[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE WESTERN HEMISHPERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE:
PERSPECTIVES OF A COMMUNITY ON THE
U.S.-CANADA BORDER
=======================================================================
FULL
FIELD HEARING
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 20, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.go/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-932 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, PETER T. KING, New York
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts LAMAR SMITH, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
JANE HARMAN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon TOM DAVIS, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Columbia BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
Islands GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
AL GREEN, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 1
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania................................. 20
The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas................................................. 24
The Honorable Louise McIntosh Slaughter, a Representative in
Congress From the State of New York............................ 28
Witnesses
Panel I
Mr. Kelly Johnston, Vice-Chair, Canadian American Business
Council:
Oral Statement................................................. 47
Prepared Statement............................................. 49
Mr. Paul Koessler, Vice Chairman, Buffalo and Fort Erie Public
Bridge Authority:
Oral Statement................................................. 36
Prepared Statement............................................. 38
Ms. Kathleen A. Lynch, Sister of FF Michael F. Lynch, FDNY E40/
L35
on Rotation from E62/L32, Representing Families of Western New
York:
Oral Statement................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
Mr. Stewart Verdery, Partner and Founder, Monument Policy Group.. 52
Mr. Howard Zemsky, Partner, Taurus Capital Partners LLC,
Oral Statement................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Panel II
Ms. Ann Barrett, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Passport Services,
Department of State:
Oral Statement................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Mr. Robert Jacksta, Executive Director, Traveler Security and
Facilitation, Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. Paul Rosenzweig, Acting Assistant Secretary, Policy and
International Affairs, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
For the Record
Prepared Statements:
Ms. Kathleen Courtney Hochul, Erie County Clerk................ 61
BESTT Coalition, Business for Economic Security, Trade and
Tourism Coalition of the U.S. and Canada, submitted by Ms.
Kathleen Courtney Hochul..................................... 62
The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Michigan joint with the Honorable John M.
McHugh, a Representative in Congress From the State of New
York......................................................... 68
Appendix
Additional Questions and Responses:
Responses from Ms. Ann Barrett................................. 71
Responses from Mr. Robert Jacksta.............................. 73
Responses from Mr. Paul Koessler............................... 74
Responses from Mr. Paul Rosenweig.............................. 75
THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL
INITIATIVE: PERSPECTIVES OF A
COMMUNITY ON THE U.S.-CANADA
BORDER
----------
Friday, July 20, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:31 a.m., in Erie
County Legislature Chambers, 92 Franklin Street, Buffalo, New
York, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson [chairman of the committee]
presiding.
Members Present: Representatives Thompson, Carney and
Green.
Also Present: Representative Slaughter.
Chairman Thompson. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to receive testimony
regarding the impact that implementation of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative may have along the northern border
and to explore the Administration's plans for WHTI
implementation following DHS's announcement of its proposed
rules for land and sea implementation.
I would like to acknowledge in her absence and en route to
the meeting Representative Slaughter, who will be here with us
today. Ms. Slaughter is not a member of the Committee but has
asked to participate in today's hearing.
Ms. Slaughter is a leading Congresswoman on Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative matters and a great advocate for
her district on this important issue. Therefore, consistent
with the rules and practices of the Committee, we're pleased to
honor her request.
I now ask unanimous consent to allow Representative
Slaughter to sit and question witnesses at today's hearing.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
I'm pleased to be here in Buffalo today for the Committee
on Homeland Security's hearing, the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative: Perspectives of a Community on the U.S.-Canada
Border.
I'd like to thank my friend Ms. Slaughter for urging, and
when I say ``urging,'' I don't want to give you under any doubt
that every time I would see Ms. Slaughter on the floor voting,
she would bring up the Peace Bridge and everything else in
Buffalo.
Perhaps if she had provided Mr. Carney with--and myself
with some original Buffalo wings, we might have been here
sooner, but nonetheless, we're here, and obviously, it's
important that we are here, and you have a wonderful
representative in Ms. Slaughter.
Today we will hear from several--several local stakeholders
about the potential detrimental effects of WHTI on Buffalo and
other communities along America's northern border.
We will also hear testimony about the importance of WHTI to
our nation's security and learn more about the Administration's
plan to implement the requirements at land and sea ports.
Like many of my colleagues and most Americans, I strongly
support the goals of WHTI, which was mandated in response to a
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
At the same time, I'm very concerned about the troubled
implementation of WHTI to date.
In January, the WHTI rule for air travelers took effect,
requiring every person arriving in the U.S. to present a
passport.
As Americans rushed to get passports to comply with the new
rule, the surge in demand overwhelmed the State Department's
capacity to issue passports, creating an unprecedented backlog.
These problems underscore the potential consequences for
travel, tourism, and commerce when Americans are required to
have documents that our government cannot make available in a
timely manner.
As me move toward implementation of WHTI at our land
borders, where disruptions to commerce and tourism could
inflict significant damage to the economics of both sides of
the border, we need to make certain that these mistakes are not
repeated.
It is my hope that today's hearing will help ensure that
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is implemented and
implemented right.
I look forward to hearing from our first panel of witnesses
about the particular pitfalls they see in this region in the
land and sea implementation proposed by the Department of
Homeland Security and State, and I look forward to hearing from
our second panel of witnesses about how they plan to implement
the land and sea stage of WHTI in a manner that takes into
account the legitimate needs of a border such as this one.
But we will take the second panel first to get the
government witnesses out, and then we'll hear from our local
community witnesses on the second panel.
Again, thank you for having us here in Buffalo today.
Chairman Thompson. I'd like to also introduce
Representative Chris Carney, who is Chairman of our Oversight
and Management Committee on the Homeland Security Committee,
who hails from Pennsylvania, and we're happy to have him.
We will be joined shortly by, as I said, Congresswoman
Slaughter and Congressman Al Green from Houston, Texas, who are
also members of the Committee.
Again, I want to thank everyone for being here this
morning. I appreciate the interest in this hearing as shown by
the number of people who turned out today.
Because this is an official Congressional hearing as
opposed to a Town Hall meeting, we have to abide by certain
rules of the Committee and the House of Representatives.
So we kindly ask that there be no applause of any kind or
any kind of demonstration with regard to the testimony.
Other members on the Committee are reminded that under
Committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
Chairman Thompson. I would also like to recognize Ms.
Kathleen Hochul, who is our executive--who is our County Clerk
here, who has some testimony that she will submit for the
record in the hearing, given that many of the areas of
responsibility that will be discussed today she has the
burdensome responsibility of implementing.
So we look forward to submission of your testimony today.
Our first witness is Mr. Paul Rosenzweig, who is Acting
Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs in the
Department of Homeland Security. He is responsible for
developing policy, strategic plans, and international
approaches to various homeland security activities ranging from
immigration and border security to avian flu and international
data protection rules.
Our second witness is Mr. Robert Jacksta, Executive
Director of Traveler Security and Facilitation at Customs and
Border Protection's Office of Field Operations. He is
responsible for implementing passenger programs to combat
international terrorism and smuggling and particularly programs
related to processing passengers entering and exiting the
United States.
Our third witness is Ms. Ann Barrett. Ms. Barrett serves as
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services of the Bureau
of Consular Affairs at the Department of State. She is
responsible for overall management of the Department efforts to
adjudicate and produce passports for millions of American
citizens, customers, each year.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statement will be
entered into the record.
