across our land borders and we do not argue with the strategy
and goals of the WHTI. But we do believe that the Departments of State
and Homeland Security need more time to develop and implement a
workable means of identifying cross-border travelers quickly,
efficiently and effectively. We are concerned that these two
departments will not be able to implement their current deadlines in a
way that balances homeland security with the goal of free and open
travel.
We also wish to endorse strongly the recommendation that the U.S.
national government needs to reenter the global tourism marketplace, in
partnership with the travel and tourism industry, to show the world
that this country is a desirable travel destination and that we want
and welcome their business.
A Necessary Transportation Infrastructure
For both domestic and international travelers a modern, safe and
efficient intermodal transportation system is indispensable. When the
traveler is confronted by interminable highway congestion, by crowded
and delayed flights and by difficulties either flying or driving to
rural areas that have so many scenic and historic attractions to offer
visitors, then travel and tourism suffers and declines and the entire
Nation loses. There is no more significant barrier to travel and
tourism than poor transportation.
Not only are good, safe roads absolutely essential to travel and
tourism, with eighty percent of all travel taking place on the roads,
but some roads are compelling attractions in their own right. A notable
example is the National Scenic Byways Program, which recognizes those
roads that have unique scenic, historic or cultural qualities. These
are the roads that Americans love. In Oregon, we have found that our
scenic byways are prime attractions to our fellow Americans but also to
international visitors.
In Oregon, one of the most popular programs, especially the
accompanying collateral materials, with our international guests, as
well as the international travel trade and media is the award winning
Oregon Guide to Scenic Byways. Of course the guide highlights Oregon's
natural attributes and attractions, but more importantly, the scenic
byways enable us to develop itineraries and packages for our visitors
to use in planning their trips. For Oregon, a strong byways program
makes the planning of a vacation easier for our visitors. The Guide and
many of the enhancements to Oregon's byway program have come through
funding from the Federal Highway Administration.
Yet, we are concerned over the future of the Federal highway
program. According to a recent study by Cambridge Systematics for the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the existing revenue streams into the Federal
Highways Trust Fund leave significant gaps in meeting the Federal share
of capital investments necessary to ``maintain'' and ``improve'' the
Nation's highway and transit systems. The average annual Federal fiscal
gap to ``maintain'' highways and transit systems through 2015 is
projected to be $23 billion and the average annual fiscal gap to
``improve'' highways and transit systems through 2015 will be $48
billion. This same study projects that the Federal Highway Trust Fund
will soon be facing a fiscal crisis of historic proportions and it
could be in deficit as early as 2008, well before the end of the
SAFETEA-LU authorization period in 2009.
Not only will this surface transportation funding crisis affect
overall road safety and efficiency, it will have a direct impact on
such ``tourism-friendly'' transportation programs as scenic byways,
transportation enhancements and national park roads.
Toward this end, we recommend that the Federal Government take
action soon to cope with the immediate problem of a Highway Trust Fund
going into deficit.
With regard to air transportation, we share the concern about the
need to upgrade the U.S. Air Traffic Control Organization and join in
urging this Committee to address these concerns next year when the
Airport and Airways Trust Fund is reauthorized. We look forward to
suggesting more detailed recommendations when reauthorization is being
considered.
We also urge Congress to continue full funding for the Essential
Air Service Program. Many rural communities are dependent on that
funding assistance to maintain air service and many domestic and
international travelers rely on that air service to visit tourist
attractions that would otherwise be relatively inaccessible.
The Crucial Importance of the Federal Lands
America's national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other
Federal lands are not only the preservers of our natural resources and
our national heritage. They are also immensely popular attractions for
millions of domestic and international visitors who go there to admire,
enjoy, recreate and get inspiration. Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, the
Grand Canyon, Denali, Mt. Hood, the Everglades, Mount Rushmore, the
Great Smokies, the Blue Ridge Parkway and other national parks and
forests are icons of the American experience. Nearly 25 percent of all
international visitors visit a national park during their time in the
U.S. In the West, where the Federal agencies manage so much territory--
more than sixty percent of the land area in several states--the Federal
role is seemingly omnipresent.
In Oregon, over 50 percent of the state's land mass is in public
ownership and nowhere is the prominence of iconic grandeur afforded to
Oregon more than on these public lands--for example, Crater Lake
National Park, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Park, the entire
Oregon Coast (under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department), and the Mt. Hood National Forest just to name a few.
To focus on one example specifically, Mt. Hood is likely one of the
most prominent icons in Oregon. It stands proudly on the horizon above
the Portland skyline from Washington Park, and it beckons international
and domestic visitors as they fly up the Columbia River Gorge to land
at Portland International Airport. In short, the Mt. Hood National
Forest serves or provides:
Four million people who visit Mt. Hood every year.
More than one million people who receive their drinking
water from Mt. Hood.
Total forest acreage of 1.1 million with 17 percent
designated as Wilderness.
812 miles of recreational trails.
And 268 resident wildlife species with seven that are
endangered.
Pressures from outside the Federal lands are manifold and, as a
result, we are beginning to see trends in visitation stagnate and even
decline for some national parks and other Federal lands. The
consequences of this include lost opportunities for new generations to
experience the grandeur of the great outdoors, lost opportunities to
enhance health and fitness through recreation and outdoor activities on
the Federal lands and lost opportunities to showcase these iconic
American experiences to the world.
No barrier to travel and tourism may have a more severe impact than
a decline in the appeal and enjoyment of the Federal lands. For the
industry, for the gateway communities that serve the Federal lands and
for the American people, the risk is great.
To avert that outcome, we urge that Congress carefully examine the
vital role of the Federal lands as natural and recreational attractions
for our domestic and international visitors and that the Federal land
agencies be given the staff and budgets necessary for them to balance
their dual mission of preserving the natural and historic resources
while providing for the enjoyment of the public.
The MDCP: A Useful Model
Sometimes a major barrier to realizing the tourism potential of a
community or a region is simply a lack of appreciation for what the
area has to offer and a lack of understanding of the nature of the
tourism market--especially the international tourism market.
A program already operating at the U.S. Department of Commerce
provides a salutary example of how the Federal Government can work in
partnership with state tourism offices and other state agencies to
overcome the barrier created by this lack of understanding. This is the
Market Development Cooperator Program (MDCP) that operates out of the
International Trade Administration. Although designed as a means of
promoting manufacturing exports, it has demonstrated a capability of
serving tourism as a service export.
In 2002, the Western States Tourism Policy Council received a
$400,000 three-year MDCP award. This is a cooperating agreement that
requires the WSTPC to provide a 2:1 match of $800,000. The WSTPC has
used this MDCP agreement to develop a model training program that has
educated more than 1,200 business persons and local officials in
gateway communities near the national parks, forests and other Federal
lands throughout the WSTPC states. This training shows these local
leaders how to recognize and develop what they have to offer the
international tourism market and how they can enter and succeed in that
global market. Graduates of this training program are now participating
in major international tourism trade shows in the U.S. and abroad,
explaining what their gateway communities have to offer visitors
attracted to the nearby national parks, forests and other Federal
lands. (Note: Travel South, a consortium of southern State Tourism
Offices, received an MDCP award several years ago, which it used in a
slightly different international tourism marketing campaign.)
We believe the MDCP is an excellent example of an effective
partnership between the Federal Government (the Commerce Department and
the Federal land agencies), the states (the State Tourism Offices) and
the private-sector (local tourism businesses) that synergistically
combines the best resources of each to build local economies through
the engine of tourism.
We recommend that the MDCP be refined with a tourism-specific
mission and be given expanded resources to work with more states and
communities.
Intergovernmental and Interagency Coordination and Cooperation
Travel and tourism policy is complex and multi-faceted, involving
all levels of our Federal system of government and many different
agencies. In the preceding testimony, we have referred to programs and
policies involving multiple Federal departments and agencies, including
the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Transportation, Interior,
Agriculture and Commerce, and more than a dozen of their responsible
agencies. We have also referred to the role of State and local
governments.
As a result, a multi-agency approach is essential in developing
policies and programs that will enable travel and tourism to fulfill
its potential with regard to economic development and international
understanding. The Federal Tourism Policy Council, originally
established by Congress in 1981, has often performed a useful role in
this regard but it has been handicapped by limited authority and a lack
of participation by senior policymaking officials. For this reason, we
endorse the recommendation of the Travel Business Roundtable for
establishment of a Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism.
We believe the stature and credibility of such a Presidential Council
would make it a promising vehicle to formulate, coordinate and oversee
public policies affecting travel and tourism that would be beneficial
to the Nation.
Summary and Conclusions
Travel and tourism has a huge, but often little known, impact on
the U.S. economy but its potential economic and diplomatic impact could
be even greater with the removal of several significant barriers and an
effective public-private partnership.
U.S. barriers to international travel have been aggravated by
understandable efforts to ensure maximum homeland security without
fully considering the impact of stricter entry-exit procedures and visa
policies on free and open travel. The Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative is of particular concern because of the importance of
Canadian travel and the likelihood that the Departments of State and
Homeland Security will not be able to implement their current deadlines
without unduly damaging travel across our land borders.
The U.S. would also benefit greatly from a resumption of Federal
support for an international tourism marketing partnership with the
private travel and tourism industry that would show the world that the
U.S. is a prime tourism destination. The Oregon Tourism Investment
Proposal provides an example of what can be accomplished with wise and
focused public policies.
Two major domestic barriers that can prevent travel and tourism
from fulfilling its potential are threats to the fiscal stability of
the transportation infrastructure and a perceived decline in the appeal
and enjoyment of the Federal lands. Oregon benefits greatly from its
National Scenic Byways Program and from the appeal of the Mt. Hood
National Forest and other Federal lands and would suffer
correspondingly from any decline in either.
The Market Development Cooperator Program provides a useful model
for a Federal-State-local and public-private partnership to develop the
tourism product. As shown by the WSTPC experience, the MDCP can be used
to educate and train local tourism businesses and community leaders
through cooperative partnerships and then assist them in developing and
marketing themselves in broader tourism markets.
A comprehensive, intergovernmental and interagency approach will be
essential in developing and implementing public policies that will best
fulfill the potential of travel and tourism. A Presidential Advisory
Council on Travel and Tourism could help provide such an approach.
We appreciate this opportunity to present these ideas and
suggestions and will be happy to answer questions or provide further
information. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Todd. Those are all excellent. I
do have to apologize that there is a series of three stacked
votes. But, aloha, Dr. Pressler. We do want to hear from you.
I'm afraid that we'll have to put our questions to you in
written form. Senator Inouye has been around here long enough
that he should control the Senate agenda and when we vote,
but----
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Do you want to introduce your witness,
Senator?
Senator Inouye. Dr. Pressler is one of the great citizens
of Hawaii. She has served in the government, in the private
sector. And she is, without question, one of the Nation's
experts on health. She has, I think, every degree that one can
hope to get, from M.D., master's degree--how many master's
degrees do you have?
Dr. Pressler. Three.
Senator Inouye. Three.
Senator Smith. That's three more than I have.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inouye. So, I'm honored to present Dr. Pressler.
STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA ``GINNY'' PRESSLER, M.D., MBA, FACS,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGIC BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, HAWAII PACIFIC HEALTH
Dr. Pressler. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman Inouye. My name
is Dr. Virginia Pressler. I'm Senior Vice President for Hawaii
Pacific Health, which is the four-hospital system in Hawaii of
Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children, which is the
only children's specialty hospital in the Pacific; also, Straub
Clinic & Hospital, Pali Momi Hospital, and, on Kauai, Wilcox
Hospital/Kauai Medical Clinic.
I would like to express particular appreciation to Senator
Inouye for his role in helping to create this subcommittee.
You have my written testimony, so I will keep my remarks
brief.
Tourism and health are the two largest industries in
Hawaii, representing $11 billion and $7 billion, respectively,
of the gross state product. Seven million tourists per year
visit Hawaii. More than one-third of these visitors are from
Japan, Europe, Latin America, and other foreign countries.
Japanese tourists are a particularly important segment of
Hawaii's international tourism market, representing 1.5 million
visitors in 2004, and spending 70 percent more per day than
visitors from the western United States.
Twenty-four thousand visitors per year have reason to visit
our emergency rooms, for reasons ranging from coral cuts to
heart attacks, drownings, and major trauma, including major
burns. Half of these emergency room visits are from
international visitors. The Straub Burn Unit in Hawaii serves a
vital role as the only burn unit in the Pacific.
I would like to share a few brief stories from
representative patients who would not have survived had the
burn unit not existed in Honolulu.
The first is a professional volcanologist who fell through
the crust of an advancing lava flow as part of his work with
the Volcano National Parks. He sustained severe burns to his
lower extremities and spent 2 months in our Straub Burn Unit.
Twenty years later, he continues to send letters of
appreciation from Florida to the physician and staff who saved
his life.
Two North Carolina visitors were severely burned in a plane
crash while viewing the Volcano National Parks. They were air-
evacuated from the Big Island to the Straub Burn Unit. Their
chance of survival was estimated at less than 20 percent. They
visited Straub, just 2 weeks ago, to express their thankfulness
for the fact that the Straub Burn Unit saved their lives.
Five tuna fishermen from Kwajalein Island were evacuated to
the Straub Burn Unit, when their large fishing boat had a flash
fire in the engine room, killing the captain and severely
burning these five men. They all survived their critical burns
through the care they received at the Straub Burn Unit.
A Japanese visitor sustained severe injury to her lower leg
with developing gangrene, in an accident on the Island of
Lanai. She was treated in the burn unit at Straub, due to the
severity of her wounds. This was 5 years ago, and she and her
husband visit the Straub Burn Unit to express their thanks when
they come to Hawaii from Japan each year to visit.
The Straub Burn Unit provides consultation to the entire
Pacific. It is not uncommon to treat sailors from ships from
within one- to two-thousand miles of Honolulu. We also receive
periodic consults and patients from Tripler Army Medical
Center.
The Burn Unit operates at a significant loss each year, but
it is maintained by Hawaii Pacific Health as a vital service to
the entire Pacific.
Finally, more than 11,000 visitors come to Hawaii for
planned medical treatment each year. We recently had a woman
from Korea who came to one of our hospitals for a laparoscopic
colon resection for cancer because we have a surgical
oncologist who is trained in this procedure.
The potential for medical tourism remains largely untapped
in Hawaii. Can you think of a better place to recover from
heart disease or cancer? It is particularly attractive for
Asians, because they feel comfortable being cared for by
physicians and caregivers who are frequently Asian and also
speak their language.
We appreciate the work of this subcommittee and all the
Federal efforts to help keep Hawaii as a safe travel
destination. The work of the Centers for Disease Control on
pandemic preparedness is particularly appreciated, as Hawaii is
likely to be the portal of first entry for any kind of avian
flu or other pandemic.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pressler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Virginia ``Ginny'' Pressler, M.D., MBA, FACS,
Senior Vice President, Strategic Business Development, Hawaii Pacific
Health
My name is Dr. Virginia Pressler, Senior Vice President, Strategic
Business Development for Hawaii Pacific Health (HPH) which is the four
hospital system of Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children,
Kapi'olani Medical Center at Pali Momi, Straub Clinic & Hospital, and
Wilcox Hospital/Kauai Medical Clinic. In addition, HPH has 23 clinics
and numerous outreach programs.
Access to quality medical infrastructure is essential for any
tourism destination to remain competitive. In addition to the beach and
weather. Hawaii's advantage as a premier tourism destination is due to
the reputation of its medical infrastructure--both personnel and
facilities. Hawaii is both a dream destination for international
travelers and at the same time one of the remotest places in the world.
Visitors come to Hawaii knowing that when they visit--in the case of a
medical emergency--they will have access to medical care that is at a
standard comparable to any mainland facility.
As you are probably aware, Hawaii continues to be one of the
premiere destination choices for both domestic and particularly foreign
travelers. In 2004, the number of visitors by air to Hawaii increased
by 8.5 percent from the previous year to approximately seven million.
Two million three hundred thousand of these visitors (34 percent of
total) were visitors from Japan, Canada, Europe, Oceania, Latin America
or other foreign countries. The economic impacts are significant.