I'll now ask each witness to summarize here his or her
statement for five minutes, beginning with Mr. Rosenzweig.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ROSENZWEIG, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Rosenzweig. Chairman Thompson, Congressman Carney,
thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you
today. It's one of the oddities of the Department of Homeland
Security that, though I've been with the Department for nearly
two years now, this is actually the first time I've managed to
get an invitation to testify in front of our home Committee,
the Homeland Security Committee, having previously testified
before Foreign Affairs and Judiciary.
So I'm glad to finally be welcomed to our home Committee.
The panoply of committees where I have testified, however,
reflects the breadth of the interests that face the Department,
and today we talk about just one piece of that: control of our
borders.
It's important, I think, before discussing the
implementation plans, to remember and recall why we are here.
As the 9/11 Commission wrote:
For terrorists, travel documents are as important as
weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train,
plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them,
international travel presents great danger, because they must
surface to pass through regulated channels, to present
themselves to border security officials, or attempt to
circumvent inspection points.
And that's precisely what the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative is about: strengthening the regulated channels of
entry to our United States and using the border as part of our
layered security.
In some ways, the passport challenges that you alluded to
in your opening statement faced by our colleagues at the
Department of State are a testament to our success. We have
begun implementing enhanced controls of our borders in the air
portion of transit for the Western Hemisphere, and that has
indeed contributed to driving up the demand for passports, but
it's important to recall that that demand is driven by an
underlying concern for the security of our nation.
Now, as you know, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
has been implemented in two separate phases.
The first, the air phase, went into effect on January 23rd
of this year, and from our perspective, it has proven a great
success.
As recently as yesterday, greater than 99.3 percent of the
people arriving in the United States arrived in compliance with
the air rule. That reflects 471 people who arrived without
appropriate documentation out of a great--a number of greater
than 74,000 arrivals on that single day.
And that has been the history of compliance throughout the
implementation of the air phase.
Equally important, air traffic is up. Arrivals from the
Caribbean, Canada, and Mexico exceed today the number of
arrivals for a comparable period in the last year, reflecting,
in our judgment, the success with which we've managed to
implement the air phase without adversely affecting economic
travel and facilitation.
Now, to be sure, the difficulties in passport issuance have
led us to adopt a lenient approach with respect to those
Americans who have been unable to get their passports, but this
is nothing more than a traditional application of the parole
authority held by all Customs and Border Protection agents to
admit people notwithstanding the absence of appropriate
documentation.
Thus, as we announced last month, through at least
September 30th of this year, we will allow people to arrive by
air in the United States from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean
holding only a government identification card with picture and
a receipt demonstrating that they have sought a passport from
the Department of State.
Now, the second phase of WHTI, more applicable to the
Buffalo region where we are today, is--is the implementation of
the land and sea rule, and there, too, we are taking a
graduated, flexible, phased approach.
The first portion of the land rule will be implemented
January 31st of next year under the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that we've issued.
At that point, we are proposing to end the practice of
allowing people to enter the United States simply on oral
declarations--that is, simply on a declaration that I am a
United States citizen--and we are also proposing to eliminate
many of the 8,000-plus documents that are nonstandard,
nongovernment-issued identification cards.
If you arrive at the Peace Bridge today here in Buffalo,
you may be permitted to enter not only on an oral declaration
but on presentation of a baptismal certificate or even a
library card.
We intend in the first phase early next year to reduce that
down to a manageable number of government issued identification
cards with a much higher degree of fidelity to them.
I should add that, recognizing that a flexible approach to
the border is necessary, we've also announced that beginning in
January of next year, we will have a--an enhanced flexibility
for children arriving in the United States.
We have determined already to propose that we will not
require children to get passports or other--or pass cards or
other government-issued identification cards.
If you are under the age of 16, you will be permitted to
travel carrying a certified copy of your birth certificate.
If you're between the ages of 16 and 18, you'll be
permitted to do so as well with the birth certificate if you
are in a recognized social group: a hockey team or a--a school
choir, for example.
Now, the second phase of WHTI will be implemented in the
summer of next year, roughly a year from now. The precise date
will, of course, be variable depending upon our success in
ensuring that the requisite travel documents are put in--in the
hands of the people who will need them.
At that time, we intend to narrow further the number of
acceptable documents to be presented for arrival in the United
States down to a few highly secure documents that denote both
identification and citizenship.
Those would include a passport, a proposed pass card to be
issue by the Department of State, as well as our NEXUS, SENTRI,
and FAST--our NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST trusted traveler cards.
In addition, we have begun piloting a program with
Washington State to--to revive the issuance of enhanced
driver's licenses, that is, driver's license cards with an
enhanced RFID chip in them that also denotes securely
identification and citizenship.
We believe that with this set of new cards, we will provide
to everybody--should I stop, sir? I would be happy to.
Chairman Thompson. I know this is your first time before
the Committee, but kind of wrap it up.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Okay. Sure. I was reaching the end.
We believe, actually, that these new cards will actually
enhance travel facilitation. The programmatic environmental
assessment that was issued by the Department in June of this
year demonstrates through our analysis that indeed, by coming
down to a smaller number of standardized cards, we will reduce
linger time at--at the border and actually speed up throughput
through the--through the bridges both here in Buffalo and
across the northern border.
With a machine readable zone or an RFID technology, we
actually anticipate a substantial reduction in wait time with
concomitant travel facilitation and, frankly, environmental
impact benefits that are yet to be seen.
Indeed, working together with our state and local partners
as well as with the Canadian government, who I have not
mentioned yet, we anticipate seeing long-term travel
facilitation benefits of significant value to both Buffalo and
the remainder of the Northern Tier.
Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We've been joined by Congresswoman Slaughter and
Congressman Green. We are glad to see them, and at the changing
of the panels, we will have an opening statement from
Congresswoman Slaughter.
Little logistical. Is that our only timer? Okay.
We actually have a little timer here that we're going to
try to--maybe we need to turn it a little bit so--yes, right,
turn it all the way.
All right. That's five--that's your five minutes. Okay.
Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Jacksta to summarize his statement for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT JACKSTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRAVELER
SECURITY AND FACILITATION, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DHS
Mr. Jacksta. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Congresswoman
Slaughter, Mr. Carney, and Mr. Green. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here and to represent CBP, Customs and Border
Protection, today to discuss the WHTI effort as well as our
NEXUS program.
Before I start, I would like to recognize three of our CBP
officers that are sitting on our side that represent the 18,000
CBP officers at our ports of entry.
In addition, one of those officers, CBP Officer Eckert, and
his two sisters are here, and they lost a family member on 9/
11, and it's an extremely important program for them to follow
also, beginning with Customs has an enormous challenge.
We share more than 7,000 miles of border with Canada and
Mexico and operate 325 ports of entry. Each day, CBP officers
inspect more than 1.1 million travelers and examine their
documents, baggage, and conveyances.
During fiscal year 2006, CBP welcomed over 422 million
travelers to our nation's borders; however, in this largely
compliant group of travelers, more than 209,000 individuals
were apprehended at our ports of entry trying to cross the
border with fraudulent claims or false documents.
In addition, CBP seized over 646,000 pounds of illegal
narcotics.
These are the types of documents that our CBP officers see
on a daily basis, and I'll provide them to the Committee to
take a look at.
These are documents that our officers have to review and,
in a few seconds, make decisions on whether they are valid
documents and make decisions on whether the person is
admissible.
We recognize how important this region is in protecting our
nation's borders, and we are committed to ensuring that our
land, air, and sea ports are not vulnerable.
In fiscal year 2006, the Port of Buffalo cleared over 6
million passenger vehicles, cleared over 16 million travelers.
We refused entry to close to 18,000 individuals. 3,000 of them
had criminal records. We made 602 arrests in the Buffalo area.
We also cleared over 29,000 busses, 2900 trains, and over
2100 planes.
In addition, in the Buffalo area, we have 27,000
individuals enrolled in our trusted traveler program called
NEXUS.
NEXUS is an extremely important program to the Buffalo-
Niagara region. In fact, over 270,000 crossings take place at
the Peace Bridge on a yearly basis, and through the whole area,
we process close to 429,000 individuals through the trusted
traveler programs.
These numbers clearly reflect the vitality of the region
for our nation's economy.
The Department of Homeland Security, in partnership with
the Department of State, is working to secure our homeland by
strengthening our ability to identify accurately all persons,
U.S. citizens and potential visitors alike, before they enter
the United States. We accomplish this through instituting
documentation requirements for entry into the United States.
Our approach to implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative, which is both a statutory mandate and a 9/11
Commission recommendation, will increase the security while
also facilitating trade and travel.
The institution of a travel document requirement and the
standardization of travel documents are critical steps to
securing our nation's borders and will help our CBP officers
determine if people are admissible into the United States.
As Mr. Rosenzweig mentioned, we have close to 8,000
documents that we are required to look at. You have an example
of some of those: driver's licenses, birth certificates,
naturalization papers, all documents today that individuals can
present to our officers, and we have to make very quick and
important decisions.
Through its requirements that an individual carry a
passport or other limited sets of acceptable documents, WHTI
will greatly reduce the opportunity for fraud or
misrepresentation of one's true identity.
Advanced technology embedded in travel documents with the
appropriate privacy protections and infrastructure will allow
CBP officers at the ports of entry the ability to verify an
individual's identity and citizenship.
We recognize that there are a number of concerns about the
potential impact of WHTI on border communities. No one knows
better than the frontline CBP officers at our nation's border
that WHTI represents a social and cultural change.
However, WHTI is a key step in creating a smarter, more
efficient and secure border that includes these document
controls.
Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Slaughter, other
Representatives, I've outlined simply what we're trying to do
with WHTI and how it will help DHS, CBP officers, and our
country in protecting our borders.
Thank you again for your support over the years, and I will
be ready to answer any type of questions at the end of the
opening statements.
[The statement of Mr. Jacksta follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement of Paul Rosenweig and Robert Jacksta
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, and other distinguished
Members of the Committee. We are pleased to appear before you today in
the beautiful Buffalo-Niagara region to discuss how the identity
documents used to gain entry at our land, sea, and air borders affect
security, free trade, and free travel. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), in partnership with the Department of State (DOS), is
working to secure our homeland by strengthening our ability to identify
accurately all persons--U.S. citizens and potential visitors alike--
before they enter the United States. We are accomplishing this through
instituting documentation requirements for entry into the United
States. Our approach to implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI), which is both a statutory mandate and 9/11
Commission recommendation, will increase security while also
facilitating trade and the flow of legitimate travelers.
First, we would like to thank the Committee for its support for
important initiatives to enhance the security of the United States.
Your continued support has enabled DHS to make significant progress in
securing our borders and protecting our country against terrorist
threats. DHS looks forward to working with you to build upon these
successes.
WHTI is necessary to strengthen our security while also
facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel into the U.S.
Currently, U.S., Canadian, and Bermudian citizens entering the United
States across our land and sea borders are not required to present or
carry any specific set of identity or citizenship documents. Not
surprisingly, this significantly complicates our ability to verify that
people are who they say they are in a matter of seconds. In an era when
we, as a country, were less concerned about the security threats posed
by persons seeking to enter or re-enter our country, a mere verbal
declaration of citizenship, if credible, could suffice. Now, both
Congress and the Administration recognize that this practice must end.
WHTI is an important program for residents of the Buffalo-Niagara
region and for our officers stationed at the four bridges in the
Buffalo area: the Rainbow Bridge, Peace Bridge, Whirlpool Bridge, and
Lewiston Bridge. In fiscal year 2006, over six million passenger
vehicles entered the United States via these four bridges. We recognize
the vitality of this region for our nation's economy, as we welcome
visitors from other nations to visit the majestic Niagara Falls.
However, we also recognize how important protecting our nation's
borders is and we are committed to ensuring that our land, air and sea
ports are safe.
The Importance of Travel Documents
The institution of a travel document requirement and the
standardization of travel documents are critical steps to securing our
Nation's borders and increasing the facilitation of legitimate
travelers. Currently, some travelers at our land and sea ports of entry
may present any of thousands of different documents to Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers when attempting to enter the United
States, creating a tremendous potential for fraud. In fiscal year 2006
alone, more than 209,000 individuals were apprehended at the ports of
entry trying to cross the border with fraudulent claims of citizenship
or false documents.
Access to our nation is critical for a terrorist to plan and carry
out attacks on our homeland. As the 9/11 Commission's Final Report
states, ``For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.
Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case
targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel
presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through
regulated channels to present themselves to border security officials,
or attempt to circumvent inspection points''.
Our layered security strategy involves identifying and interdicting
terrorists as early as possible--if not before they enter our country,
then at the port of entry. DHS must be able to capitalize on our border
inspection process. We must be able to inspect those who seek to enter.
Through its requirement that individuals carry a passport or other
limited set of acceptable documents, WHTI will greatly reduce the
opportunities for fraud or misrepresentation of one's true identity.
Advanced technology embedded in these travel documents, with the
appropriate privacy protections and infrastructure, will allow DHS the
ability, for the first time, to verify an individual's identity even
before our officers begin to question them and to perform real-time
queries against lookout databases. Full implementation of WHTI will
allow DHS to focus even greater time and attention on each individual
traveler. We have an opportunity to install an integrated secure land
border system through WHTI and that opportunity should not be
squandered.
The Threat
We still face many challenges at home and at our borders and we
must be especially vigilant at our land, air and sea ports of entry. As
is evident from the publicly available accounts of the recent terrorist
episode in England and Scotland, extremists have demonstrated the
ability to blend into our communities. From such locations, extremists
can conduct fundraising and other support activities, including
proselytizing extremist ideals to segments of the youth population that
they find susceptible.
While Canada remains a valued partner in our struggle against
terrorism, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has
reported that terrorist representatives in Canada were actively raising
money, procuring weapons, ``manipulating immigrant communities'' and
facilitating travel to and from the United States and other countries.
Besides al-Qa'ida affiliated persons, other terrorist-related
individuals mentioned by CSIS have links to: Islamic Jihad; Hezbollah
and other Shiite groups; Hamas; the Palestinian Force 17; Egyptian Al
Jihad and various other Sunni groups from across the Middle East. CSIS
has said the Irish Republican Army, Tamil Tigers and Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK) and major Sikh terrorist groups also have supporters in
Canada.