Tourism expenditures in Hawaii were close to $11 billion in the year
2004 and have continued to increase since. Japanese visitors are a
particularly important segment of Hawaii's international tourist
market. In 2004, the number of Japanese tourists increased by 8.6
percent from the previous year reaching 1,482,085. More significantly,
the Japanese represent the highest daily expenditures spending more
than 70 percent more per day than our U.S. West Coast visitors.
With this many visitors, it is inevitable that many will require
emergency and/or unplanned medical treatment. The Hawaii State
Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism estimates that
in 2004, close to twenty four thousand visitors needed to access our
emergency rooms for medical care. Approximately half of those visits
were international tourists.
An example of emergency services that are accessible for all
visitors is emergency burn services at Straub Clinic and Hospital--an
affiliate of Hawaii Pacific Health. The Straub Burn Unit was founded in
1983, to serve as a primary and tertiary burn treatment center for
Hawaii and the Pacific Region. The Straub Burn Unit serves as both a
primary and tertiary burn treatment center for Hawaii and the Pacific
region providing care for both residents and non-residents. Patients
come to the Straub Burn Unit from not only all parts of Hawaii, but
also areas within the Pacific Basin. The Straub Burn Unit has also
provided care to patients from Tripler Army Medical Center and
continues to be a source of advice and consultation because Tripler
does not have a consistent burn care program. The Straub Burn Unit
includes three intensive care unit rooms designated specifically for
burn patients, transport lift to place patients within the burn tub,
and highly specialized beds for greater patient comfort and care. The
patients treated at the Straub Burn Unit benefit by having their care
provided locally, eliminating the need for travel to the mainland thus
avoiding increased risk and expense and also facilitating family
support, a very important component of a burn patient's recovery.
Since its opening in 1983 through 2004, the Straub Burn Unit has
admitted a total of 783 patients with 675 residents and 108 non-
residents. The numbers are not as important as the fact that the Center
serves an invaluable resource for unplanned and emergent care. (See
attached letter from Dr. Schulz with specific examples of patients
served). Most importantly, the Center also serves as an essential
public health resource in the event of a major airline disaster. With
the rapidly increasing number of flights to and from Hawaii annually,
the Burn center will play a key role in the recovery and treatment of
injured passengers. Financially, the Burn Unit operates at a loss given
the low rate of reimbursement. However it is an essential service that
Hawaii Pacific Health maintains to ensure that both residents and
visitors alike have access to specialized care in the event of an
emergency.
Finally, medical infrastructure is also a vital component in an
area we have not fully explored in Hawaii--Medical Tourism. Many
foreign countries such as India, South Africa and Thailand have
invested in medical infrastructure to attract foreign tourists by
providing specialized care. The medical treatments range from simple
comprehensive medical check-ups to elective procedures such as
rhinoplasty, liposuction, breast augmentation, orthodontics, and LASIK
eye surgery. These destinations often also provide medical services for
larger and life-saving procedures such as joint replacements, bone
marrow transplants, and cardiac bypass surgery. These medical tourism
destinations typically offer numerous options for tourists including
sightseeing and shopping within a resort like setting. The bundling of
superior medical services with the benefits of a desirable tourist
location has worked well for places like India. Already in Hawaii more
than 11,000 visitors come for planned medical treatment. Given Hawaii's
location and reputation as a tourist destination--this potential
remains largely untapped.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Straub Clinic & Hospital
Honolulu, HI, June 16, 2006
Virginia Pressler, M.D.,
Senior Vice President,
Strategic Business Development,
Hawaii Pacific Health,
Honolulu, HI.
Dear Doctor Pressler:
Thank you for your recent inquiry. It is very timely since recently
I have been in contact with four patients who were treated at our
Straub Hospital; who would not have survived had the unit not existed
in Honolulu. The first letter was from a patient who fell through the
crust of a advancing lava flow on the Big Island as part of his work
with the Volcano National Parks Center. He sustained severe burns to
his lower extremities. This coincided with a recent visit from two 65+
visitors from North Carolina who were severely burned in a plane crash
on the Big Island when they were viewing the Volcano National Park.
These patients, under our instruction, were incubated at Hilo Hospital
and air evacuated to the Bum Unit at Straub. Their chance for survival
was less than 20 percent and this surely would have been significantly
reduced if they had been transferred to a burn center on the mainland
if in fact, we could have found air transportation for them from
Honolulu International Airport to a mainland burn center. They visited
with me in my office 2 weeks ago with their two daughters who are RNs
and were extremely thankful for our efforts in saving their lives.
These patients shared a similar severe prognosis with five tuna
fishermen from a large boat fishing near Kwajalein Island. A flash fire
in the engine room led to the death of the boat's Captain and severe
burns to five fishermen. They were air evacuated from Kwajalein to the
Straub Burn Unit and all survived their critical burns. Last, I
received a letter from a patient and her husband from Japan last week.
Five years ago she sustained a severe injury to her lower leg with
developing gangrene in an accident on Lanai. She was treated in our
Burn Unit due to the severity of her wounds. They visit our Burn Unit
every year, when visiting on vacation, and are extremely thankful for
the treatment they received.
We not only supply treatment at Straub Clinic Burn Unit, but we
provide consultation with all of the islands and the pacific basin. It
is not uncommon to treat sailors from ships from within 1-2 thousand
miles of Honolulu or to receive questions regarding less critical burns
from emergency room physicians on the Big Island, Kauai, Lanai, and
Molokai. We additionally receive periodic consults and patients from
Tripler Army Medical Center since they no longer provide burn care
treatment for critical burns and due to periodic deployment of their
plastic surgeons and general surgeons they do not have a consistent
burn care program. We additionally do periodic seminars for nurses and
physicians throughout the islands and would clearly be responsible for
the triaging and treatment in the event of a catastrophic fire or
thermal event.
I hope you find this information helpful and we are very thankful
for Congressional consideration regarding the Straub Clinic & Hospital
Burn Unit.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Schulz, M.D.,
Plastic Surgeon.
Senator Smith. Doctor, I can't think of a better place to
recover from Congress than Hawaii, and have done so in a number
of recesses, particularly over Christmas.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. I'm going to have some questions I'll submit
in written form.
But before I turn it over to Senator Inouye, let me
apologize, again, for being interrupted by a series of votes.
We really appreciate your coming here. You have helped fill in
the pieces of this puzzle of how America can better its
opportunity in tourism. And each of you has a part of that, and
helped give us some marching orders, I think, where we can
apply pressure on our government to do a better job.
Senator Inouye?
Senator Inouye [presiding]. I thank you.
I gather, from the testimony, that most of you feel that
the government is not providing much assistance; instead, it's
providing a lot of obstacles; and they haven't received the
message yet. I asked the question of one of the witnesses from
the government, and there was--97 percent receive their visas
in one or two days, but that's 97 percent of the approved
travelers. You indicated that in Brazil the average applicant
takes 130 days?
Mr. Tisch. The wait time----
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Tisch.--in the visa process.
Senator Inouye. If that's----
Mr. Tisch. And----
Senator Inouye.--the case----
Mr. Tisch. And you have to get to the Consulate, so it's
also the time of--taken out of your day to take your family, if
that's how you're--who you're going to travel with to get to
the Consulate.
Senator Inouye. How long is the waiting or the application
time in Paris?
Mr. Rasulo. Well, Paris, Senator, is participating in the
Visa Waiver Program, so there is no visa that is necessary for
travel to and from France.
Senator Inouye. And what about Britain?
Mr. Rasulo. Same. There are 27 countries that participate
in a Visa Waiver Program, which are the countries that are--you
know, the largest number of visitors to the United States.
Senator Inouye. What is it in the Philippines?
Mr. Tisch. I don't have that information, sir.
Mr. Rasulo. I don't either, but it--suffice to say that,
since
9/11, Senator, any traveler--foreigner wishing to come to the
United States, not from a visa waiver country, has to appear in
person at a Consulate. Every member of the family has to appear
in person.
In Brazil, for example, which is a vast country, there are
only four locations that individuals can go to be interviewed.
So, quite often, Brazilians have to make a trip to go to a city
where there is a Consulate to be interviewed, make their
interview, then go back home and wait for the approvals.
Senator Inouye. Do you believe that our government has a
policy of preference?
Mr. Rasulo. I would not necessarily describe it as a policy
of preference--or I should say, I'm not aware of that--but one
that clearly does not--that presents obstacles for people who
are not part of the Visa Waiver Program to come, in the form of
waiting times, which is quite often outside the planning
horizon of international travelers; meaning they decide to come
to the United States 2 months before their vacation, only to
find out that it's 130 days to apply for a visa--so, needless
to say, they don't come--and that the process can be costly.
It's $100 to be interviewed, which is nonrefundable, even if
you are not approved--and sometimes quite cumbersome.
Senator Inouye. Do you believe that the process is
necessary?
Mr. Rasulo. I think that some process of personal
interview----
Senator Inouye. 130 days?
Mr. Rasulo.--is probably necessary; however, one could
question why that can't be done by videoconference, why it has
to be done in person. I think we need to figure out how to
either better staff or better use technology to preapprove and
accelerate the process.
Senator Inouye. And, Mr. Tisch, you are serious about
conducting classes. Is it that bad?
Mr. Tisch. From the stories that we hear--some anecdotal,
some from individuals who come to our shores and come to our
properties, come to our theme parks--we hear the stories that
are troubling. And the industry does stand ready to assist the
government. We do offer hospitality in the travel and tourism
industry, and we have offered up our services, and continue to.
And we do have a good working relationship with State and DHS,
in terms of having us explain the challenges and trying to find
solutions together, and we will continue to assist, where we
can.
Senator Inouye. If I may, I'd like to submit questions to
all of you, because I might very well lose my credentials if I
don't vote.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inouye. And the two votes, incidentally, if you're
interested--the two votes are in reference to Iraq--how do we
get out of there?
So, with that--is it a recess? The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Charles W. Bray, President/CEO,
International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions
I would like to thank Chairman Smith and the Committee for holding
this important hearing to explore the state of the United States
tourism industry. The nearly $645 billion annual travel and tourism
industry is one of America's largest employers. As part of the service
sector, the travel and tourism industry helps comprise the single
largest and fastest growing component of our economy. The industry is
critical to the economic well-being of our country, states and cities.
However as a diverse and decentralized industry its power and value to
our economy is often overlooked by policymakers and economists alike.
America's amusement parks and attractions are renowned worldwide
and are a draw for Americans as well as visitors from around the world.
Whether driving regionally for an end-of-year school field trip to an
amusement park or flying around the world for a 10-day trip to Orlando,
our parks and attractions are a driver of travel and tourism. As the
President of the International Association of Amusement Parks and
Attractions, I welcome the opportunity to submit testimony about the
state of the industry. Attached you will find the Executive Summary of
a comprehensive study that we commissioned with the Travel Industry
Association of America last year which provides detailed information on
the economic impact of the parks and attractions industry.
The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions
(IAAPA) represents 4,500 members worldwide ranging from large amusement
and theme parks, such as Walt Disney World and Universal in Orlando, to
small independently-owned parks and major industry suppliers. The
contributions of IAAPA members to both domestic and overseas economies
are staggering. Travel and tourism enjoyed a $1.3 trillion share of the
U.S. economy in 2004. Travelers' spending in 2005 generated $103.5
billion in tax revenue for local, state, and Federal Governments in the
U.S. The 328 million amusement park guests who visited U.S. parks and
attractions in 2004 spent $47.8 billion directly on admission,
concessions and services while visiting the more than 600 U.S.
amusement parks. Amusement parks and attractions not only help support
the U.S. economy, they also stimulate growth in local businesses and
communities. The amusement industry provides jobs for upwards of
500,000 year-round and seasonal employees in the U.S. Many individuals'
first jobs are in the amusement industry. The industry is a huge
employer of youth and takes special pride in hiring, training and
promoting America's youth.
The population that visits amusement parks and attractions in the
U.S. is not strictly limited to domestic visitors; people traveling
from other countries make up a large portion of visitor numbers.
Amusement and theme parks in the U.S. alone attracted more than 10.6
million overseas travelers in 2004. These travelers spent an estimated
$3.7 billion on expenses related to their travels. The forecast for
total travel expenditure by international visitors in 2006 is $88.3
billion. As shown by the data, both domestic and foreign visitors of
amusement parks and attractions are extremely beneficial to the
economy.
Tourism has steadily improved in the last 5 years, and all
indications show that this has the potential to be a good year for the
industry and that attendance at amusement parks and attractions will
continue to increase. However, there are several factors that have the
potential to impact the industry. While we recognize that some of these
factors cannot be controlled, such as the weather, others can be
influenced by policymakers.
Fuel Costs: Increasing gas prices could impact travelers' ability
to visit amusement parks and attractions. People who are planning to
travel less or not at all this summer cited the reason as the price of
fuel 26 percent of the time. Fuel costs will drive up vacation costs
for both drivers and those who fly to their destinations. Energy costs
have the potential to negatively impact attendance this year.
Security with Accessibility: It is critical that legitimate foreign
visitors who want to travel to the United States are able to obtain
visas in a timely, efficient and economical manner. It takes visitors
from some Latin American countries months to obtain visas to come to
the United States, and the interviews required to obtain the visas
often require a special trip within their country, at a great expense.
This creates a great disincentive to travel to the United States. If
improvements are not made, we will lose these travel and tourism
dollars to other countries. We support the goals of the Rice-Chertoff
Initiative announced in January to better utilize technology to
facilitate legitimate travel to the United States.
IAAPA is also concerned that ample consideration, implementation
time, and public promotion be provided before the border requirements
for the Western Hemisphere Trade Initiative (WHTI) go into effect. The
WHTI, a part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004, requires passports for all travel across U.S. borders by January
1, 2008, and travelers over water and by air as of January 1, 2007.
While IAAPA understands the need for border protection, we stress the
importance of the timing and manner of any new requirements. IAAPA
would support the following changes to WHTI which are included in the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611:
18-month extension of deadline for implementation of the
WHTI to June 1, 2009;
Authority to issue a passport card for U.S. citizens valid
for travel over land and sea ports between the U.S. and Canada,
Mexico, the Caribbean or Bermuda. The total passport card
application fee would be under $24 and the fee for children
under 18 would be waived;
State Department/DHS are required to conduct a trial program
with at least one state whereby its driver's license can meet
the requirements for border crossing;
State/DHS are empowered to determine that certain Canadian
issued identity documents are valid for entry into the U.S.;
Development of a limited process to permit citizens of the
U.S. to cross the international border if they return within 72
hours;
Development of a procedure to accommodate groups of children
traveling by land across an international border under adult
supervision with parental consent without requiring a
government-issued identity and citizenship document; and
Ample public promotion of the WHTI and its requirements.
The World Travel and Tourism Council estimates that 8.7 percent of
the world's jobs are created by the travel and tourism industry. This,
along with the data given above, speaks volumes about the importance of
the travel and tourism. The amusement park and attractions industry is
proud of the positive impact our members have had in creating jobs and
revenue in the United States. We respectfully ask the Committee to
consider the issues we presented. I would be happy to provide any
additional information that would be beneficial to your understanding
of the industry. Thank you for holding this hearing on this important
and timely issue.
______
The Economic Impact of Domestic and Overseas Travelers Who Visit
Amusement/Theme Parks and Other Attractions in the United States--2005
Edition
Sponsored by: International Association of Amusement Parks and
Attractions
Prepared by: The Research Department of the Travel Industry Association
of America, Washington, D.C.
Introduction
With the large volume of domestic travelers and overseas visitors
to the United States interested in amusement/theme parks and other
attractions today, there is no doubt that this type of travel is a
significant part of the U.S. travel experience. Amusement/theme parks
and other attractions generate billions of dollars for destinations by
attracting visitors who spend money not only on those attractions, but
also on related items such as transportation, lodging, food and retail
shopping.
The Economic Impact of Travelers Who Visit Amusement/Theme Parks
and Other Attractions in the United States emphasizes the importance of
amusement/theme parks and other attractions defined in this report as
valuable products for the tourism industry and the economy. This
report, which is sponsored by International Association of Amusement
Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), provides analyses of the economic impact
generated by both domestic and overseas travelers in the United States
who visited amusement/theme parks and other attractions in 2004.