Of course, we must also acknowledge the presence of terrorist cells
and activities in the U.S. and Canada, such as the recent arrests in
New Jersey of a cell trying to attack Fort Dix, those airport workers
hoping to detonate explosives at the JFK airport fuel tank farm, and
here in the Buffalo region, our Canadian counterparts discovered an
active terrorist cell in Toronto. Our ability to track their travel,
and the travel of their associates, is an important key to stopping
these plans before they come to fruition and to drawing connections
between seemingly unrelated individuals.
As populations increasingly mix and extremists recruit native-born
youth and converts, travel documents become even more critical in
identifying terrorists. Travel documents and travel patterns can
provide our CBP officers at the border with terrorist indicators--
sometimes the only clue the government will receive.
Effectively Using the Border--A National Security Priority
Securing the border is a top national priority. Border security is
a cornerstone of national security and that commitment by President
Bush and Secretary Chertoff is underscored by the creation of the
Secure Border Initiative and significant allocations of resources for
border security. If we are to protect our homeland from terrorist
attacks, we must use all of the tools at our disposal.
The initial phase of WHTI went into effect January 23, 2007. The
WHTI Air rule requires all air travelers, regardless of age, to present
a passport or other acceptable secure document for entry into the
United States when arriving by plane. Almost every single day between
January 23, 2007, and today, there has been a compliance rate of 98
percent or better from the affected travelers, who are citizens of the
U.S., Canada, and Bermuda, and there has been no interruption to air
transportation. The high level of compliance shows that Americans and
foreign nationals alike are willing and able to obtain the necessary
documents to enter or re-enter the United States once the requirements
are known and made firm. This compliance is the result of the
collaborative planning process on behalf of DHS and DOS working closely
with the airline and travel industries and the public, well in advance
of implementation.
Intelligent Implementation of the WHTI Air Rule
The need for passports for air travel, as well as other increasing
needs for documentation of identity and citizenship significantly
increased the demand for passports, resulting in delays for issuing
passports. Therefore, on June 7, 2007, DHS and DOS jointly announced
that U.S. citizens traveling to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean
and Bermuda who had applied for but not yet received their passports,
could temporarily enter and depart from the Untied States by air with a
government issued photo identification and official proof of passport
application, which can be obtained from the DOS website. This is not a
suspension of the WHTI requirements in the air environment--foreign
nationals must still present passports, and only those U.S. citizens
who prove they have made an attempt to comply with the rule by applying
for a passport may make use of this flexibility. This is a temporary
accommodation through September 30, 2007, to allow Department of State
time to clear its processing backlog. In addition, travelers must
continue to be cognizant of the documentary requirements for Caribbean
countries that have longstanding passport requirements for entry.
While DHS has shown flexibility in terms of document requirements,
we have not lowered our enforcement posture or response. Every traveler
is subject to inspection upon arrival into the United States. This
inspection may include a database query and a personal interview by a
CBP officer. Our officers are trained in behavioral analysis, interview
techniques and fraudulent document detection. If at any time during the
inspection a CBP officer, based upon his/her observations, believes
additional scrutiny is warranted, the traveler may be referred for
secondary inspection. During secondary inspection, the traveler is
subject to further questioning; baggage examination and documentation
presented may be more closely scrutinized.
The Next Phase--WHTI Land and Sea Rule
On June 20, 2007, DHS and DOS jointly announced the next phase of
WHTI, governing entry into our land and sea ports of entry through a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is open for public comment.
The NPRM, which includes our proposals for both the new documentation
requirements and our implementation plan, is available for review and
comment at www.regulations.gov. The NPRM was developed through
extensive consultation and constructive dialogue with various
stakeholders, Congress, border communities, and officials on both sides
of the border. We have also issued an accompanying economic analysis
and environmental assessment. Both DHS and DOS are committed to
ensuring a smooth transition and mitigating any negative impacts as we
move forward with this vital security initiative.
The NPRM demonstrates that we are taking a phased, deliberate
approach to implementation. The rule proposes a transition period to
ensure that citizens will be able to obtain the documents necessary to
satisfy WHTI. This will not occur overnight. The glide path we have
proposed will give U.S. citizens sufficient time to become accustomed
to this new requirement at our land and sea borders, and time to obtain
alternative documents, such as the passport card, Free and Secure Trade
(FAST) card, Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection
(SENTRI) card, NEXUS card, or an enhanced driver's license.
The NPRM proposes to end the practice of accepting only credible
verbal declarations of citizenship at our land and sea ports of entry
on January 31, 2008. U.S. and Canadian citizens will be required to
carry a WHTI--compliant document or a government-issued photo
identification, such as a driver's license, and proof of citizenship,
such as a copy of a birth certificate. DHS will continue to allow a
degree of flexibility to certain travelers based upon unique and
exigent circumstances. At this same time, we are going to begin using
the alternative procedures for U.S. and Canadian children we have
proposed in the NPRM. Children ages 15 and younger will be required to
present certified copies of their birth certificates. Groups of U.S.
and Canadian children ages 16 through 18, traveling with an organized
group with adult supervision will also be allowed to enter using
certified copies of their birth certificates.
At a later date, we will implement the full requirements of the
land and sea phase of WHTI. This vital layer of security must be put in
place as soon as possible and not be subject to repeated delays and
endless new and ever-shifting requirements. We must advance to a
smarter, more efficient and more secure border that includes these
document controls. The exact implementation date will be determined
based upon a number of factors, including the progress of DHS and DOS
actions to implement WHTI and the availability of WHTI-compliant
documents on both sides of the border. We expect that the date of full
implementation will be as early as the summer of 2008. The precise date
will be formally announced with at least 60 days notice to the public.
Alternative Documents
DHS is proposing alternative documents that could be used in lieu
of a passport at the land and sea borders, such as the Passport Card
being developed by our partner DOS. We are also proposing that the
current trusted traveler documents available for programs such as
NEXUS, SENTRI and FAST be approved for entering the United States.
Working in unison with Washington State and other states we are
pursuing state-issued enhanced driver's licenses (EDLs) that will be
WHTI compliant for use at land and sea ports of entry. While Washington
State is leading the way and on target to issue the first EDL in
January 2008, DHS is in active discussions with other states that have
expressed interest. In addition, Canadian Provinces also wish to pursue
EDLs, and the Canadian Government is examining such a proposal with
strong engagement and encouragement from DHS. We are pleased with
recent indications from the Canadian Government of renewed urgency
toward developing appropriate documents, and anticipate that we will be
able to work together to meet our intended timeline.
It is important to state on the record that DHS is not lowering
document standards for EDLs. EDLs are a secure, enhanced driver's
license, and are not just today's driver's license with a new design.
The issuance process will be bolstered, and the document will meet the
standards for a WHTI-compliant document of denoting citizenship and
identity. EDLs will also incorporate facilitative land border
technology with both vicinity Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and
a Machine Readable Zone (MRZ). That technology enables real-time
verification of issuance data as well as screening at ports of entry.
Here on the Northern border, we will increase our outreach to the
public the availability of NEXUS cards. In December 2006, CBP combined
enrollment in the NEXUS Air, Highway, and Marine programs. As of July
2007, 133,216 members can cross the border using any of the three modes
of transportation (air, land, and sea) at participating locations. In
the Buffalo region alone, we have nearly 28,000 members. This program
is implemented in partnership with the government of Canada, and many
citizens of Canada also participate in the programs. In light of the
extensive background checks and pre-vetting of enrollees in this
program, NEXUS is a viable and secure way to confirm a traveler's
identity and citizenship.
To enroll in NEXUS, travelers must provide proof of citizenship, a
visa (if required), as well as other identity documentation, such as a
driver's license or other acceptable identity card. An intensive
background check against law enforcement databases and terrorist
indices is required, and the enrollment process includes fingerprint
checks and a personal interview with a CBP officer.
Over the next few months, we expect to increase the number of
locations where travelers can enroll in NEXUS. We plan on developing
new enrollment centers and utilizing our mobile enrollment centers to
encourage border residents to participate in NEXUS. For frequent border
crossers, the ability to use NEXUS at the land, sea, and air borders
and the ability to use NEXUS dedicated lanes for more expedited
processing are some of the benefits of participating in NEXUS. Here in
Buffalo, NEXUS participants have their own bridge, the Whirlpool
Bridge. This is a NEXUS-only bridge with NEXUS-dedicated lanes,
offering NEXUS participants an even faster method to enter the United
States or Canada.
Impacts of WHTI on our Border Communities and Our North American
Neighbors
Border security is a cornerstone of national security. Our
international land borders are extremely efficient considering the
volume of travel and trade they handle every day--so well run that the
public can forget that they are a critical line of defense. Both DHS
and DOS have worked closely with the Canadian and Mexican governments
on numerous fronts, including through the Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America, the Smart Border Declaration and the
Shared Border Accord. The objectives of these initiatives are to
establish a common approach to security to protect North America from
external threats, prevent and respond to threats and streamline the
secure and efficient movement of travel and trade. We remain committed
to such consultations that often include WHTI accomplishments and
progress to date. In particular, DHS has been involved in extensive
discussions with our Canadian counterparts regarding secure alternative
documents that could be made available to Canadian citizens for WHTI
purposes, and, as stated above, we are working even more closely
together as they look at EDLs or other possible alternative documents
for Canadian citizens as well.
We recognize that there remains a concern about the potential
impact of WHTI on border communities. WHTI represents a social and
cultural change, and change is difficult. However, WHTI is a key step
in creating better, more efficient, 21st Century land border
management.
The Administration is committed to implementing this change in a
pragmatic way, and we want to ensure open dialogue between the citizens
it directly affects. Our communications plan will be based in a
grassroots outreach campaign and will take place in land border
communities in multiple ways, including Town Hall Events that will
encourage an open dialogue between DHS and the community. We will
directly communicate with the border communities, traveling public,
media, elected officials and stakeholders about the importance of WHTI.
We will highlight the benefits of secure travel documents,
demonstrating that vicinity RFID is the reliable backbone of our
trusted traveler programs, and the technology proposed for the DOS
Passport Card.
Potential Impact of WHTI on Wait Times at the Border
DHS, Congress, and the public are all concerned about the potential
impact of the WHTI documentation requirements on traveler wait times at
our land ports of entry. Pedestrian and vehicle traffic varies across
the country by port, time of day, and time of year. There are also
daily, weekly, and seasonal patterns of traffic. Factors that can lead
to long traffic queues can include the port design, traffic volume, and
vehicle mix. Wait times are monitored on an hourly basis and measures
are taken to reduce wait times when they exceed threshold levels. These
measures can include changes to shift assignments, open lane
assignments, special operations, and overtime.
Currently, primary processing time can be as short as 10 seconds
for a trusted traveler and as short as 20 seconds for easily verifiable
travelers. A traveler is easily verifiable if he/she has a passport or
other acceptable document with an MRZ or appropriate RFID technology
that can be queried automatically. Processing times are considerably
longer--up to 90 seconds--for a vehicle with passengers who present
documents that are not immediately verifiable by the inspecting officer
or for vehicles with multiple passengers each producing various forms
of identification. Often times, an officer will need to manually enter
an individual's identifying information into the computer if the
documentation presented does not have a MRZ. The additional time it
takes to process these individuals can contribute to delays.
The suite of documents that DHS has proposed in the NPRM are
capable of being queried automatically, speeding-up the document
examination process and eliminating the need to evaluate the face of
the document to determine if it looks like the kind of baptismal
certificate issued in a certain part of Minnesota during the mid-1950s.
DHS published a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) in the
Federal Register on June 25, 2007, focusing on the potential
environmental impact of WHTI at land ports of entry, since they have
the most environmental sensitivities from changes in travel volume. The
PEA concludes that the use of vicinity RFID technology results in the
fastest passenger processing time, and causes the fewest adverse
environmental impacts. I encourage the Committee to review the PEA for
a detailed analysis of average wait times for selected ports on the
northern and southern borders and the anticipated impact of WHTI on
these wait times.
While DHS fully expects to process quickly the documents of most
travelers at the borders, we will not become focused on speed as the
singular measure of success. Speeding up the document querying and
authentication process gives more time for our CBP officers to ask
questions and conduct inspections of those who require more scrutiny.
Precious time now spent examining the face of a document will, instead,
be used to probe those seeking to enter the U.S. who may be of higher
risk. In the judgment of Secretary Chertoff and DHS leadership, this is
a much better use of our CBP officer's skills and time.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, we have outlined our WHTI
implementation plan that, with your assistance, will help DHS continue
to protect America. Although we continue to move in the right direction
of increasing identity document security, increasing information
sharing, and deploying the necessary resources to protect the border,
we must not delay or become lax in our effort. Strong borders are a
pillar of national security and WHTI is a key cornerstone supporting
that pillar.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, we will be happy
to answer any of your questions.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Barrett to summarize her statement for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANN BARRETT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PASSPORT
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Barrett. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Congresswoman
Slaughter, Representative Carney and Green, for this
opportunity to discuss the role of the State Department in
implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which is
to adjudicate and issue U.S. passports and, in the near future,
passport cards to eligible U.S. citizens to facilitate trade,
travel, and tourism.
Our current workload indicates that Americans are aware of
the new document requirements under WHTI and are coming into
compliance with them. We are on pace to issue over 17 million
passports by the end of the year.
Due to the unprecedented demand, many who applied for a
passport did not receive their documents in the time frame they
expected. We are taking extraordinary steps to remedy this
situation, not only to address the current demand, but also to
assure that we are well positioned to meet future needs.
We projected that we would receive approximately 16.2
million passport applications in fiscal year 1907, 30 percent
more than our 2006 level. Over the past two years, we ramped up
capacity to meet projected demand, adding staff and expanding
facilities.
The root of our current situation is the workload that
built up when 5.5 million applications arrived within about ten
weeks last spring. This far exceeded our ability to keep pace
within our traditional time frame, and the average processing
time lengthened from six weeks in December to 12 weeks in late
spring. It's about ten weeks today.
At the same time as we are receiving record numbers of
applications, we are also issuing record numbers of passports,
averaging a million and a half passports each month since
March. As of July 2nd, we have already exceeded last year's
issuance of 12.1 million passports.
The Department has committed at the highest levels to
return to our normal performance standards and processing times
as soon as possible while maintaining the security needs of our
nation.
We are pulling out all the stops and making the needed
resources available to resolve this issue. We are hiring 400
new passport adjudicators this fiscal year and are requesting a
similar number for next year.
To process pending cases, we are deploying additional staff
to eliminate the older applications pending in the system.