Domestic travelers could have visited at least one of five other
attractions--zoos/aquariums/science museums, historical places/sites/
museums, performing arts events, cultural events/festivals, and art
galleries/museums. Overseas travelers could have visited at least one
of six other attractions, including historical places, cultural
heritage sites, the American Indian community, concerts/plays/musicals,
art galleries/museums, and ethnic heritage sites.
This report includes estimates of travelers' spending during their
trips visiting amusement/theme parks and other attractions as well as
the employment, payroll income and tax revenues generated by those
expenditures. Detailed analyses of total travel volume, total trip
expenditures, average trip spending and itemized expenditures by groups
of travelers (defined by type of attraction and primary purpose of
trip) are included in this report.
The survey data used in this study do not provide information on
whether the visit to the attraction was the primary reason for the
trip, an important but not the primary reason for the trip, or just an
incidental activity. For the purpose of this study, for domestic
travelers citing ``entertainment/ sightseeing'' as the primary purpose
of their trips, expenditures for the entire trips were included,
covering not only their spending in amusement/theme parks and other
attractions, but also on transportation, food, lodging and retail
shopping. For those domestic trips that included one or more of the
attractions above but whose primary purpose was not for
``entertainment/sightseeing,'' only expenditures on admission fees paid
to the amusement/theme parks and attraction(s) and some other
incidental spending in the attractions were included.
Based on data available for this study, domestic travel volume was
measured in person-trips, which may have included one or more visits to
amusement/theme parks and other attractions during one trip.
Overseas travelers' expenditure estimates were based on the Office
of Travel and Tourism Industries' In-Flight Survey data. For the
purpose of this report, the estimates include overseas travelers'
spending on amusement/theme parks and other attractions, as well as
spending on other travel-related items outside of parks and attractions
(offsite) by those travelers who cited ``leisure'' as their main
purpose of travel, and visiting amusement/theme parks or other
attractions as the only recreational activities during their trips in
the United States. International airfares are not included in other
related items outside of parks and attractions.
Estimates of domestic travelers' impact were derived using the
Travel Industry of America's (TIA's) proprietary Travel Economic Impact
Model (TEIM). Detailed analyses of travel volume and characteristics as
well as expenditure patterns were based on TIA's TravelScope and TIA's
Travel Expenditure Survey data. Data from the U.S. Amusement Industry
Consumer Survey conducted by IAAPA were also employed.
The TEIM was developed by the Research Department at TIA to provide
annual estimates of the impact of the travel activity of U.S. residents
on national, state and local economies in this country. The TEIM
estimates travel expenditures and the resulting business receipts,
employment, payroll income and tax receipts generated by these
expenditures.
TIA's Travel Expenditure Survey, a national mail survey conducted
in 2005, investigated 25 traveler-spending categories such as air
tickets, auto rentals, lodging, restaurant meals and amusement/
recreation. It also collected information on travel characteristics for
different groups of travelers. The proportions of trip expenditures by
different traveler groups, the shares of each spending category in
total travel spending, and average levels of each spending category
were estimated using the survey data and incorporated with total
expenditures generated by the TEIM.
TravelScope is a cooperative research effort, funded by states,
cities and other participants, and managed by the Research Department
of TIA. TravelScope is a national mail survey conducted monthly that
collects visitor volume, market share, trip characteristics and
demographics for all U.S. residents' travel. Once collected from
traveling households, survey results are projected to the populations
of households in each of the 48 contiguous states based on the
responding household's state of residence. This method ensures the
statistical accuracy needed to measure U.S. travel volumes.
TravelScope data in this report encompass domestic trips (i.e.,
within the United States) taken by U.S. residents during the 2004
calendar year. This survey does not collect data on U.S. residents
traveling outside the United States or on international visitors'
activity in the United States. For this report, travel is measured in
terms of person-trips and household trips. To qualify, a trip must be
at least 50 miles one way away from home, or include one or more
overnight stays in paid accommodations. Respondents are instructed to
not include trips commuting to/from work or school or trips taken as a
flight attendant or vehicle operator. One person-trip equals one person
on one trip at least 50 miles one way away from home, or includes an
overnight stay in paid accommodations. See appendix A for more
information.
The In-Flight Survey is a monthly survey conducted by the Office of
Travel and Tourism Industries in the U.S. Department of Commerce. The
survey collects information from both U.S. resident and non-U.S.
resident international air travelers. This study uses the survey
results of non-U.S. resident oversea air travelers.
Executive Summary
In 2004, visitors to amusement/theme parks and other attractions,
including domestic and overseas travelers and local visitors, spent
$57.3 billion on those parks and attractions, as well as on other items
related to their trips.
Total domestic and overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme
parks and other attractions in the United States directly spent an
estimated $47.8 billion in 2004.
Total travel spending, including direct and secondary (indirect and
induced) or ``multiplier'' output, reached $113.3 billion. Of this,
$65.5 billion was generated though secondary impact.
In 2004, domestic and overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme
parks and other attractions directly generated more than 612,000 jobs,
$13.3 billion in payroll income, and $8.0 billion in tax revenue.
Including direct and secondary impact, every million dollars spent
by travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and other attractions
produced nearly 27 jobs in the United States in 2004. Moreover, every
dollar spent by these travelers generated 71 cents in total payroll
income.
Domestic Travelers Visiting Amusement/Theme Parks and Other Attractions
in the United States
U.S. travelers generated more than 260.4 million person-trips that
included one or more visits to amusement/theme parks and/or other
attractions in 2004. That represented 22 percent of the 1.2 billion
total U.S. domestic person-trips taken in 2004. More specifically, 78.9
million person-trips included at least one visit to an amusement/theme
park, accounting for 6.8 percent of the 1.2 billion total domestic
person-trips. A total of 15.6 percent of U.S. domestic person-trips
(181.6 million) included at least one of five other attractions as an
activity.
Domestic travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and other
attractions spent an estimated $44.1 billion in 2004. That included all
travelers' spending on amusement/theme parks and other attractions, as
well as spending on other travel-related items outside of parks and
attractions by those travelers who cited ``entertainment/sightseeing''
as their main purpose of travel. Business and other leisure travelers'
spending outside of parks and attractions were excluded.
Total domestic traveler spending, including direct and secondary
(indirect and induced) or ``multiplier'' output, reached $103.8
billion. Of this, $59.8 billion was generated though secondary impact.
Domestic travelers' spending directly generated 564,000 jobs, $12.3
billion in payroll income, and $7.4 billion in tax revenue in 2004.
Including direct and secondary impact, domestic travelers' spending
generated a total of 1.2 million jobs and $31.2 billion in payroll
income for the U.S. economy.
Overseas Travelers Visiting Amusement/Theme Parks and Other Attractions
in the United States
More than 10.6 million overseas travelers to the United States
included a visit to an amusement/theme park or other attraction in
2004. More specifically, 5.0 million travelers visited amusement/theme
parks and 5.6 million visited at least one of six activities or events:
historical places, cultural heritage sites, the American Indian
community, concerts/plays/musicals, art galleries/museums, and/or
ethnic heritage sites. That represented 52 percent of the 20.3 million
total overseas travelers who visited the United States in 2004.
Overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and other
attractions spent an estimated $3.7 billion in 2004.
Total travel spending, including direct and secondary (indirect and
induced) or ``multiplier'' output, reached $9.4 billion. Of this, $5.7
billion was generated though secondary impact.
In 2004, overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and
other attractions directly generated 48,100 jobs, $992.8 million in
payroll income, and $620.8 million in tax revenue.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gordon H. Smith to
Hon. Franklin L. Lavin
Question 1. It is estimated that international visitors spend 4\1/
2\ times more than domestic travelers. What specifically could the
Department of Commerce do to help promote tourism and facilitate U.S.
entry for international travelers?
Answer. The Department's Office of Travel and Tourism Industries
(OTTI) and U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (USFCS) work together to
promote and facilitate travel and tourism to our country. This
includes:
Actively participating in over 20 travel tradeshows annually
and interaction with Visit USA programs around the world;
Collecting and analyzing critical data in coordination with
the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) that is used by the
industry to develop business plans;
Promoting industry interests before the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS) regarding
policies related to border entry and issuance of visas;
Advancing policy initiatives through the Tourism Policy
Council (TPC), which is led by the Secretary of Commerce and
comprises 17 agencies of the Federal Government;
Participating in international trade negotiations that seek
to remove market access impediments and to enhance the
competitive position of U.S. companies; and
Representing U.S. interests before international policy-
setting fora, such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD).
Question 2. Almost all developed countries have a cabinet level
official charged with tourism promotion and diplomacy. In the United
States, this mission is hidden deep in the Department of Commerce and
seems to primarily focus on research and statistics. What is the
Department's plan for promoting travel and tourism? Do you think the
Federal Government has a role in tourism promotion? How can the
Commerce Department be more proactive in U.S. travel and tourism
promotion?
Answer. The Department's mandate for travel and tourism promotion
is to analyze the domestic economic environment and make
recommendations to improve the competitiveness of the U.S. Travel and
Tourism Industry. The Department also develops programs to improve
access to international markets by U.S. travel and tourism exporters
and works with other government agencies to eliminate barriers. In this
process the Department works to ensure industry views are considered in
the Federal policy decisionmaking process. This supports promotional
efforts led by private sector and state, local and tribal entities to
attract travel and tourism to the United States. Specific activities
are outlined in Question #1.
The Secretary of Commerce has been personally committed through the
Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (TTAB) to work with the industry to
ensure its global competitiveness. Recently, the Board submitted its
recommendations for strategies to revive the Gulf Region and create a
National Tourism Strategy. This strategy creates an opportunity for the
Department to be more proactive in promoting travel and tourism by: (1)
leading efforts through the TPC to define specific roles and
responsibilities of the Federal Government; (2) determining areas where
domestic policy changes can be made to create a more conducive
environment for sustained growth in the industry; and (3) exploring
opportunities for public-private partnerships for policy and promotion
activities.
Question 3. The Commerce Department chairs the Tourism Policy
Council (TPC), which consists of 17 Federal agencies, aimed at
promoting and streamlining tourism issues across the Federal
Government. It is my understanding that this Council has met only once
in the past 4 years? There certainly are many Federal barriers across
agencies that hinder domestic and international tourism. Can you
explain why the Administration has not made the TPC a priority? Why do
you think it is so difficult for tourism to get the attention of
policymakers?
Answer. The TPC met nine times in 2002 and six times in 2003. In
2006, the Secretary called for renewed quarterly TPC meetings as a
result of increased interest in travel and tourism policy issues at the
Administration level. This year, the TPC met in March and July, and the
next TPC meeting is planned for early October. The Secretary views the
TPC as a vital tool for ongoing Federal policy coordination and as a
forum through which to vet the National Tourism Strategy developed by
the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. The level of Federal interagency
attendance at the 2006 TPC meetings has been substantially higher than
in past years. This underscores the interest by policymakers in U.S.
travel and tourism issues that cross-cut the Federal Government.
Question 4. What role does the private sector have in promoting the
U.S. tourism market?
Answer. The private sector primarily leads U.S. travel and tourism
promotion efforts in the U.S. and abroad. This is accomplished both by
individual companies and through industry-wide collaboration. In
addition, state tourism offices as well as convention and visitor
bureaus conduct the grassroots promotion of destinations. In
international markets, overseas Visit USA Committees actively promote
travel to the United States. They comprise the private sector
representative offices and branches of U.S. companies, as well as tour
operators, travel agencies, and media business that promote or sell
travel to the United States.
Question 5. How would a national campaign market the entire U.S.,
including rural areas?
Answer. In 2004, Congress tasked the Department with the
responsibility of directing an international tourism promotion and
marketing campaign. This was a unique opportunity for the Department to
demonstrate to the private sector the potential effectiveness of a
well-executed international promotion program. The Department's
campaign in the United Kingdom and Japan was made possible through
numerous public-private partnerships. For example, in year one of the
United Kingdom campaign, over 80 states, cities, and companies
collectively contributed $2 million to the Department's efforts. In
year one of the Japan campaign, over 50 states, cities, and companies
gave $750,000. Consumer research conducted during the campaign
indicates that the beauty of the U.S. natural environment, together
with the excitement of U.S. urban areas and man-made attractions, are
what differentiate the United States as a travel and tourism
destination. The Department's campaign focused on the diversity of
travel experiences in the United States, including the beautiful
natural environments, rural areas, exciting cities and inspiring
national monuments.
Question 6. What is the economic impact to the U.S. economy for
travel and tourism as compared to other large industries in the U.S.?
Answer. The travel and tourism industry is an important component
of the U.S. economy. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce
Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts, the industry accounts for 2.6
percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), which, positions it below
ambulatory healthcare services (3.5 percent of GDP), about the same as
hospitals and nursing home facilities (2.7 percent), and broadcasting
and telecommunications (2.7 percent), but higher than the important
industries of utilities (2.0 percent), chemical products (1.6 percent),
legal services (1.4 percent), farming (1.2 percent), computer and
electronic products (1.1 percent), and motor vehicles, bodies and
trailers, and parts (1.0 percent). (Source: BEA)
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Franklin L. Lavin
Question 1. The Department of State (State) statistics show a
precipitous decline in the number of nonimmigrant visas they issued to
foreign travelers seeking entry into the United States in the immediate
aftermath of September 11, 2001. This year, the number of nonimmigrant
visas issued to travelers is expected to rebound to pre-September 11
numbers. To what do you attribute the decline in nonimmigrant visas
issued to foreign travelers seeking entry into the United States
following the events of September 11, 2001?
Answer. Following September 11, global international travel trends
shifted from long-haul international or overseas travel to short-haul
destinations where the traveler stays closer to home with an increase
in the use of auto or rail transportation versus airlines.
Additionally, the industry has been negatively affected by SARS
(2003) and unfavorable exchange rates for many countries (2001-2004).
Question 2. Do you think new policies on visa issuance and entry
have contributed to the decline in market share for U.S. tourism
exports?
Answer. The Department of Commerce's Office of Travel and Tourism
Industries Travel Barometer, which solicits feedback on travel issues
from the industry, suggests that there is no widespread empirical
evidence to support this opinion.
Question 3. If the events of September 11, 2001 do not alone
explain the decline in nonimmigrant visas issued by United States
Consulate offices throughout the world, what other factors may explain
the decline in nonimmigrant visas issued?
Answer. There has been a 7 percent annual growth in global travel
since 1950, but, with the exception of China, there has been some
decline in the top 10 markets, including the United States. Therefore,
it is not just the United States facing this challenge. Countries such
as China and India are benefiting from more regional and domestic
travel. These countries are also marketing to keep their traveling
populations at home.
Question 4. Current policies stifle Chinese citizens' ability to
travel to the United States. China continues to restrict its citizens'
leisure travel to countries, like the United States, which have not yet
received Approved Destination Status (ADS). Furthermore, the failure of
the Department of State (State) to process Chinese citizens' visas in a
timely fashion complicates the U.S.'s efforts to prosper from a sizable
Chinese population's desire to visit the United States.
The Chinese government has not designated the U.S. as one of
China's official tourist destination countries. China's government must
grant a country ADS before Chinese citizens may engage in leisure
travel to that country. In recent years China has broadened the leisure
travel opportunities available to its citizens by granting ADS to
Canada and 25 European countries. Numerous Chinese citizens circumvent
their home country's ADS requirement by classifying trips to the United
States as business trips. While not technically classified as
``tourists,'' almost all Chinese citizens who travel to the United
States on business incorporate leisure activities into their travel
itineraries.
Maura Harty, the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs,
testified before the House Committee on Government Reform in September
2005. Secretary Harty presented statistics illustrating that the
issuance of nonimmigrant visas to Chinese citizens traveling to the
United States, though still 13.5 percent below the number of
nonimmigrant visas issued before September 11, increased in Fiscal Year
2004 by 26 percent and grew an additional 11 percent in the first half
of Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. Harty dispelled concerns that there was a
lack of American consular staff to issue nonimmigrant visas to Chinese
citizens by explaining that nine new consular positions have been
created for China in FY 2004 and FY 2005, the Consulate in Guangzhou
and Consulate General in Shanghai have moved into new consular
facilities, and the Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guanghzou
have all collaborated with local chapters of the American Chambers of
Commerce to implement programs facilitating the issuance of business
visas to employees. Additionally, Secretary Harty stressed that the
state remains dedicated to demonstrating to China and India that it
will more efficiently process the visas of their citizens. Secretary
Harty stated that since September 2001, the State has augmented the
resources it uses to process the visas of Indian and Chinese citizens
as evidenced by its creation of 515 consular positions and its
enhancement of the consular officers' training. Secretary Harty told
the House Committee that as of the date of her testimony, 97 percent of
all visa applicants around the world who are found qualified to receive
visas receive them in one to two days.