It is clear that the implementation of WHTI has created a
permanent increase in passport demand. Today's record-breaking
demand is not an anomaly. We believe it will continue to grow.
We currently project the demand for passports to be
approximately 23 million in 2008 and up to--as high as 30
million by 2010.
Currently, over 78 million Americans have passports. We
expect within a few years, fully half of all Americans will
have passports or passport cards, and every indication is that
demand will continue to climb.
We are implementing long-term strategies to increase
production. Chief among these are our new approach to passport
production represented by our new Arkansas Passport Center.
This differs from our other passport agencies in that it
focuses solely on printing and mailing passports. Applications
which have been reviewed and adjudicated at other agencies are
transmitted electronically to Arkansas, which prints and mails
the passports within 24 hours.
The centralization of passport book printing and mailing
frees up space and personnel in our existing facilities so we
can focus on the critical areas of customer service,
adjudication, and process more passport applications.
Building on our successful implementation of our Arkansas
facility, we plan to open a similar facility in 2008 which will
also be capable of producing over 10 million passports a year.
When ready, the passport cards will also be produced in these
facilities.
Expansions are in the works for the Miami, Seattle, Boston,
and Washington agencies as well as our National Passport Center
in New Hampshire. We are also exploring opening additional
passport agencies later in fiscal year 2008 and 2009.
We firmly believe that these long-term strategies will
provide the staffing levels and infrastructure to meet the
increased passport demands.
I'd like to turn briefly to the passport card which we are
currently developing.
We acknowledge that the traditional passport book is not
the ideal solution for the border resident communities. In--in
response to their concerns, we have developed a more portable--
or are developing a more portable and less expensive document
than the traditional passport book. It will carry all the
rights and privileges of a U.S. passport except that it is
designed for use at land and sea ports of entry only.
The passport card is designed for the specific needs of
border resident communities and is not a globally interoperable
document. Based on a cost-of-service study, we are proposing a
fee of $20 for an adult and $10 for a child with a proposed
execution fee of $25. The total cost for an adult to get a
passport card is $45, or 37 and a half cents per month over a
ten-year period.
To facilitate the frequent travel of U.S. citizens living
on the border and to meet DHS's operational needs at land
borders, the passport card will incorporate RFID technology,
which will link the card to a stored, secure database in a
secure government database.
The RFID chip in the passport card will be read at a
distance by an authorized CBP reader mounted alongside the
traffic lane. The reader will automatically retrieve the
personal data from the secure database and populate the
officers' screens as the vehicle approaches.
We have an ambitious and aggressive production schedule.
Absent any technical challenges that may arise as a result of
testing, we imagine we will issue the card in the spring of
2008, and we will issue a notice in the Federal Register when
we are ready to begin accepting passport card applications.
We understand that our national security is dependent on
our economic well-being. We understand the importance of the
economic relationship between the U.S. and Canada.
We also understand that the economic well-being of the
border communities depends on the free flow of people and
goods.
For these reasons, we are committed to implementing the
WHTI in a rational and intelligent manner, one that facilitates
travel, tourism, and trade while enhancing our national
security.
And I just want to end on a--with some good news:
We issued over 477,000 passport applications this week.
It's an all-time record. Our backlog is indeed going in the
right direction. We are reducing it.
And we still have more volunteers arriving next week, so we
hope to have more good news in the coming weeks.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Barrett follows:]
Prepared statement of Ann Barrett
Chairman Thompson, Congresswoman Slaughter, distinguished members
of the Committee,
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the role of the Department
of State in implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI) and in providing American citizens with reliable, secure
passports so they can comply with the new travel document requirements.
We have been planning for increased passport demand since Congress
passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) in
December of 2004, which included a provision requiring all travelers to
have a passport or other combination of documents establishing identity
and citizenship to travel into the United States.
The goal of WHTI is to enhance our border security and, at the same
time, facilitate the flow of legitimate trade and travel. WHTI will
reduce the number of documents used to prove identity and citizenship
from the current 8,000 local, state, and provincial driver's licenses,
birth certificates and other documents to a handful of secure documents
in which officers at ports-of-entry can have confidence, such as a
passport book; a passport card, which we are developing in direct
response to the needs of the border communities; NEXUS, SENTRI, or FAST
cards; and eventually state-issued ``enhanced'' drivers licenses.
We firmly believe that reducing the number of documents that
Customs and Border Protection officers must inspect and relying on
greater automation of the process at our ports-of-entry will both
enhance security and facilitate the flow of people and goods across our
borders. We agree wholeheartedly with the authors of the report,
People, Security and Borders: The Impact of the WHTI on North America,
issued recently by the ``Network on North American Studies in Canada''
that ``limiting the number of acceptable identity documents at the
border. . .could result in significant benefits for Canada, Mexico and
the United States, not the least of which is facilitating the movement
of people and goods.''
The role of the Department of State in the WHTI is to adjudicate
applications for U.S. passports, and, when available, passport cards
for eligible U.S. citizens in a timely manner so as to facilitate
trade, travel, and tourism. Our current workload indicates that
Americans are aware of the new document requirements under WHTI and are
coming into compliance with them. We issued 10.1 million passports in
Fiscal Year 2005 and 12.1 million in the last fiscal year. As of July
2, we have already issued 12 million passports this fiscal year--a 34
percent increase over the same period last year. We are on pace to
issue over 17 million by the end of this fiscal year.
Due to this unprecedented demand, many who applied for a passport
did not receive their documents in the timeframe they expected. We are
taking extraordinary steps to remedy this situation, not only to
address the current demand, but also to assure that we are well
positioned to meet future needs.
Following passage of IRTPA, we had two years to plan for the
expected increase in passport demand. We analyzed our own figures, and
commissioned a survey of projected demand conducted by an independent
contractor. Drawing on consultations with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and historic demand trends, we projected that we would
receive approximately 16.2 million passport applications in FY 2007, 31
percent more than our 2006 receipts. Over the past two years, we ramped
up capacity to meet projected demand, adding staff, expanding
facilities, and enhancing service. We hired 441 employees in Passport
Services in FY 2005, 925 in FY 2006, and 1,222 thus far in FY 2007--a
total of 2,588 in less than three years. We opened the Colorado
Passport Agency in October 2005, and expanded our agencies in Boston,
Chicago, Houston, New Orleans, and Seattle. We opened a mega-center in
Hot Springs, Arkansas in March of this year. The Arkansas Passport
Center (APC) has printed over 260,000 passports since opening its
doors, and will be able to produce 10 million passports annually when
it reaches full capacity.
The root of our current situation is the workload that built up
when 5.5 million applications arrived within about ten weeks. This far
exceeded our ability to keep pace within our traditional timeframe. As
a result, despite our best efforts, it began to take longer to process
applications. Average processing time lengthened from six weeks in
December, to 12 weeks in late spring. It is about ten weeks today.
At the same time we are receiving record numbers of applications,
we are issuing record numbers of passports, averaging 1.5 million or
more passports each month since March. With less than one quarter left
in the fiscal year, the Colorado, Connecticut, Charleston, Honolulu,
New Orleans, and Washington agencies have already exceeded their FY
2006 production total.
Much of the influx was in response to press reports and our
continuing outreach and public education effort regarding WHTI. Not all
of the increased demand is attributable directly to the WHTI Air Phase,
however. Many applicants indicate they plan to travel to Canada or
Mexico by sea or land, even though the WHTI requirements for passports
for land or sea border crossings are not scheduled to be implemented
until 2008 at the earliest. We also receive substantial numbers of
applications from people who indicate no overseas travel plans.