Are you aware of Chinese and Indian foreign travelers commonly
experiencing a delay in receipt of their nonimmigrant visas for travel
to the United States?
Answer. China and India have been highlighted as two of the
countries where assistance should be focused in the visa processing
area.
In China, the delay in visa processing wait is primarily due to the
requirement for face-to-face interviews with all non-immigrant visa
applicants. However, processing time varies significantly by location
within China itself. For example, visitor visa processing wait time in
Shenyang is reported to take only one day while in Shanghai it
reportedly takes a 42-day wait. In New Delhi, the reported wait time
for visas is approximately 2 days.
The Department of State is responsible for issuing visas, and their
website provides consumers tracking of wait times for visas to be
processed. This information can be accessed at the following URL:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wait/tempvisitors_wait.php.
The Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (TTAB), comprised of private
sector travel and tourism industry executives, recently submitted their
recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce for the development of a
national tourism strategy. Identified within these recommendations is
the need for thorough review and possible revision of existing visa
policy. The Tourism Policy Council (TPC), a group of more than 20
Federal agencies who deal with varied issues related to travel and
tourism, including the Departments of State and Homeland Security, will
be discussing the TTAB's recommendations at the next TPC meeting.
Question 5. How have newly created consular offices expedited the
visa process for citizens of China and India? Do you sense that your
Department is aware of the economic benefits associated with an influx
of Chinese and Indian tourists, traveling on nonimmigrant visas to the
United States?
Answer. The Department of Commerce understands the benefits of
Chinese and Indian travelers to the U.S. economy. In 2005 total travel
and tourism spending in the United States from India was $1.6 billion
(representing a 16 percent increase over 2004) and $1.5 billion from
China (representing a 38 percent increase over 2004).
The Travel and Tourism Advisory Board and the Tourism Policy
Council are also keenly aware of the positive impact of additional
international visitors to the United States, and are working diligently
together to ensure that the Nation's ``Secure Borders, Open Doors''
program is as welcoming as possible, enabling legitimate travelers
access to the United States.
Consular offices fall under the purview of the Department of State,
which is better suited to address the first part of this question.
Question 6. What efforts are being undertaken by persons within the
United States' public- and private-sectors to facilitate the United
States being granted Approved Destination Status by the People's
Republic of China?
Answer. Under a U.S.-China tourism cooperation agreement, the
United States and China have identified the intent to obtain a
commercial facilitation agreement to enable group leisure travel to the
United States. This agreement is currently being developed by the
Department of Commerce in conjunction with the Departments of State and
Homeland Security. Private-sector entities in Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, and
the City of Los Angeles have all gained marketing and promotion access
to Chinese markets.
A Travel and Tourism Working Group, under the U.S.-China Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), has been focusing on enhancing
the U.S.-China relationship in travel and tourism through trade,
investment and cooperative efforts in business facilitation and
education and cultural exchange. At the most recent meeting of the
Working Group, in April 2006, the United States and China signed a two-
year work plan and agreed to pursue an agreement or framework that
would facilitate Chinese outbound leisure travel to the U.S.
Question 7. How many more non-immigrant visas per year does the
United States expect to grant if China grants the United States
Approved Destination Status?
Answer. The Department of Commerce's travel forecasting of Chinese
visitors to the United States is done using the current econometric
model, which is based on current regulations regarding outbound travel,
and has not taken into account any ADS or ADS-type alternatives. The
Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) reports that inbound
arrivals from China to the U.S. showed a 20 percent increase in 2004
over 2003 arrivals and a 24 percent increase in 2005 over the previous
year. Without catastrophic or disruptive events occurring globally,
OTTI estimates that the current growth pace will continue in the 20-30
percent range for the rest of the decade.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gordon H. Smith to
Hon. Wanda L. Nesbitt
Question 1. Ambassador Nesbitt, during the hearing, you defended
the Department's decision to impose an accelerated deadline for
implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) on
air and sea passengers (one year in advance of the date required by
law). You explained ``most travelers who fly internationally already
use a passport'' and therefore the requirement ``could be implemented
earlier'' than the law requires. However, this did not justify the
accelerated deadline for cruise passengers. In fact, cruise lines have
provided data to the Department demonstrating that most travelers who
cruise in the Western Hemisphere do not have a passport. I understand
that officials from the Department have cited conflicting data from
unnamed ``Mexican officials in Cancun'', though it seems to me that
cruise lines would have the more reliable data on this topic. Given the
data from the cruise industry, do you still believe it is appropriate
and fair to impose a deadline on cruise passengers before the law
requires it?
Answer. We believe that there are a number of advantages to phasing
in the requirement. By beginning implementation in advance of the
January 2008 deadline, we will begin to accrue the security advantages
as soon as possible and benefit at an earlier stage from the travel
facilitation envisioned by the Congress in crafting the legislation.
Phased implementation will also give us the opportunity to reach out
and inform the tens of millions of travelers who will be affected by
the changes.
The statistics available to the Department indicate that there is a
small population of cruise travelers to the Caribbean who would need to
get passports. A study commissioned by the Department to help us
develop more accurate data on the potential impact of WHTI estimated
that over 65 percent of U.S. citizens traveling on cruises to the
Caribbean possessed valid U.S. passports. The statistics provided to us
by the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) support this data.
ICCL indicates that 50-65 percent of cruise passengers for mid-length
(6-8 days) or longer (9-17 days) cruises have passports.
It is worth noting that we already see concrete evidence that many
Americans, especially those who travel by air or sea, are applying for
passports. Passport demand in the United States has increased 20
percent in each of the past two Fiscal Years; in FY 2004, we issued 8.8
million and in FY 2005, 10.1 million. This year we expect to issue over
12 million passports. Immigration inspectors and travel sector
resources have also reported significantly higher percentages of
travelers with passports. Our assessment is that American travelers are
becoming accustomed to the need for a passport.
Question 2. I commend the State Department and the Department of
Homeland Security for working to develop a less expensive alternative
to the passport like the PASScard. It is my understanding, however,
that State Department officials intend to limit the use of the PASScard
to surface crossings, leaving cruise passengers ineligible to use the
new card. This inequitable treatment seems patently unfair to cruise
passengers. This decision is particularly confounding given the robust
security measures taken by cruise lines. A cruise ship is a controlled
environment with limited access. All crewmembers and guests are placed
on an official manifest that is provided to the Department of Homeland
Security prior to the cruise departure for review. Moreover, when
cruise lines return to the United States, an arrival list is sent again
to the Department of Homeland Security 96 hours in advance of arrival.
Given the tremendous resources used to ensure security on cruise ships,
please explain why Americans choosing this mode of travel will not
receive the same opportunity to use a PASScard as those who cross the
border by car--a border crossing for which border patrol receives no
advance notice.
Answer. The passport card was devised in response to clear
indications from border community residents, local governments, and
businesses about the need for a simple, easy document to facilitate
travel across our land-borders by American citizens. We have practical
reservations about the use of a card designed to be used at land-
borders for broader international travel. We are aware of suggestions
that the passport card also be approved for cruises and air travel
within the Western Hemisphere, however, we believe that creating
special exemptions for certain types of international travel would
result in greater confusion for the traveler and increase costs, in the
long-run, to our citizens. Furthermore, travel by air or sea is much
more likely to present the need for, or the opportunity, to stop in a
third country.
Both State and DHS recognize that there is a need for a convenient
and less expensive travel document for U.S. citizens who regularly
travel across the Canadian and Mexican land-border environment. Cruise
travel is far more likely to include, or present the need, to stop in
or transit a third country. For their own protection, U.S. citizen
travelers in this situation should utilize a globally interoperable
document--the U.S. passport--for such travel.
A traveler going to the Caribbean by sea in 2008 will be fully
documented to travel, not just to the Caribbean countries that
currently require passports but anywhere else in the world. Obtaining a
passport will be as quick and easy as the process to obtain a passport
card. According to statistics from the cruise industry, about 90
percent of their customers book their travel through a travel agent and
about 59 percent of them book 4-6 months prior to travel, more than
enough time to acquire a passport.
The cruise industry as a whole has been proactive in encouraging
patrons to obtain passports. We believe this is reflected in the
increased demand for and increased use of passports by this target
group. In concert with our colleagues from DHS, we have engaged in
numerous outreach events with the public as well as business and travel
industry groups to make sure that they are well aware of WHTI
requirements and that they have adequate notice to take the necessary
steps to comply with them. We have assured the cruise industry that we
are happy to continue working with them to get the message out.
A critical part of successful implementation of the WHTI is the
rulemaking process, and both agencies look forward to public comment in
response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the air and sea
aspects of WHTI that was published on August 11 in the Federal
Register.
Question 3. Please clarify the waiting periods for a visa in non-
waiver countries. Please describe efforts you are taking to shorten
these waiting periods.
Answer. The wait period for a non-immigrant visa interview varies
from country to country. At some of our posts, particularly during peak
travel seasons, the demand for non-immigrant visa (NIV) interviews
exceeds our workload capacity resulting in a wait time that can range
from one day to 30 days or longer. Posts with a waiting period have
been instructed to establish procedures to grant expedited appointments
for legitimate business travelers with urgent needs, for students and
exchange visitors, and for applicants seeking emergency medical care.
Our posts have also developed individual business facilitation programs
that work best for their regions.
In order to keep the wait for an NIV appointment as short as
possible, the Department has added staff and improved consular space at
many posts. While these steps have helped more than 80 percent of our
posts to keep their wait times short, the remainder have appointment
delays above 30 days. These delays are often due to staffing shortages,
space issues, or an unanticipated rise in visa applications. We
continue to try to identify creative solutions to aid our posts and
ensure that the traveling public is not faced with major delays.
Question 4. How does this ``In-Person'' interview affect your
operation? It seems like there should be some flexibility for interview
waivers (like seniors, children, frequent business visitors)? What
technology (videoconferencing, etc.) are you considering to improve
this process? When can the Committee expect to hear about shortened
wait times?
Answer. As you know, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist
Prevention Act made it mandatory for most non-immigrant visa applicants
to appear at an embassy or consulate in person for an interview. We
believe that a personal interview is often the most critical part of
the visa process. It gives the consular officer an opportunity to
clarify information on the visa application and determine the bona
fides of the applicant.
There are already some exceptions to the in-person interview
requirement. For instance, travelers under 14 years old and over 79
years old do not need to appear in person. In addition, diplomatic and
official travelers, and those travelers who are renewing a non-
immigrant visa in the same classification within twelve months, need
not appear in person. The consular officer may also waive an interview
if it is warranted in the national interest or because of unusual
circumstances. We are available to discuss other instances in which
waiving the interview might be warranted.
Congress mandated that we collect biometric data from each visa
applicant beginning in October 2004. As a result, there are some cases
in which we are allowed to waive the visa interview but due to the
fingerprint requirement, must require the traveler to appear in person
at a consular section. We are interested in working with the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and Congress to determine if there is a way
to capture fingerprints only once, particularly for frequent travelers,
and thereafter do only a simple verification. We are also interested in
working with Congress to give consular officers more leeway to waive
the interview for travelers who have been appropriately screened and
assessed for risk, such as frequent business travelers.
It is our objective to provide courteous and timely service to all
persons requesting consular assistance. We will continue to explore the
possibility of doing offsite interviews and will be happy to apprise
you of any progress on this front. Our ability to shorten wait times
will depend largely on our ability to provide additional resources to
those posts where demand is outpacing our capacity.
Question 5. Can you briefly explain the Model Ports of Entry
program in the Rice-Chertoff announcement? How are you working with the
private sector on this program?
Answer. As part of the Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision announced by
Secretaries Rice and Chertoff in January of this year, we are working
with DHS to establish two model international ports of entry (POEs) at
Washington Dulles and Houston. These pilots are an opportunity to
partner with the private sector and local governments to design and
test a variety of facilitation techniques. State and DHS are working
with Dulles and Houston airport authorities, the travel industry,
airlines, and other private sector representatives to test and
demonstrate concepts for model airports in order to create a more
welcoming environment for foreign visitors. DHS is analyzing best
practices at ports of entry, including improved screening and more
efficient movement of travelers through the entry process; customized
video messages with practical information about the entry process; and
more instructional signage. Private-sector representatives will meet
with State and DHS in the near future to establish a timetable and
attempt to identify funding.
Question 6. It is estimated that international visitors spend 4\1/
2\ times more than domestic travelers. What specifically could the
State Department do to help promote tourism and facilitate U.S. entry
for international travelers?
Answer. The events of 9/11 affected tourist and business travel in
many ways. In particular, there was a perception that the visa process
was more difficult, due in part to delays in that process from
increased security procedures like special screening requirements and
fingerprinting. However, the State Department has worked hard to
improve our process since then. In fact, tourist and business visa
issuances are expected to top 3.04 million in FY 2006, up from an FY
2003 low of 2.5 million.
We have worked to increase the transparency of the visa process to
benefit the U.S. business community and our international travelers.
Embassies now display interview wait times on their websites; have
established dedicated interview times for business travelers; and allow
companies to register for expedited applications for their affiliates.
Our own website, www.travel.state.gov, receives between 400,000 and 1
million hits per month from interested parties.
State is piloting a web-based appointment system which, if
successful, will be made available to all posts. That system will also
include an electronic visa application system to allow consular
officers to do time-consuming security checks before the applicant
arrives at the visa window. We are piloting a model for processing visa
applications through remote interviews. We continue regular
institutional outreach with the travel, business, and academic
communities to solicit their views and enlist their support with
innovations and advocacy.
State is working with DHS as part of the Rice-Chertoff Initiative
to renew America's welcome with improved technology and efficiency. In
July 2005 we opened a worldwide Business Visa Center (BVC), that is a
wholly virtual operation. The BVC assists U.S. companies and convention
organizers by explaining the visa process when they invite employees or
current and prospective business clients to the United States. The BVC
staff provides information to U.S. companies about the application
process for visitor visas (B-1) for those seeking to travel to the U.S.
for business purposes. The BVC received over 100 inquiries in the first
2 weeks of operation and the numbers of telephone and e-mail inquiries
have continued to grow. In July 2006, the BVC handled over 400
inquiries. We estimate that over 20,000 international travelers are
indirectly assisted each month by the BVC's provision of conference and
visa information to U.S. companies.
We will continue to engage the business community, along with the
Economic Bureau and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security,
on ways to further improve the facilitation of legitimate travelers,
while maintaining the security of the United States.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Wanda L. Nesbitt
Question 1. Can you comment on results you have seen with the Model
Airport Program's implementation?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency in
developing Model Ports of Entry, an initiative that is just getting
started. Working with airport authorities, the travel industry and
airlines, and other private-sector participants, our plan is to test
and demonstrate concepts at Dulles and Houston that will create a more
welcoming environment for foreign visitors. DHS will soon complete an
analysis of best practices at ports of entry, including improved
screening and more efficient movement of people through the entry
process; customized video messages with practical information about the
entry process and more instructional signage.
During the peak summer travel season, Dulles utilized ``yellow
shirt Ambassadors'' to help visitors through the entry process. In
addition, new signage has been installed and welcome videos are shown
at baggage carousels.
It is important to keep in mind that the Departments of State and
Homeland Security can only afford to make marginal, yet important
changes, such as improving customer service and adding signage. A major
infusion of private-sector funds is needed to complete any structural
changes at a Model Port of Entry.
Question 2. What are your plans to expand the Model Airport Program
to other airports?
Answer. We hope that the best practices developed in the pilot
Model Ports of Entry program will be adopted at other airports.
Question 3. How have improvements by State and the DHS to visa
processing procedures benefited foreign business travelers?
Answer. Improvements to visa processing have included improving our
consular sections, adding staff, and developing facilitation programs.
We have also taken a number of steps to improve the transparency,
efficiency and predictability of the visa process and have worked with
our interagency partners to streamline our security clearance
procedures, bringing the average processing times down from several
months to just 1-3 weeks. These improvements have resulted in benefits
to the U.S. business community and our international travelers.