Increasingly, Americans apply for a passport because they see it as a
citizenship and identity document, one that allows the bearer to board
an airplane, prove citizenship for employment purposes, apply for
federal benefits, and fulfill other needs not related to international
travel. We did not take these non-travel-related factors into account
when we projected FY 2007 passport demand.
The Department has committed at the highest levels to return to a
predictable six-week process while maintaining the security needs of
our nation. We are pulling out all the stops and making the needed
resources available to resolve this issue. Additional resources will be
needed. On June 8, the Department sent a formal Congressional
Notification regarding plans to re-program nearly $37,000,000 for the
FY 2007 Border Security Program. We are using these funds to hire 400
new passport adjudicators this fiscal year, and fund expansion of NPC
and the Miami Passport Agency.
To process pending cases and new incoming work, our most urgent
need is for more people to review and adjudicate applications, answer
telephone and e-mail inquiries, and assist walk-in applicants. To meet
this need, we are:
aggressively recruiting and training new passport
specialists;
re-hiring experienced and well-trained retired
adjudicators to provide critical management support;
using volunteers to help process passport applications
to supplement the Department's corps of passport specialists;
working two shifts during the week and all day Saturday
and Sunday to optimize existing equipment and space;
dispatching teams of passport specialists to
exceptionally high volume passport agencies to assist with
walk-in applicants and to process pending applications;
re-assigning temporarily nearly 300 Presidential
Management Fellows, Career Entry program participants, and
entry-level officers currently working in bureaus throughout
the Department to the National Passport Center (NPC), New
Orleans, and the Washington Passport Agency for the remainder
of the summer to adjudicate passport applications; and,
bringing Foreign Service Officers overseas home
temporarily to serve their country here by adjudicating
passports.
These additional resources and procedures will give us the time,
staffing and physical capacity to eliminate the older applications
pending in the system.
It is clear that implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative has created a permanent increase in passport demand. Today's
record-breaking demand is not an anomaly; we believe it will continue
to grow. We currently project the demand for passports to be
approximately 23 million in 2008, and as high as 30 million by 2010.
Over 78 million Americans currently have passports--somewhat more than
25 percent of all citizens. Within a few years, fully half of all
Americans will have passports or passport cards, and every indication
is that demand will continue to climb. We are engaged in a study now to
further refine these projections.
We are also implementing long-term strategies to increase
production. Chief among these is a new approach to passport production
represented by the Arkansas Passport Center (APC). APC differs from our
other passport agencies in that it focuses solely on printing and
mailing passports. Applications which have been reviewed and
adjudicated at other agencies are transmitted electronically to APC,
which prints and mails the passports within 24 hours. Eight agencies
currently transmit their work to Arkansas. The remaining agencies will
get the necessary retrofit as quickly as possible between now and the
end of September.
The centralization of passport book printing and mailing frees up
space and personnel at our existing passport agencies to focus on the
critical areas of customer service and adjudication, and allows us to
process more passport applications. The agencies that have begun remote
issuance are already reporting significantly improved efficiency.
Building on our successful experience with APC, we plan to open a
similar printing and shipping facility, also with the capacity to
produce 10 million passports per year, in 2008. When ready, passport
cards also will be prepared at these two bookprint facilities.
We are increasing capacity at existing passport agencies, as well.
Because we have outgrown the current facility in Miami, we will move to
a new facility that will expand our footprint there from 18,000 to
28,000 square feet. A recent snag in acquiring that facility may delay
Miami's move, but if so, we will aggressively pursue additional space
at its current location. We are on a fast-track process to acquire
additional space that will more than double the size of the National
Passport Center to more than 100,000 square feet. This will allow us to
more than double the staff size to over 1,000, and more than double
NPC's capacity to receive, adjudicate and issue passports from 5
million today to over 11 million. Expansions are also in the works for
the Seattle, Boston, and Washington agencies. We hope to complete these
renovations and expansions by the end of this year. We are also
exploring opening additional passport agencies later in FY 2008 and FY
2009.
We firmly believe that these long-term strategies will provide the
staffing levels and infrastructure to meet the increased demand in
State Department issued travel documents generated by the documentary
requirements of WHTI.
Now I would like to turn briefly to the passport card, which we are
currently developing. We acknowledge that an alternative to the
traditional passport book is a desirable solution for the border
resident communities. In response to the expressed concerns of American
citizens who live in border communities for a more portable and less
expensive document than the traditional passport book, we are
developing a wallet-sized passport card. The passport card is a travel
document adjudicated to the same standards as a passport book. It will
carry all the rights and privileges of a U.S. passport except that it
is designed for use at U.S. land ports of entry only. The passport card
is designed for the specific needs of border residents and is not a
globally interoperable travel document like the traditional passport
book. Based on a cost of service study, we are proposing a fee of
$20.00 for an adult and $10.00 for a child. With a proposed execution
fee of $25, the total cost for an adult is $45.00 or 37.5 cents per
month over a ten-year period.
To facilitate the frequent travel of U.S. citizens living in border
communities and to meet DHS's operational needs at land borders, the
passport card will incorporate cutting-edge vicinity-read radio
frequency identification (RFID) technology which will link the card to
a stored record in a secure government database. The RFID chip in the
passport card can be read at a distance by an authorized CBP reader
mounted alongside the traffic lane. The reader would automatically
retrieve the personal data from the secure database and populate the
officers' screens as the vehicle approaches.
The Department is taking every measure to address the privacy
concerns of American citizens traveling with a passport card. There
will be no personal information written to the RFID chip itself. To
address concerns raised by privacy advocates that passport card bearers
can by tracked by this technology, we are requiring that the vendor
provide a protective sleeve that will prevent the card from being read
while inside it. We are also exploring other possibilities with
industry to further address this issue. To mitigate the possibility of
counterfeiting and forgery, the Department will use laser engraving and
state-of-the-art security features. While no document is tamper proof,
we are taking every care to ensure that the passport card is as secure
as current technology permits.
We have an ambitious and aggressive production schedule. The
Request for Procurement to industry was issued May 25, and we expect to
begin testing product samples in the summer. In accordance with testing
requirements established in the certification by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, we will conduct the full range of
security, durability, and privacy tests on the passport card and
protective sleeve to ensure we are issuing the best and most secure
card to the American public. Absent any technical challenges that may
arise as a result of testing, we expect to begin issuing the cards to
the public in spring 2008. We will issue a notice in the Federal
Register when the Department is ready to begin accepting applications
for the passport card and will, of course, conduct a robust public
outreach campaign to inform the border resident communities in
particular.
Let me end by stressing a point we have made from the very
beginning of the WHTI. We understand that our national security is
dependent on our economic well-being. We understand the importance of
the economic relationship between the United States and Canada. We also
understand that the economic well-being of the border communities
depends on the free flow of people and goods. For these reasons, we are
committed to implementing the WHTI in a rational and intelligent
manner, one that facilitates trade, travel, and tourism while enhancing
our national security. We believe that the recent temporary measure
announced June 7 by State and DHS to allow American travelers who have
applied for, but not yet received, a passport to still travel is a
reflection of our commitment to implement this in such a manner and to
take the necessary steps to enhance our border security while
facilitating the flow of legitimate travel.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.