Embassies now display interview wait times on their websites; some have
established dedicated interview times for business travelers; and allow
companies to register for expedited appointments for their affiliates.
In addition, in July 2005, we opened a worldwide Business Visa
Center. The Business Visa Center (BVC) assists U.S. companies and
convention organizers by explaining the visa process when they invite
employees or current and prospective business clients to the United
States. The BVC staff provides information to U.S. companies about the
application process for visitor visas (B-1) for those seeking to travel
to the United States for business purposes. The BVC receives hundreds
of inquiries a month and we estimate that over 20,000 international
travelers are indirectly assisted each month by the BVC's provision of
conference and visa information to U.S. companies.
Over the past year, we have met regularly, along with colleagues
from the Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB) and
the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security with members of the
business community to discuss ways to further improve the facilitation
of legitimate travelers, while maintaining the security of the United
States.
Question 4. It seems that business travelers are the only category
of persons to prosper from improved State and the DHS procedures that
allow for the more efficient processing of visas to date. What steps
have State and the DHS taken to ensure that other categories of foreign
travelers, such as leisure travelers, will have their visa wait period
shortened?
Answer. The Department is doing significant outreach, both here and
abroad, to encourage travel to the United States by students,
professional workers, and tourists. After 9/11, there was a perception
that the visa process was more difficult, due in part to delays from
increased security procedures like special screening requirements and
fingerprinting. The State Department has worked hard to improve our
process since then and we are seeing a turnaround. Tourist and business
visa issuances are expected to top 3.04 million in FY 2006, up from an
FY 2003 low of 2.5 million.
After the visa interview takes place, most approved travelers
receive their visas in 48 hours. Many posts send passports with issued
visas back to applicants using a pre-paid courier service, so that the
applicant does not need to travel to the Consulate a second time to
pick up the issued visa.
In fact, only a small category of travelers, less than 3 percent
worldwide, wait more than 48 hours to receive their visas. These
travelers' applications often require additional interagency
clearances. Wait times for clearances have decreased over the past year
to an average of 14 days; however, delays have increased this summer
due to resource constraints in some agencies and increased Security
Advisory Opinions (SAOs) from posts. We continue to work with other
agencies to expedite clearances for students and emergency travelers,
and expect the delays to shorten as our agency partners add more staff
to support the SAO clearance process.
We also are working to facilitate visa processing for students to
ensure that foreign students who choose American institutions are able
to enroll and attend class. CA has issued new guidance allowing
students to apply for visas 120 days in advance of their studies, and
DHS is in the process of changing their regulations to allow students
to enter the U.S. 45 days before their classes start, rather than 30
days.
We increased to one year the validity of the clearances granted to
certain groups of scientists and scholars who participate in joint-
research programs. Travelers who need to make repeated visits within a
given year may now do so without our consular officers having to go
back to Washington for an additional name check if they are in these
categories. The turn-around time for a common student visa clearance,
the ``Visas Mantis'' clearance, was reduced to less than 14 days
worldwide after we created a separate team dedicated to MANTIS
clearances and streamlined the interagency clearance process. In
addition, students only require one initial MANTIS for their period of
study, up to 4 years.
Consular officers and other Embassy personnel have been active
overseas in reaching out to student and academic groups to promote U.S.
higher education. Public appearances, press articles, and web-chats
have all carried the message that a wide variety of educational
opportunities in the United States are available for foreign students.
For example, the Embassy in Dhaka hosts a monthly radio program called
``Ask the American Consul'' where student and other visa issues can be
discussed. In China, consular officers participate in web-chats, which
have generated over 100,000 hits each time.
Question 5. The average time a visa applicant must wait to get a
visa interview varies greatly from country to country. What factor or
set of factors would State and the DHS attribute this to?
Answer. In some posts, and particularly during peak travel seasons,
the demand for non-immigrant visa (NIV) interviews exceeds our workload
capacity. As you noted, wait times vary from country to country
depending on current staffing levels, NIV workload changes, and
physical setup. Some posts therefore have a wait time for interviews
which ranges from one day in posts as varied as Beijing, Ankara, Nuevo
Laredo, and Warsaw, to 30 days or longer in posts such as Manila,
Caracas, Vancouver, and Tashkent.
While the State Department is working hard to minimize the wait
times for nonimmigrant visa appointments worldwide, we realize that
there is a significant appointment backlog at a good number of overseas
posts. Therefore, we asked our consular sections to establish
procedures whereby those visa applicants with urgent travel needs, such
as medical emergencies, can get expedited appointments.
Question 6. What is being done to remedy this problem? Do you plan
to implement videoconferencing technology in all Embassies and
Consulates for visa interviews?
Answer. In order to keep the wait for an NIV appointment as short
as possible, the Department has added staff and improved consular space
at many posts. While these steps have helped more than 80 percent of
our posts to keep their wait times short, the remainder of our posts
have appointment delays above 30 days. These delays are often due to
staffing shortages, space issues or a rapid increase in visa
applications.
Posts with waiting periods have established mechanisms to expedite
appointments for legitimate business travelers with urgent needs,
students and exchange visitors, and applicants seeking emergency
medical care. Our posts have also developed individual business
facilitation programs that work best for their regions. We will
continue to work with those posts to come up with creative solutions to
aid them in reducing the appointment backlog while at the same time
ensuring that every application is properly screened according to
applicable laws, regulations, and security concerns.
As you know, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
made it mandatory for most non-immigrant visa applicants to appear at
an Embassy or Consulate in person for an interview. This increased the
total number of individuals our consular officer now need to see in
person.
There are some exceptions to the in-person interview requirement.
For instance, travelers under 14 years old and over 79 years old do not
need to appear in person.
Congress also mandated that we collect biometric data from each
visa applicant as of October 2004 (applicants under 14 and over 79 as
well as diplomatic and official travelers are exempt). As a result,
there are some cases in which we could waive the visa interview but we
do not because of the need to collect fingerprints. We are working with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to find a way to reduce this
burden for certain frequent travelers. We are also interested in
working with Congress to give consular officers greater flexibility in
applying the interview requirement, particularly for travelers who have
already been appropriately screened and assessed for risk, such as
frequent tourist or business travelers.
Question 7. When addressing a House Committee in September 2005,
Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty announced State Department
plans to enlarge the consular staff at many American Consulate offices
throughout the world. Have these plans been executed? Do you expect
extra consular staff to reduce the often lengthy visa interview wait
times experienced by many visa applicants?
Answer. Our ability to shorten wait times will depend largely on
our ability to provide additional resources to those posts where demand
is outpacing our capacity. We have added 570 new consular staff
worldwide since 2001. In addition, we have dramatically increased our
ability to provide temporary consular officers to posts that need
assistance and are now providing more such help than ever before. The
Bureau of Consular Affairs continues to add retired, experienced
consular officers to our roster of people available to provide
temporary assistance to posts. We have also worked with posts to
increase use of the electronic visa application form and other
technological tools to streamline visa processing and started up new
``call centers'' to assist consular sections in contracting out the
visa appointment process. We have seen significant reductions in wait
times due to these advances, but continue to work toward the
elimination of lengthy waits for visa appointments.
It is our objective to provide courteous and timely service to all
persons requesting consular assistance. We regret the delays
encountered by some applicants. While consular officers attempt to be
as sensitive as possible to the need for expeditious processing of
applications, they must first conscientiously administer the
Immigration and Nationality Act. While we want to do our best to
facilitate legitimate travel, we cannot compromise the security of the
visa issuing process or of the United States.
Question 8. What additional steps have been taken by State and the
DHS to expedite and ease the issuance of visas while ensuring that our
national security is protected?
Answer. An important part of our visa process is our consular
lookout database, which contains information from past visa cases as
well as other agencies. When an officer determines that an applicant
matches a ``hit'' in the database, in many cases he or she must send a
request for a security review of the case in Washington. Slightly over
217,000 Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) were conducted in FY 2005; in
the first 10 months of FY 2006, the Visa Office processed nearly
180,000. Despite annual increases in SAO volume, the Visa Office and
its interagency partners have made steady progress in reducing SAO
processing times while making those times more predictable. By the end
of FY 2005, average SAO processing time had fallen to 20 working days,
from 26 days in FY 2004, and nearly 60 days in FY 2001.
``Visas Donkey'' processing, which covers a specific interagency
review of certain visa applicants and is generally the longest duration
category, fell dramatically from an average of over 53 days in FY 2004
to an average 37 days in FY 2005. After falling to an historic low of
about 15 working days this spring, Visas Donkey processing currently
stands at 2004 levels due to staffing issues at one of our principal
interagency partners. We expect this increase in the Visas Donkey
processing time to be temporary as these staffing issues are addressed
and as the next phase of our SAO Improvement Project (SAO-IP), which
further automates the SAO clearance process and consists of upgraded
interagency connectivity, is about to come on stream.
We also work with our interagency partners take special steps to
expedite the SAO clearances of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)
applicants, students and exchange visitors, and Diversity Visa Lottery
applicants so they can meet their planned travel dates.
On the Immigrant Visa side, our National Visa Center (NVC) in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, helps to reduce post workload, speed up the
visa process, and enhance security by collecting and reviewing
immigrant visa petitions and supporting documents, running an FBI
check, and investigating possible fraud before the visa case even is
sent to post. NVC is also scheduling appointments for a number of posts
in a pilot program we hope to expand in future.
We have also worked closely with DHS to streamline the waiver
process. Visa applicants who are statutorily ineligible for visas are
sometimes able to receive waivers of those ineligibilities to allow
them to travel. As of September 8, all NIV waiver requests are
transmitted electronically to DHS/CBP, allowing us to receive a
response in a shorter amount of time as well as effectively track and
record these requests.
Question 9. For many foreigners traveling to the United States for
the first time, the first experience they have with the United States
will be the experience they have obtaining a visa through our Embassies
and Consulates. Travel to the United States is more likely when that
first impression is a positive one. Do you currently train staff in
customer service? If not, do you plan to do so in the future? How can
we ensure that foreigners' first impression of the United States is one
of ``welcome and open arms? ''
Answer. In the 31-day mandatory basic consular training course, our
instructors emphasize to new officers that they are the face of the
United States abroad and that the way they communicate their decisions
to a visa applicant is just as important as the decision they make;
their actions leave a lasting impression on each person they interview.
We reinforce that message with over 35 mock interviews where each
officer must interview an applicant for a visa, make a decision based
on immigration law, and communicate that decision clearly and politely
to the applicant. As part of this training, our new officers also
receive a three-day course on consular interviewing techniques where
they are taught the best way to build rapport, gather information and
make a decision, all while presenting a positive view of the United
States. During that training, we record the officers doing a visa
interview and provide specific feedback on their decisionmaking,
interview techniques, and diplomacy. Our goal is to leave each
applicant with a positive impression of the United States, whether or
not he or she qualifies for a visa under immigration law.
We reinforce that same message through regional consular workshops,
advanced training for mid-level and senior officers, and periodic
guidance to all consular officers abroad. We know that our officers are
on the front lines of diplomacy as well as national security, and we
feel both are equally important.
Question 10. Are there any e-Passport programs currently being
tested? What problems do State and the DHS foresee in implementing the
widespread use of e-Passports?
Answer. The Department of State has been involved in a
comprehensive testing program of e-Passports for more than a year. Most
of this testing has been under the auspices of the U.S. National
Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST). The testing is designed
to assess the reliability, durability and electronic performance of
products offered by a number of vendors competing for contracts to
support the U.S. e-Passport program.
Based on the results of that testing, the Government Printing
Office, the State Department's operational partner in the e-Passport
program, has awarded a number of contracts to vendors. Products from
one vendor, Infineon, are incorporated into the U.S. diplomatic
passports that we began issuing in December 2005, and into official
passports that were issued beginning in April 2006. On August 14, at
our Colorado Passport Agency, we began issuing the first U.S. e-
Passports to the public.
During the Summer of 2005, the State Department, partnering with
the Department of Homeland Security and in collaboration with Australia
and New Zealand, launched an operational field test to measure the
overall performance of the e-Passport and the efficiency of e-Passport
readers in airport environments. A second phase of testing was
conducted in early 2006 and included the United States, Australia, New
Zealand and Singapore. These tests provided valuable information about
the functional systems, operational processes, and general
characteristics of the e-Passport.
Based both on testing to date and real world performance of e-
Passports issued by many governments, the Department of State does not
foresee any systemic problems with the introduction of U.S. e-
Passports. Nearly 40 nations, including many who are not participants
in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, have active e-Passport programs. The
widespread introduction of this technology reflects the importance
attached by many governments to strengthening border security by
preventing the use of passports by anyone other than the person to whom
that passport was originally issued by his or her national government.
The State Department is well aware that the issue of privacy and e-
Passports has generated significant attention from the public and some
privacy advocates. In discussing this issue it is important to note
that the only data written to the chip in a U.S. passport is the same
data (digital photograph, name, date of birth, etc) found on the data
page of a U.S. passport. Furthermore, and consistent with the State
Department's public commitment not to issue e-Passports until we were
confident that any security vulnerabilities were addressed, the
Department has made a number of fundamental improvements to the U.S.
passport in terms of personal data security. These include:
The use of a metallic material in the front cover and spine
of the passport to address the risk of data skimming (reading
data without the knowledge of the authorized bearer);
Introducing Basic Access Control to ensure that the passport
chip can be read only after an electronic key is generated
based on data found in the Machine Readable Zone of the
passport; and
The adoption of Random Unique ID numbers which address the
risk of tracking by ensuring that the passport chip generates a
different ID number each time it communicates with a passport
chip reader.
Based on all of these initiatives, the Department of State is
confident that the U.S. e-Passport protects personal privacy
information.
Question 11. Have you been in contact with or worked with any
foreign governments in the development of the e-Passport?
Answer. The U.S. e-Passport was developed consistent with the
globally interoperable biometric specifications adopted by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The Department worked
with ICAO Member States, including Germany, Australia, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Singapore,
France, Finland and Italy, to develop standard operational processes
for the e-Passport.
Governments throughout the world have recognized that they must
learn from each other as they deal with the challenges of e-Passports.
There has been an unprecedented series of international meetings to
exchange information on ``lessons learned'' and to test various
products and processes involved with the deployment of e-Passports.
Partnering with the Department of Homeland Security and in
collaboration with Australia, New Zealand, and subsequently, Singapore,
the State Department participated in an operational field test to
measure the overall performance of the e-Passport, assess the
operational impact at airports and the efficiency of e-Passport
readers. These tests provided valuable information about the functional
systems, operational processes, and general characteristics of the e-
Passport.
The Department has a long history of assisting other governments to
identify and implement advanced technology, ICAO compliant, travel
documents. Since 9/11 and the 2003 passage of the ICAO standards on
biometrics and travel document issuance security, contacts with other
governments have at least doubled. Over the past 2 years, an average of
about 20 countries per year have consulted with us on e-Passport
technology, passport issuance rules, methods and security, and fraud
prevention practice.
Question 12. What would be the process for phasing-out use of the
current passport booklets and moving to e-Passports? When does State
and/or DHS estimate the e-Passport process will be implemented, and
when can we expect the phase-out of current passport booklets?
Answer. The Department of State began issuing the first-ever
tourist e-Passports to the public at the Colorado Passport Agency on
August 14, 2006. Diplomatic and Official e-Passports are already being
issued at our Special Issuance Agency in Washington, D.C. The
Department expects to fully transition to e-Passport production
domestically in 2007. Previously issued passports without electronic
chips will remain valid until their expiration dates.
Currently valid passports will remain valid until their original
expiration date. There will be no requirement for citizens to replace
their existing passport with an e-Passport before its normal expiration
date.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
James W. LeDuc, Ph.D.
Question 1. After the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) virus in China in 2002, the disease spread to a
reported 31 countries and caused 8,437 deaths, severely affecting
China's international tourism industry. In fact, following the
announcement of the SARS outbreak and quarantines, China's gross
domestic product (GDP) dropped significantly from 9.9 percent in the
first quarter of 2003, to 6.7 percent in the second quarter.
After the SARS outbreak in China in 2002, we saw China's GDP drop
drastically, mostly due to the negative effect the disease had on the
tourism industry. What can we do to prevent the same situation from
happening in the U.S., with the Avian Flu?
Answer. When a new influenza A virus strain emerges that causes
illness in humans and allows sustained transmission among humans (i.e.,
a pandemic strain of influenza), it could have a serious negative
impact on the GDP of the United States and many other countries. The
impact could be felt in multiple parts of the world at the same time,
because pandemic viruses can spread rapidly throughout the world. The
tourism industry could be highly affected, as could many others
industries in a severe pandemic (e.g., healthcare, food,
transportation, and other industries basic to the social
infrastructure). The potential length of an influenza pandemic also
should be considered in relation to GDP, including the challenges to
local economies that depend heavily on industries such as tourism. An
influenza pandemic could have one or more waves, each lasting 6-10
weeks, that affect a community over several months followed by annual
epidemics.
The highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) viruses (often
called ``bird flu''), which have caused more than 250 human illnesses
and almost 150 deaths worldwide since 2003 (as of September 28, 2006)
and have resulted in the deaths and culling of millions of poultry, is
currently of grave concern for public health worldwide. The H5N1 avian
virus thus far has not caused sustained transmission from human-to-
human. However, influenza viruses are constantly changing, and
surveillance is ongoing to detect any changes in the virus that might
make it more likely to transmit among humans and also to look for
epidemiologic evidence of sustained human transmission.
The SARS outbreak was able to be contained within a relatively
brief time, even though the coronavirus that causes the infection was
not identified until after the multi-country outbreak started. The
2002-2003 SARS outbreak was spread mostly in relatively contained
settings (e.g., institutions, hospitals, planes). An avian influenza
outbreak among people, especially one that evolves into a pandemic,
probably would spread much more quickly and simultaneously in multiple
settings (shopping areas, schools, businesses, neighborhoods) during
many months or even years and in multiple countries at the same time.
Another important difference between influenza and SARS is that persons
with SARS do not become infectious until they are obviously ill and are
most infectious in the second week of their illness, while persons
infected with influenza may be infectious the day before they become
ill or when they have very mild symptoms. In addition, the time from
exposure to illness onset (the incubation period) for SARS is typically
2-7 days but can be as long as 2 weeks, while the incubation period for
influenza averages 2 days (range 1-4 days). The longer incubation
period and lack of transmission during the incubation period make SARS
more easily contained than pandemic influenza would be.
The avian influenza A (H5N1) virus has not been detected in the
United States or anywhere else in the Americas. It is not known what
impact the first detection of H5N1 avian influenza in poultry or wild
birds might have on the U.S. However, the United States has an
effective animal health surveillance system as a vital component of its
National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan that should minimize
large economic impacts due to infected poultry. HHS would also be
involved in conducting surveillance for any human cases if H5N1 were
detected in the United States. H5N1 outbreaks in poultry and other bird
populations in European countries have been able to be contained
quickly. However, in other countries, outbreaks of avian influenza
viruses in poultry have resulted in huge economic losses to that
industry. It is difficult to determine at this point the impact of H5N1
outbreaks among birds have had on tourism in countries with and without
human cases.
Actions to minimize the economic impact on tourism and other vital
industries will require a multi-year, sustainable preparedness and
response system involving both domestic and international partnerships.
The system must be able to identify avian influenza promptly, quickly
contain outbreaks, emphasize continued laboratory and epidemiological
surveillance and research, and ensure that people are well informed
about health protection, including non-pharmaceutical interventions.
Question 2. In a worst case scenario, where the Avian Flu begins to
spread from human-to-human in the U.S., would it be possible to
quarantine the multitude of tourists to prevent the disease from
spreading? How would we do this?
Answer. If an avian influenza such as the H5N1 virus were to evolve
into a form that allowed sustained human-to-human transmission and such
transmission were already ongoing within the United States, it would be
extremely difficult to contain the disease by placing large groups of
tourists in quarantine. Early in a pandemic, it will be most important
to try to contain community outbreaks through non-pharmaceutical
interventions, because a vaccine will not likely be available at the
beginning of a pandemic. Non-pharmaceutical interventions may include
social distancing, closing schools, limiting large gatherings,
promotion of hand washing and cough etiquette, and possibly voluntary
isolation of those infected and/or quarantine of close contacts of ill
persons. As the pandemic progresses and the virus becomes more widely
dispersed, these types of actions probably would have a more limited
benefit.
Question 3. The fatality rate of the Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) virus is only about 10 to 20 percent, while the Avian
Flu has a fatality rate of over 50 percent. The SARS virus also has a
slower mutation rate than the Avian Flu, meaning that a new strain of
the Avian Flu can develop faster than those of the SARS virus, making
it difficult to keep up with demand for effective vaccinations.
I understand the bird flu has a fatality rate over 50 percent,
while the SARS virus fatality rate is only 10 to 20 percent. What does
this mean in terms of how we would control the outbreak of the bird flu
if that were to occur?
Answer. The currently circulating avian influenza A (H5N1) strains
that are resulting in fatality rates over 50 percent may or may not
evolve into a pandemic strain of influenza. In order to control illness
in humans, outbreaks in poultry and exposure to ill birds and poultry
must be controlled. For now, the H5N1 virus lacks the ability to
efficiently transmit from person-to-person. Almost all confirmed human
cases have involved direct contact with infected birds. This and other
factors illustrate problems involved in drawing meaningful comparisons
of fatality rates between SARS and avian influenza or an influenza
pandemic. In addition, in past influenza pandemics, the fatality rates
have been much lower, on the order of 0.1 percent to 2 percent.
Despite this difficulty, some non-pharmaceutical interventions
found effective in minimizing transmission of SARS also would be
important for minimizing the spread of pandemic influenza during its
early stages, including hand washing, social distancing, and use of
cough etiquette. These types of self-protection are especially
important while an effective vaccine is being researched, developed,
and manufactured.
SARS helped spur collaborative public health approaches between
government officials, health professionals, and community leaders. The
current pandemic influenza preparedness actions are building on these
networks as well as involving experts in animal health.
Question 4. I understand that the mutation rate for the bird flu is
much faster than that of the SARS virus. How much faster is the
mutation rate and exactly how does this effect the process of making
vaccinations?
Answer. The ongoing global surveillance and research necessary to
monitor changes in a virus such as H5N1 are among the greatest
challenges in preparing for an influenza pandemic. Mutation and other
changes in influenza viruses occur continually. In contrast, the SARS
corona virus changes much less frequently. As influenza viruses change,
scientists must decide which strains present the greatest threat and
which should be used in the development and manufacture of influenza
vaccines. Scientists also must continually test antiviral medications
to determine whether they can be used for treatment or prevention
during both yearly influenza outbreaks and during a potential pandemic.
Both of these efforts require considerable public and private
resources, as well as a high degree of international collaboration
among scientists, government officials, and others.
Question 5. Do you think the U.S. will be prepared for the threat
of a potential pandemic such as the bird flu anytime in the near
future?
Answer. If the world faced an influenza pandemic within the next
year, many scientists would agree that the United States and other
countries would not be effectively prepared. Great strides have been
made. These must now be sustained and improved.
The U.S. Government, states, and localities are making considerable
progress in pandemic influenza preparedness. Health professional groups
and the private sector also are showing a high interest in preparedness
for a pandemic. The magnitude of the threat is great from a public
health perspective and will require continued, focused resources to
make and sustain the progress needed on many fronts. These include
surveillance, epidemiological and laboratory capacity and research, and
response strategies essential for early containment yet flexible enough
to maintain assistance over the course of many months or years.
Question 6. What else can we do legislatively to help prevent the
spread of such a deadly disease such as the Avian Flu?
Answer. CDC greatly appreciates the strong support Congress has
given in response to the current threat that avian influenza A (H5N1)
and other influenza viruses pose, including the yearly threats from
annual influenza that result in an average of 36,000 deaths and over
200,000 hospitalizations. As the public health system addresses
influenza preparedness and response, CDC and its partners also must be
ready to confront other emerging infectious diseases, as SARS taught
us. Sustained support of national, state and local, and international
surveillance and research for both annual influenza and pandemic
influenza are critical to promptly detect and control avian H5N1
outbreaks, pandemic influenza, and other emerging infectious diseases.
Support for epidemiologic and laboratory infrastructure for seasonal
influenza is vital as a safeguard for pandemic influenza. Critical
actions that Congress might consider in the future include:
Continued support of Federal assistance for states,
territories, tribal nations, and localities for influenza
laboratory and epidemiologic surveillance and response
capacity.
Support for capacity building within CDC and other agencies
that will establish a strong foundation for conducting
surveillance, response and research of seasonal influenza and
pandemic threats and the surge capacity necessary when an
influenza pandemic occurs.
Continued support for the development of international
surveillance and laboratory capacity. This takes sustained
efforts, dedicated funding and technical assistance. Further
development of international surveillance and laboratory
capacity will serve the Unites States as well as other
countries, allowing all to become more able to identify and
investigate novel avian influenza viruses such as H5N1 or other
new pathogens such as SARS.
Support of more international collaborations to strengthen
health services in countries affected by the H5N1 virus.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gordon H. Smith to
Jay Rasulo
Question 1. It is my understanding that almost all developed
countries have a cabinet level official charged with tourism promotion
and diplomacy. From your experience, which countries have done it
right--to protect their borders but open its doors to tourists?
Answer. Most industrialized countries, including for instance
Australia, Canada, the U.K. and France, have well-funded and
nationally-coordinated efforts to compete for international travelers.
These countries typically have minister or cabinet level offices
devoted to inviting travelers to visit, and coordinating government
policy in order to facilitate visitation.
Canada invests $80 million per year on its national marketing
program, and Australia invests more than $100 million. Even New
Zealand, a country \1/74\ the size of the U.S., invests $43 million
each year promoting itself to world travelers. Each of these countries
provides a great example of how to run a nationally-coordinated
campaign that motivates travelers to visit them.
The research that is currently being conducted by the Discover
America Partnership, an organization comprised of members of the travel
and tourism industry, will help us learn from these countries so that
we can make an informed recommendation as to what the U.S. ought to be
doing.
Question 2. What is the U.S. Government's role to promote its
tourism industry? Is there anything else our government should do to
better address your industry's needs?
Answer. While the private-sector should play a leading role in
implementing a campaign to promote travel to the U.S., there are also
roles that the government is uniquely suited to help fulfill:
Marshal Resources of Private-Sector: The Federal Government
can act as a galvanizing force to marshal the resources of the
private sector travel and tourism industry.
Ensure Efforts Benefit Entire U.S.: The Federal Government
is in a unique position to ensure that a nationally-coordinated
destination marketing program is one that benefits tourist
destinations throughout the U.S.--rather than select
destinations on the two coasts.
Publicize Travel Requirements: The government should also
play a key role in helping to publicize issues that cut across
different agencies, so that marketing efforts are not marred by
confusion and misinformation. For instance, the communication
of changes in documentation requirements would require
coordination between the Departments of State, Homeland
Security and Commerce.
Open Doors in Foreign Markets: With its extensive network of
Consulates, Embassies and trade offices, the Federal Government
can help open doors in foreign markets, and contribute on-the-
ground resources to supplement communications efforts.
Question 3. What are the key countries you are targeting in the
next 10 years for international visitors to the U.S.?
Answer. The industry, working through a new organization called the
Discover America Partnership, is developing a blueprint for a
destination marketing campaign that will identify the markets we should
be targeting. This blueprint should be complete by the end of 2006.
However, we are confident in predicting that those countries will
include the today's top source markets: Canada, the United Kingdom,
Japan, Germany and Mexico. We also believe that China and other Asian
countries, which are rapidly rising as sources of international
tourism, should also be a focus of our efforts.
Question 4. How can U.S. travel and tourism be used as a public
diplomacy tool to improve some of America's negative image?
Answer. Dollar for dollar, investing in a nationally-coordinated
destination marketing campaign is perhaps the most effective vehicle to
strengthen the U.S. image in other parts of the world. Such a campaign
would accomplish the following:
1. Demonstrate that our Doors are Open and the Welcome Mat is
out. Actions speak louder than words, and the simple act of
asking people to visit communicates a powerful message in and
of itself--even to those who are not able to accept the
invitation. We look forward to the day that people around the
world receive such an invitation from the United States.
2. Bring Potentially Millions of Additional Visitors to the
U.S. Whether tied to a company or a country, positive word-of-
mouth is the most powerful form of marketing. Research
conducted in six of the top travel markets to the U.S.--Brazil,
Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the U.K.--established that
while 38 percent of those who had never visited the U.S. had a
positive image of the U.S., 54 percent of those who had visited
viewed the U.S. positively. Likewise, only 61 percent of those
who had not visited the U.S. had a positive view of the
American people, compared to 72 percent of those who had
visited. By giving these visitors a powerful firsthand
experience of our values and hospitality, we can create
millions of grassroots Ambassadors.
3. Communicate America's Story to the World Through a Well-
Executed Marketing Campaign. The best marketing campaigns
contribute to building a long-term brand in addition to selling
a product. Many other countries are doing this very
effectively, with destination marketing that communicates the
values and culture that define them. The U.S. should be in the
international marketplace with similar ads that invite the
world to experience the land of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.
Question 5. How has the Internet and media changed the way foreign
countries market their destinations?
Answer. The Internet and proliferation of media channels has had a
dramatic effect on consumer expectations. Consumer behaviors and
booking patterns are evolving at breakneck speed. Today's world
travelers not only have an increasing number of worthwhile destinations
to choose from, they have better access to information, and they expect
a higher level of service and ease of movement than ever before.
However, it is also worth noting that while the Internet is a
powerful source of information for travelers, traditional media such as
television, radio and print, as well as outreach to key travel buys and
tour operators, is still a core component of any effective destination
marketing strategy.
Question 6. The U.S. still leads the other foreign countries in
total receipts, totaling $75 billion in 2004. With these figures and
the recent rise in U.S. tourism, why should we be considering new
policies and programs to promote tourism?
Answer. The U.S. has captured none of the nearly 20 percent growth
in country-to-country travel since 2000.
By the end of 2005, North America was the only sub-region (what is
a sub-region?) of the world to have recorded a decline in arrivals
since 2000 .
U.S. share of international travel has fallen 35 percent since
1992--from a high of 9.4 percent to the current 6.1 percent. Had the
U.S. maintained its share of the world travel market, 27 million more
travelers would have visited the U.S. in 2005.
U.S. share of revenue from international travel has fallen 29
percent since 1992--costing the U.S. an estimated $43 billion in 2005
alone. The cumulative cost since 1992 is estimated at $286 billion in
economic growth and millions of jobs.
In 2004--the most recent year for which world statistics are
available--the U.S. took in $8 billion less from foreign visitors than
it did in 2000, at the same time that total world receipts were $149
billion higher.
Meanwhile, lucrative overseas travel to the U.S. is still down 16.5
percent from 2000, with corresponding revenues down 8 percent in 2005.
Compared to 10 years ago, the U.S. international tourism balance of
trade has declined nearly 72 percent--from $26.3 billion in 1996 to
$7.4 billion in 2005.
A June 2006 TIA survey of professional travel agents and purchasers
showed that 77 percent believed that the U.S. is more difficult to
visit than other destinations, while only 6 percent found it easier.
Question 7. What suggestions do you have for the Department of
Commerce to be more of an advocate for the U.S. travel and tourism
industry?
Answer. Create an elevated voice for travel and tourism within the
Department of Commerce. While the Office of Travel and Tourism
Industries has served a valuable role in providing research and
expertise on the industry, and has served effectively in the
international organizations for government policy deliberations and
representation, a dedicated higher-ranking office with the power to
coordinate government policy to enhance the Nation's competitive
standing in the global travel market is sorely needed. This office
should be designed to accomplish the following:
Serve as an institutional home and voice for the industry.
Energize the interagency process regarding travel and
tourism through an elevated Tourism Policy Council with ex-
officio status for private sector representation. All
government decisions that potentially affect this industry
should receive early attention in the interagency process.
Identify existing private sector advisory committees, ensure
that they include the right representatives from the industry
and see that their recommendations are widely shared across
agencies and with other private sector groups and the public.
Coordinate the roles of other government agencies to more
effectively expand travel and tourism promotion, product
development and infrastructure needs and development.
Question 8. What is industry doing to communicate the new
regulations of WHTI to the public so that those planning a trip will be
prepared for the new procedures and can obtain the necessary travel
documents? Television, radio, Internet, newspapers, travel magazines?
Answer. The industry is working through all possible channels to
communicate this scheduled implementation, including on industry
participants' websites and through travel agents. Still, as a policy
change designed to protect all Americans, the burden of educating the
public regarding these new requirements must not be left to the travel
and tourism industry to shoulder alone. Moreover, we urge consideration
of much-needed changes in implementation of these new regulations in
order to avoid unduly harming travel to and from the U.S.:
1. Development of an inexpensive alternative to the passport--
like the proposed PASScard--must be completed before
implementation of WHTI. This new card will provide relief to
the infrequent travelers whose destinations are limited to
crossing the northern border or perhaps taking a round trip
cruise in the Caribbean.
2. The new requirement should not discriminate against cruise
ship travelers. First, the PASScard, which the State Department
currently intends to make available only to travelers at land
borders, should also be made available to cruise travelers.
Second, current plans call for an accelerated implementation of
WHTI for cruise travelers that at the beginning of 2007, just 4
months from now should be changed to reflect the original date
mandated by Congress. WHTI should only be implemented for
cruise passengers after PASScards are made available.
3. Finally, as noted above, before this program is launched,
it's essential that the government be prepared to support the
industry in launching a massive public information campaign
aimed at educating travelers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Jay Rasulo
Question 1. Mr. Rasulo, you note in your testimony that travelers
expect destinations to compete for their business. Taken as a whole,
how do you think the United States is doing in that competition right
now and what can we be doing to improve our position vis a vis our
competitors?
Answer. The American travel and tourism industry has been
significantly outperformed by our global competitors. The United States
has captured none of the nearly 20 percent growth in country-to-country
travel since 2000. As outlined in my testimony, we need to make two
investments to compete more effectively. First, we must ask people to
visit us, by investing in a nationally-coordinated marketing strategy
to move the United States higher on their list of dream destinations.
Second, we must invest in creating a first impression of hospitality
and friendliness at our borders.
Question 2. In your testimony, both of you advocate a nationally-
coordinated marketing strategy to enhance our competitiveness for
tourism dollars. Why does the Federal Government need to spend taxpayer
dollars on an industry that has shown the resilience to rebound since
September 11, 2001?
Answer. Investing in attracting international travelers is in the
national interest--both economically and diplomatically. Statistics
show that investment in tourism has a great return on investment in
terms of jobs, economic growth and tax revenue. More importantly,
marketing the U.S. to international visitors will help improve
America's image--which is a top national priority.
While the private sector has done its best to rebound from the
events of September 11, 2001, and in fact, visitation continues to rise
in the United States, the rest of the world is doing even better and
outpacing our growth. Since 1992, America's share of the world travel
market has fallen 35 percent. Had the United States grown as quickly as
the rest of the world, we could have added $286 billion in economic
revenue to the U.S. economy, and millions of additional jobs. There are
roles in improving this performance that the government is uniquely
suited to help fulfill, such as developing a nationally-coordinated
marketing strategy.
Question 3. Can you give the Committee your impressions of how well
the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board has worked to date? What can we
expect to see in your recommendations to Secretary Gutierrez later this
month?
Answer. The mere existence of the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board
is significant, because it demonstrates that the Congress recognizes
the importance of this industry for economic development and
international diplomacy. Likewise, we are pleased that Secretary
Gutierrez and the Administration as a whole recognize the industry's
role as an economic driver and cultural Ambassador. The Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board has now been given a much broader, and much more
significant, mandate. Secretary Gutierrez has charged the Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board with the creation of a national tourism
strategy.
The Board was asked to identify the necessary elements of a
competitive national travel and tourism program and to provide
recommendations on how the United States can compete more effectively
in the new world market. We submitted our recommendations to the
Secretary in early September. Our proposals focused on promotion, ease
of travel and public diplomacy, and measuring return on investment. For
your convenience, I am attaching a copy of the
recommendations.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Available at: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/ttab/docs/
2006_FINALTTAB_National_Tourism_
Strategy.pdf.
Question 4. Give us your impressions on the effectiveness of the
``Visit America'' advertising campaign. How would you conduct a similar
campaign in the future? Where can our limited resources be most
effectively targeted?
Answer. The campaign has certainly been productive despite its
limited scale, and demonstrates the potential benefits of a larger
campaign. The original authorization for this effort was $50 million,
intended to target the top five source countries for travel to the U.S.
Before we could create and launch the campaign, the vast majority of
the money was eliminated in a rescission, leaving us with just $6
million to conduct a small campaign in the United Kingdom:
According to research commissioned by the Department of
Commerce, the campaign achieved a high return--estimated by
Longwoods International at 117 to 1. Whether or not this number
is correct, there is little doubt that this campaign has
achieved a significant ROI.
The campaign increased the number of those who said they
intend to travel to the United States by approximately 2
million people. A high percentage of those intended travelers
actually converted into sales, with 362,000 visitors who saw
the campaign booking a trip to the United States.
A ``best practices'' independent research schedule was
developed to ensure the highest standards of accountability for
the campaign. The reports concluded that the campaign met all
of our goals.
The advertising increased awareness by reaching
approximately 12.8 million people in the U.K.
The advertising significantly increased the positive
perception of the United States as a travel destination,
increasing by 10 percentage points the number of people who
mentioned the United States as a ``dream destination'' (above
those who did not see the campaign).
The industry, working through a new organization called the
Discover America Partnership, is developing a blueprint for a
destination marketing campaign that will identify the markets we should
be targeting. This blueprint should be complete by the end of 2006.
However, we are confident in predicting that those countries will
include the today's top source markets: Canada, the United Kingdom,
Japan, Germany and Mexico. We also believe that China and other Asian
countries, which are rapidly rising as sources of international
tourism, should also be a focus of our efforts.
Question 5. You note that the current uptake in international
visitation is largely due to an increase in Canadian travel. Do you
think this trend will continue after the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative is fully implemented? How do we achieve the correct balance
between protecting our borders and not hindering unplanned and
spontaneous travel?
Answer. The industry is cognizant of the fact that the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, if not implemented in a reasonable
manner, may have an enormous adverse effect on the travel and tourism
industry. We welcome the recent modifications made by Congress intended
to ensure a more successful implementation.
For our part, we have been working through all possible channels to
communicate the approaching WHTI requirements to the traveling public,
including on industry participants' websites and through travel agents.
Still, as a policy change designed to protect all Americans, the burden
of educating the public regarding these new requirements must not be
left to the travel and tourism industry to shoulder alone.
Question 6. How do you think international travelers perceive
travel to the United States in a post-September 11 environment and what
can be done to dispel the ``fortress America'' conception that many
travelers have?
Answer. The many steps the government has taken to exclude
potential terrorists, while supported by the travel and tourism
industry, regrettably may have created the impression that the United
States does not welcome international visitors. The United States has
become less competitive than other countries because of the growing
perception that it is more difficult and more costly to travel here
compared to other international destinations. Surveys demonstrate that
potential international visitors now deliberately avoid travel to the
United States due to real and perceived barriers to entry. For example,
a Department of Commerce's Travel Barometer report, which surveys
international travel professionals, recently noted that, ``Starting in
2004, entrance procedure to the U.S. consistently has registered as the
top barrier for travel. These barriers included the following factors:
misinformation for consumers on entry and exit requirements to the USA,
actual entrance procedures to visit the USA, visa processing time. Two-
in-three program participants consider misinformation for consumers on
entry and exit requirements as a travel barrier.''
The Travel and Tourism Advisory Board's recommendations to
Secretary Gutierrez included multiple proposals designed to combat
these perceptions. The recommendations are presented in four
categories: (1) provide a stronger voice for travel and tourism in
government; (2) remove unnecessary barriers to travel; (3) create a
welcoming first impression; and (4) avoid inappropriate taxes, fees,
and regulations. I attach the full set of recommendations for your
review.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Available at: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/ttab/docs/
2006_FINALTTAB_National_Tourism_
Strategy.pdf.
Question 7. In your testimony, you advocate the creation of a
Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism. How would you
envision this public-private partnership working? From your
perspective, would this be the type of body to carry out advertising
and marketing campaigns in the future?
Answer. I defer to my colleague Jonathan Tisch on this response.
Question 8. How can consular officials create a better first
impression on travelers seeking entry to the United States for the
first time? Would you recommend some type of customer service training
for all consular and customs officials? How would you conduct this
training?
Answer. There are a number of steps that we could take to create a
better first impression on travelers seeking entry to the United
States. This is an element of the Travel and Tourism Board's
recommendations to Secretary Gutierrez. To summarize, we propose
staffing Federal Inspection Services and TSA fully and efficiently at
land, air, and sea ports. The industry stands ready to assist in
developing a Model Ports of Entry project, including sharing expertise
in management of line waits and staffing patterns, establishing pre-
clearance facilities, improved signage, and providing a warm welcome to
international visitors. We urge DHS to incorporate hospitality within
its goals and performance review process. We also urge the U.S.
Government to work to better coordinate security requirements with
other governments. Finally, we urge the government to ensure accurate
and timely communications regarding travel requirements directly to the
traveling public.
The industry has offered its assistance on customer service
training for consular and customs officials. We remain willing to
cooperate, and we are flexible in how best to accomplish that training.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gordon H. Smith to
Jonathan M. Tisch
Question 1. It is my understanding that almost all developed
countries have a cabinet-level official charged with tourism promotion
and diplomacy. From your experience, which countries have done it
right--to protect their borders but open its doors to tourists?
Answer. Other countries realize the need to invite travelers to
visit their destinations, and that means establishing a budget for
marketing inbound tourism. A comprehensive study soon to be released by
the World Tourism Organization (WTO) explores the structures and
budgets of National Tourism Organizations. The largest tourism budgets
in 2005 are the following:
Country U.S. Dollars
Greece 151.4 million
Mexico 149.2 million
Spain* 119.7 million
Malaysia* 117.9 million
Australia 113.3 million
United Kingdom 82.9 million
Ireland 82.1 million
South Africa 70.2 million
Cyprus 64.5 million
France 63.3 million
U.S.* 6.1 million
* Funded 100 percent by national government.
Question 2. What is the U.S. Government's role to promote its
tourism industry? Is there anything else our government should do to
better address your industry's needs?
Answer. The U.S. Government must recognize the great potential the
travel and tourism industry has as a vehicle for public diplomacy
across the globe. At a time when America's image abroad is tarnished,
through international people-to-people interaction--which is only
achievable through travel--we have the ability to influence the
opinions of billions. A recent Pew Global Attitudes survey showed that
international visitors to the U.S. are 42 percent more likely to hold
positive opinions of the U.S. than those who have not visited.
It is the government's role to ensure that those who want to travel
to the U.S. are able to do so without unnecessary hassles caused by
stringent security measures implemented post-9/11. The travel and
tourism industry supports the government's efforts to secure our
Nation's borders from future terrorist attacks, but we must also be
sure to welcome legitimate business and leisure travelers at the same
time.
The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, of which I am a Member,
has recently submitted to the Secretary of Commerce recommendations for
a national tourism policy. This document represents the hard work and
vision of more than a dozen U.S. travel and tourism leaders and serves
as a blueprint for Congress and the Administration on how to approach
the challenge of balancing security and the free flow of commerce. The
document will be released to the public in September.
Question 3. What are the key countries you are targeting in the
next 10 years for international visitors to the U.S.?
Answer. As you know, the U.S. has spent and is spending its
marketing dollars in the U.K. and Japan. They are our largest overseas
inbound travel markets. As our largest overall inbound market, Canada
will also be a key target, especially as the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative is being implemented.
Question 4. How can U.S. travel and tourism be used as a public
diplomacy tool to improve some of America's negative image?
Answer. Travel and tourism is a public diplomacy tool that has not
yet realized its full potential. The difference between visitors' and
non-visitors' positive feelings toward the U.S. in some of our largest
markets are quite dramatic based on the following research from GMI,
Inc. (2005):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visitors' Positive Feelings Non-Visitors' Positive
Country (in percent) Feelings (in percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.K. 61 44
Japan 46 28
Germany 45 27
France 52 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly travel makes a difference.
The September launch of the Discover America Partnership is one way
the industry is rising to the occasion. The goal is to draw attention
to travel as the prominent solution to the U.S. image problem. In
addition, the efforts of the USTTAB are highly focused on promoting
more travel to the U.S., through more efficient visa processes,
reasonable passport regulations, and more welcoming entry procedures.
Question 5. How has the Internet and media changed the way foreign
countries market their destinations?
Answer. Foreign countries are increasingly using the Internet to
market their countries as destinations. According to the WTO study, 3.4
percent of the above countries' marketing funding goes toward the
Internet. The U.S. travel industry, through the USTTAB, recommends the
most recent $4 million appropriation through Commerce be used to
enhance marketing tools on the DiscoverAmerica.com website.
Question 6. The U.S. still leads the other foreign countries in
total receipts, totaling $75 billion in 2004. With these figures and
the recent rise in U.S. tourism, why should we be considering new
policies and programs to promote tourism?
Answer. Five years after 9/11, we have still not matched 2000
inbound travel levels. In terms of overall travel numbers, we are
almost there. However, this rise in inbound international travel is
deceptive because most of the increase is due to a rise in Canadian and
Mexican travel to the U.S. These markets have taken a 10 percent
increase, while our overseas market is lagging 17 percent behind 2000
levels. In addition, with the WHTI deadline approaching, we must be
careful how we implement new travel document requirements on our
closest neighbors. U.S. overall world market share has decreased 19
percent from 2000 to 2004, and 36 percent between 1992 and 2004. The
U.S. had 9 percent of world market share in 1992, today we have 6
percent.
When waits for visas in India are 150 days (currently in New Delhi)
for visitors, we should be considering new policies and procedures for
ensuring those visitors who want to come here are able to do so.
Question 7. What suggestions do you have for the Department of
Commerce to be more of an advocate for the U.S. travel and tourism
industry?
Answer. The industry is greatly appreciative of Secretary of
Commerce Gutierrez's leadership with the USTTAB. By asking for industry
recommendations about travel and tourism policy, the Department of
Commerce has accumulated a wealth of knowledge from industry leaders.
The Department should work with the Departments of State and Homeland
Security and the private sector to implement these recommendations.
Question 8. What is industry doing to communicate the new
regulations of WHTI to the public so that those planning a trip will be
prepared for the new procedures and can obtain the necessary travel
documents? Television, radio, Internet, newspapers, travel magazines?
Answer. The travel and tourism industry is currently awaiting the
final WHTI rulemaking from the Departments of State and DHS. Our
members are updated at each step toward making the final rules. We
believe there should be a modest deadline extension for land-border
travel and that PASScards should be made available for cruise
travelers. As soon as DHS and State indicate they are prepared to meet
the deadlines, we will work with them to educate the traveling public.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gordon H. Smith to
Todd Davidson
Question 1. Is the Oregon Tourism Investment Program a good model
for marketing the U.S. as an international tourism destination? What
lessons can we extract from the Oregon experience to guide a national
program to make the U.S. more competitive in the global tourism market?
Answer. The Oregon Tourism Investment Proposal is one of several
programs that should be explored as models for a national tourism
marketing effort. The OTIP represents a vibrant public-private
partnership where an industry-lead coalition worked with elected
officials to craft legislation that established a stable funding source
(1 percent statewide lodging tax on all forms of transient lodging) and
removed much of the bureaucratic and administrative oversight by
establishing the Oregon Tourism Commission as a semi-independent
agency. Other funding and administrative models that I recommend should
be explored include Minnesota, Missouri, California and Florida.
There are several lessons learned that are applicable to a national
effort. These include:
1. There is a role for government for creating awareness and
demand for a travel destination. This is true for Oregon and is
true for the United States.
2. The removal of bureaucratic barriers will create a more
market-driven and market responsive organization. Such an
organization will be better positioned to maximize the return
on investment of their available resources.
3. That a vibrant, well-funded advertising effort can reduce
and eliminate a loss of market share and stimulate the economy
through increased visitor expenditures and the subsequent job
creation.
Question 2. Please tell us more about what Oregon has done to
market itself as a tourism destination.
Answer. The Oregon Tourism Commission implements a fully integrated
marketing and development program. We have four strategic areas of
focus that we address in our marketing plans and they are:
Strategic Area #1--Maximize the return on public and private
investments in tourism.
This strategic area focuses on the return on investment
generated by the Commission's marketing programs: media
advertising, communications and collateral material, and State
Welcome Centers. Ensuring that marketing investments made by
the Commission and its private-sector partners are translating
into real economic benefits is a high priority. Measurements
range from generating trips from advertising to maintaining
consumer awareness in key markets.
Strategic Area #2--Reduce seasonal fluctuations in travel and
tourism-related industries and maintain the average stay by encouraging
visitors to be destination-oriented in this state.
All of the Commission's marketing and development programs
emphasize year-round tourism where feasible, and promote
destination tourism throughout the state. The measurements
related to this strategic area of focus are found primarily in
the media advertising, public relations, communications and
tourism development program areas.
Strategic Area #3--Encourage visitors to come to Oregon from the
primary international target markets of Canada, Germany, Japan and the
United Kingdom.
With the non-stop international air service of Lufthansa German
Airlines', Mexicana Airlines' and Northwest Airlines' into
Oregon, this area of focus continues to be increasingly
important. Working in cooperation with key partners, including
the Port of Portland, the Commission will strive to invest
limited dollars strategically in attracting new visitors from
Europe, Mexico and Asia to support this service, as well as
from Canada.
Strategic Area #4--Cooperate with local, regional, national, tribal
and private-industry tourism entities.
Partnerships are a critical component of the Commission's
ability to position Oregon positively in the travel
marketplace. With limited state dollars, partnerships help the
Commission leverage funding and grow the reach of our marketing
and development programs. This area focuses on meeting similar
goals identified in Strategic Area #1 in that the return on
investment generated by tourism marketing activities is
critical to the state and its tourism industry. In addition,
the Commission provides tools for developing the industry
statewide, including up-to-date research, the Q Program, rural
tourism development, ``niche'' market development and training,
the annual Governor's Conference on Tourism and State Welcome.
Of equal importance, this plan will call for a more proactive
role for the Tourism Commission in unifying the industry around
marketing objectives, industry awareness building and policy
development.
Question 3. How much appeal do Oregon Scenic Byways have to
domestic and international tourists? How does Oregon market its scenic
byways?
Answer. Oregon was an early adopter of developing a strong scenic
byways program and has benefited as a result. Oregon now has the
largest number of All America Roads in the U.S. and has received
several Federal grants to support the safety, interpretation and
marketing of our scenic byways. One grant enabled us to produce the
Oregon Scenic Byways Guide which has become our most popular guide for
our European visitors. The presence of the byways creates ``suggested
itineraries'' for our visitors and introduces them to our natural,
cultural and historical landscapes throughout the state, but especially
in our most rural areas. Oregon promotes the byways in publication, on
their website www.TravelOregon.com, in press release and e-newsletters.
Question 4. What will be the potential impact of the 2010 Olympics
in Vancouver on Oregon tourism? What is being done to maximize that
impact?
Answer. The proximity of the 2010 Olympics being held in Vancouver,
B.C. holds potential benefit for Oregon. So, we are working with the
Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Idaho and Montana, as well as
the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia to explore joint
marketing programs. Specific opportunities we have identified include
establishing a visitor information center near the Olympic Village to
reach the visitors traveling to the Games, positioning the Northwest as
a training facility for Olympic teams wishing to acclimate to the
region's elevation and climate, and marketing to the noncredentialed
media that follow the Games to do travel and lifestyle oriented
stories.
Question 5. What effect could the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative have on Oregon? What is being done to cope with that impact?
Answer. Oregon has benefited from strong Canadian travel for
decades. And with the Mexicana flights serving PDX, Oregon is
experiencing growth in Mexican arrivals as well. While the Oregon
Tourism Commission supports enhanced security measures to protect our
Nation, we remain concerned the January 1, 2008 deadline poses a real
threat to cross-border travel between the U.S. and its neighbors within
the Western Hemisphere. We are particularly concerned about the impact
of the proposed WHTI on Canadian travel to the U.S., and will continue
to work with the Travel Industry Association, the Travel Business
Roundtable and the Administration to find workable solutions that
enhance border security while continuing to facilitate the entry of
millions of legitimate international visitors. And while we are
encouraged by the adoption of the Stevens-Leahy amendment, the fate of
Immigration Reform legislation in the Senate or beyond that in a
Senate-House conference committee is uncertain.
Question 6. What role does the private sector play in marketing
Oregon tourism?
Answer. There are numerous critical and pivotal roles played by the
private sector in the promotion of Oregon as a travel destination. Some
examples include:
1. The private sector is the ultimate purveyor of the product
we create demand for. While the Tourism Commission's efforts do
create awareness and demand for the destination, the financial
transaction occurs with the private sector businesses
delivering the experience.
2. The private sector represents the vast majority of the
membership of the gubernatorially-appointed Tourism Commission:
five members are from the lodging sector, three are from the
tourism industry-at-large and one is from the public-at-large.
3. The private sector leverages our marketing efforts by
helping host tour operators and travel media, purchasing
product ads that reflect the Brand Oregon style, and providing
exemplary service to our visitors to increase repeat
visitation.
Question 7. How does the recent increase of tourism in Oregon
compare with other states?
Answer. The increase in visitor expenditures in Oregon for the past
2 years has been on an even pace with the national average--
approximately 7 percent per year. The importance of this is that prior
to the implementation of the Oregon Tourism Investment Proposal,
Oregon's visitor industry was growing at a slower pace than the
national average. We were losing market share. At one time, Oregon's
marketing budget was 46th in the country out of 50 states at $3 million
annually while the average state tourism budget in the U.S. was
approximately $13 million annually. Today, with the implementation of
the OTIP, Oregon's budget is $9 million annually. And, while this is
still below average for all state tourism office budgets, we are far
more competitive at this level and have been able to secure additional
market share and keep pace with the national average rate of growth.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Virginia ``Ginny'' Pressler, M.D., MBA, FACS
Question 1. In Dr. Pressler's testimony she states that more than
11,000 visitors have come to Hawaii for planned medical treatment. This
is in addition to the numerous visitors that need unplanned medical
assistance from the Hawaii healthcare system while visiting the
islands. With the growing number of planned and unplanned visitors
using Hawaii's healthcare facilities, do you feel that this is in any
way hindering the treatment the local community receives from the
healthcare system in Hawaii?
Answer. The connection between tourism and access to Hawaii's
healthcare facilities by local residents is a mixed bag. As mentioned
in my testimony, there is a growing awareness that Hawaii is
strategically placed to become a premiere medical tourist destination
given its location advantage, existing tourist amenities and the
reputation of its quality healthcare system. Any investment to develop
facilities to meet this growing demand will have positive spillover
effects for local residents as well--provided these are tourists
originating from countries with adequate health insurance coverage.
For example--generally speaking--U.S. mainland, East Asian, and
European visitors with commercial healthcare coverage generally
reimburse our healthcare providers far better than Hawaii health plan
reimbursement rates. These patients provide a welcome source of revenue
for our healthcare facilities which enables them to improve services in
our local community.
However tourists with government coverage--for example U.S.
Mainland patients covered by their state Medicaid plans create a
problem for us since State Medicaid agencies require a provider
application completed for each hospital and each physician for every
state from which we treat patients. Given the administrative burden,
for physicians, it is easier for us to simply write off the claim than
seek reimbursement.
Similarly Pacific Island patients are covered under government
programs that pay inadequately. At Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women
& Children we have received $46,000 in the last 9 months for CNMI
Medicaid patients during which time these patients have incurred $1.6
million in billed charges. These inadequate reimbursements create a
major burden on our local healthcare system.
So again to go back to your initial question, the impact of tourism
driven medical visits on our healthcare industry depends entirely on
the type of tourists visiting and the health insurance they are covered
by.
Question 2. You have seen an increase in the amount of visitors
coming to Hawaii because of the healthcare system. Have you also seen
an increase in the number of doctors and nurses seeking to come to
Hawaii to fill those greatly needed positions?
Answer. Hawaii's remoteness is the factor defining both the urgency
in having access to medical specialty resources nearby as well as the
difficulty in attracting the number of doctors and nurses. The distance
from Honolulu to Los Angeles (2,563 miles) is greater than Washington,
D.C. to Los Angeles (2,297 miles). Tokyo, Japan--where a significant
number of Hawaii tourists originate--is 3,856 miles from Honolulu.
Knowing that Hawaii hospitals are capable of providing quality
healthcare is reassuring to any traveler who must overcome great
distances and part of what makes Hawaii a destination of choice.
Distance makes it an imperative that specialty care is available on the
island.
However, distance is also a continuous barrier for Hawaii in
recruiting the healthcare professionals we need. Similar to other
remote rural areas, Hawaii is handicapped in recruitment efforts by not
being in proximity to large pools of healthcare labor supply. As a
result, Hawaii faces an anticipated shortage of 2,267 registered nurses
in the next 5 years and 4,593 by 2020. Similarly, securing specialty
physicians to practice in remote areas is also challenging. These
shortages are already evidenced in the local residents via access to
specialty care, particularly in our rural communities over the past few
years. Patients suffer from delays in treatment and sometimes forego
treatment altogether.
As Hawaii continues to grow as a tourist destination, and more
planned and unplanned medical visits increase, soon these shortages
will also have an impact upon Hawaii's tourism industry. For example,
our Burn Center at Straub Clinic & Hospital will be the first
responders in the event of a major airline or shipping disaster as it
is the only specialized burn center in the entire Pacific Basin. The
extent of our ability to provide care for such a catastrophe will have
long lasting impacts to Hawaii's perception as a safe destination for
people to travel to.
Hawaii desperately needs special consideration for financial
support for recruitment and retention of qualified healthcare
professionals so we can continue to provide quality care to both our
local community and our domestic and international visitors.
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Robert M. Jacksta *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Response to written questions was not available at the time this
hearing went to press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1. The Departments of State (State) and Homeland Security
(DHS) are devising plans to produce an alternative form of the U.S.
passport that can be used at land-border crossings. State and the DHS
envision the alternative passport as being a wallet-sized card that
would cost less than a traditional passport and be easier to obtain.
The alternative passport would only be used by U.S. citizens crossing
the land-borders between the United States and Canada and the United
States and Mexico.
In addition to reduced cost and convenience, what are the strengths
of creating an alternative passport card system to be used by U.S.
citizens traveling between the United States and Mexico and the United
States and Canada? Would the administrative costs associated with
transferring over to a new form of passport outweigh the benefits to be
realized by the card's use?
Question 2. Many in the travel and tourism industry fear that the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) will hinder northern border
crossings and inhibit spontaneous and unplanned travel to the United
States. What would you say to these concerns?
Question 3. Have you worked with the Canadian or Mexican
governments to help them understand and meet the requirements of the
WHTI?
Question 4. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted
that the deadline for implementation of the WHTI is in danger of being
missed. How do you expect our neighbors to comply with the new border
entry requirements if we have not fully implemented the initiative?
Question 5. What do you perceive as being weaknesses to developing
a substitute for the traditional passport booklet used by American
citizens as they cross borders between the United States and its
neighboring countries of Mexico and Canada?
Question 6. Will creation of a new passport to be used for travel
between the United States and its neighboring countries of Mexico and
Canada complicate State and the DHS's ability to require that citizens
traveling to countries noncontiguous to the United States possess a
more traditional passport booklet?
Question 7. Currently, the U.S. Government issues Border Crossing
Cards (BCCs) to Mexican nationals who cross the U.S. border on a
regular basis. Because the BCC is a B-1/B-2 visa when presented with a
passport, the process to obtain a BCC nearly mirrors the visa issuance
process, thus necessitating a background check and interviews. Border
Crossing Patrol is considering whether BCCs can serve as alternatives
to the wallet-size passport cards being proposed by Departments of
State (State) and Homeland Security (DHS). What are some drawbacks to
possibly permitting the Border Crossing Cards (BCCs) to substitute as
passports for Mexican nationals crossing the Mexico-United States
border?
Question 8. Does Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) fear the
circulation of a greater number of varying types of security documents,
such as traditional passport booklets, wallet-size passport cards, and
BCCs, will further incite production of counterfeit passports, thus
threatening the United States' efforts to protect its borders?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Jonathan M. Tisch *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Response to written questions was not available at the time this
hearing went to press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1. The Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and the Travel
Industry Association (TIA) support the concept of a PASScard, as
introduced by State and DHS, as a means of having a less expensive and
easier to obtain passport. The TBR and the TIA remain concerned that
the Departments of State (State) and Homeland Security (DHS) have not
yet chosen the type of technology that will be integrated into the
PASScard. The TBR and the TIA have acknowledged the necessity of
mounting a public education campaign regarding the PASScard once State
and the DHS agree on the type of technology that will be integrated
into a PASScard.
What are the Travel Business Roundtable's (TBR) and the Travel
Industry Association's (TIA) ideas about what technology should be
integrated into a Pass card?
Question 2. Do TBR and TIA have any suggestions as to how State and
DHS can more efficiently create a PASScard, using the newest
technology, and mount a successful public education campaign on
PASScards?
Question 3. Are other countries developing something similar to a
PASScard that would satisfy the requirements of the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative (WHTI)? Is the State Department working with any
foreign governments to assist them in the development of alternative
passports, such as e-Passports or PASScards?
Question 4. In your opinion, what is the best way to balance the
dual needs of national security and facilitating tourism? Should
biometrics be a requirement for all persons entering the country? Is
the PASScard the best available alternative to comply with the
statutory requirements of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act (IRTPA)?
Question 5. As the deadline approaches for State and DHS to release
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative (WHTI) for air and sea entries, the Travel Business
Roundtable (TBR) and the Travel Industry Association (TIA) fear that
confusion, due to a poorly implemented WHTI, will frustrate the tourism
business. The deadline for the release of NPRM remains 7 months away.
In the Immigration Reform bill recently considered in the Senate,
Senators Stevens and Leahy sponsored an amendment to extend the
statutory deadline for 1 year. From an industry perspective, what do
you believe is the best way to proceed with the development of the
WHTI?
Question 6. What are some of the difficulties in implementation of
WHTI that can be addressed between now and the statutory deadline for
implementation?
Question 7. Do you believe that a properly implemented WHTI will
have a positive or negative impact on tourism? National security?
Question 8. How much revenue do TBR and TIA estimate the travel and
tourism industry will lose it the NPRM and PASScards are not
implemented more expeditiously?
Question 9. Pre-Hurricane Katrina Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama prospered from a tourism industry which accounted for 260,000
jobs and a payroll income of $3.7 billion. In 2004, the tourism
industry generated $18.3 billion in travel-related sales for the Gulf
Coast region. Following Hurricane Katrina, many Americans and
international travelers still perceive the devastation accompanying
Hurricane Katrina as the current norm.
On behalf of the travel industry, the Travel Business Roundtable
(TBR) and the Travel Industry Association (TIA) have offered policy
recommendations to Congress following Hurricane Katrina. TBR and TIA
recommend that there be tax incentives for conventions and visitors
traveling to the Gulf Coast region and a promotion campaign to inform
the world that the Gulf Coast region has revitalized its charm and
appeal to travelers. How have the TBR and the TIA tried to improve
possible travelers' perceptions of the Gulf Coast region?
Question 10. Has Congress been successful in furthering some of the
TBR and the TIA's suggestions for revitalizing the Gulf Coast region's
appeal to American and international travelers?
Question 11. The Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and the Travel
Industry Association (TIA) have found that while newly created Visa
Business Centers have alleviated some hassles inherent to international
travel, international travelers still encounter long visa interview
wait times and lengthy trips to available visa interview destinations.
The TBR and the TIA report the average visa interview wait time in
Brazil to be 70 days and 132 days in India. TBR and TIA admit that visa
interview wait times have been reduced in countries like China and
South Korea due to additional staffing and more interview hours.
Where have you seen the shortest visa interview wait times? Is
there a strong correlation between short visa interview wait time in a
particular country and the number of travelers within that country who
choose to travel internationally?
Question 12. How do you suggest the State Department improve visa
interview wait times?
Question 13. What suggestions do you have for the new Model Airport
program? Do you think this can be a successful program to extend
``America's welcome'' to international travelers?