I will be pleased to answer any questions.
Chairman Thompson. I thank the witnesses for their
testimony.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have five
minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for
the first question.
Ms. Barrett, just for the record, and I think you indicated
it:
What is the present passport fee for adults?
Ms. Barrett. Present passport fee for adults? Okay. Thank
you, Chairman.
The present passport fee for an adult is $97.
Chairman Thompson. $97.
Ms. Barrett. $97 for a passport. That is----
Chairman Thompson. That includes all the fees and----
Ms. Barrett. Yes.
Chairman Thompson. All right. Am I to understand that there
are plans to reduce the cost of the passport document?
Ms. Barrett. Not at this current time. The reduction in
cost will be with the passport card, which will be $45 for an
adult.
Chairman Thompson. 45.
Ms. Barrett. Right.
Chairman Thompson. So if I wanted a passport, I'd still
have to pay 95.
Ms. Barrett. 90--97, yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. 97. Okay.
Have you had many complaints from people about the pricing?
Ms. Barrett. Frankly, I think that is the reason we have
developed the passport card.
We developed it in response to particularly border resident
communities who probably didn't plan on doing much or any
international travel, yet then did need a document to attest to
their citizenship and identity.
So we thought that by developing and issuing a passport
card at a much lower cost, we would meet--we would answer
those--those complaints about the cost of the passport.
Chairman Thompson. And again, for the record, would the
card allow that person to travel--where would that card allow a
person to travel?
Ms. Barrett. The card will--it's a limited-use passport. It
will allow you to cross land waters and do sea travel within
the Western Hemisphere.
You cannot, for instance--you can use the card to drive,
say, from Buffalo across the border into Canada, but you cannot
use that card to then get on a plane and--and fly to London.
It's not a globally interoperable document, because it is
tied to a secure government database.
Chairman Thompson. So then I also heard you say that we are
having to utilize volunteers to deal with this overflow of
individuals applying for--for this document.
Did the Department not anticipate this volume in enough
time to compensate for the inconvenience that had been caused,
or can you share with us what happened with that?
Ms. Barrett. Sir, we--our initial projections were low. We
projected about 16.2 million passport applications for this
year when, in fact, it's going to be at least 17 and a half
million applications.
We--we think a lot of the error in--in projections is also
coming from the fact that we are having a lot of people apply
for passports that are not travelling. They're getting them for
identity documents. They're getting them for--to prove that
they're a citizen to apply for jobs. They're getting them to
establish--to get federal benefits.
We also admit as well that, I think, there was some
confusion about what the--the air requirement was. Many people
who--anecdotally who we talked to who are applying believed
that the land border requirement was already in place.
So I think that contributed, and we got an awful lot of
applications in a very concentrated period of time.
Chairman Thompson. Well, I think all of my colleagues here
can attest to the fact that we saw very early, just given the
number of calls from our constituents asking for help for
travel this summer, and--and I guess it was because we started
calling State and DHS and everybody you can name to find out
what was going on that we had--we had to, as you know, suspend
and do some other things to make it happen.
But I think that really caused some challenges for a lot of
us, and I hope that going forward, we can anticipate a little
better programs like this so the public will not be
inconvenienced.
Mr. Jacksta, do you have enough people right now to do your
job?
Enough CBP people?
Mr. Jacksta. I would say, sir, that we have, over the last
couple of years, increased the number of CBP officers at our
ports of entry.
Here in the Buffalo area, we've actually added additional
staff. Up to 62 additional people will be coming on to help in
the Buffalo area. Other parts of the country are receiving
additional staff to help out.
The challenge is, is that the traffic continues to grow,
and people and trade are continually coming to the United
States, and so we evaluate on a regular basis to determine
whether we need additional people and put them in our budget
request.
Chairman can----
Chairman Thompson. I'll ask again, yes or no.
Mr. Jacksta. Do we have enough people today?
Yes, according to the current projections that we have
proposed.
Chairman Thompson. How many people are working overtime?
Mr. Jacksta. Well, we have 18--close to 18,000 CBP officers
that are assigned to our ports of entry. They work on a regular
basis overtime.
We have specific requirements that when there is a surge in
traffic or--or trade, that we can utilize those officers to
work overtime and to ensure that the trade continues to go
through.
Chairman Thompson. So with 18,000 and the overtime is paid,
it's your testimony before us today that you are meeting the
present personnel requirements.
Mr. Jacksta. Right. And we continue to request through the
formal process of asking for additional personnel depending on
various programs.
For example, one of the things that we recognize that WHTI
is going to present to us is the--one of the alternative cards
that are going to be utilized are the trusted traveler program
cards.
And as a result, in our fiscal year 1908 submission, we
requested funding for additional personnel to help with the
enrollment process as well as the interview process for the
trusted traveler program.
So as programs come on board, we try to forecast exactly
what type of personnel we'll need and put those into our budget
requests.
Chairman Thompson. Well, if you would provide the Committee
with your protected budget costs for the programs you just
outlined.
Mr. Jacksta. Sir.
Chairman Thompson. One of the things that our Committee is
doing and is committed to is identifying what resources are
needed and, going forward, finding it. But if for whatever
reason we never get the resource requirement, then we're not
really able to address the need.
And I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but, you know--I
know you have to defend the agency's budget, but every now and
then, you know, it would help just to--either offline or
whatever, just let us know.
Maybe I need to talk to some of the gentlemen you brought
here today, and maybe they'll--they'll help us, too.
But I--I--I appreciate----
Mr. Jacksta. Chairman? Can I also just mention that I
passed out those travel documents that the CBP officers have to
look at. Hopefully, you've had a chance to look at it.
I want to point out that every one of those documents are
fraudulent documents, and that sort of presents the extreme
challenge that our officers have at the ports of entry
regarding the current documents or, in certain cases, no
documents at all.
Chairman Thompson. If you had your preference, what would
you recommend as a solution to--to all these documents?
Mr. Jacksta. Well, I think the recommendation is that we
move forward with WHTI and that we move forward with the--we
have a Notice of Proposed Rule out there right now that's open
for the next 30 days, receive comments on the documents that we
have proposed to be utilized for our officers.
We believe moving forward with the trusted traveler
programs, with the pass card, the passport, and other types of
documentations will greatly enhance the ability for our
officers to identify individuals and also to make sure that we
know their citizenship.
So I would ask, suggest that we continue to move forward
with the WHTI proposal.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Carney for five minutes of questions.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Jeez, I'm going to jump in here. There's a lot of
questions.
First of all, Mr. Rosenzweig, how many--how long does it
take the Department, other than border guards, to go through
all these documents at a crossing on average?
Mr. Rosenzweig. It depends upon which documents are
presented.
Documents that already have some form of readily verifiable
information on them, like the machine readable zone on the back
of a driver's license or one of our trusted traveler cards--the
NEXUS card, for example--the linger time at a particular port
of entry can be as little as 10 to 20 seconds.
For a person who presents a card where the officer must
type the name into the database and must engage in some oral
discussion to--to--to understand who's--can linger as long as
90 to 100 seconds.
And that doesn't sound, of course, like a very great
difference, but as--as we've discussed, there are millions of
arrivals across the border, hundreds of millions of arrivals
every year, and so those seconds add up to a great deal of
delay time.
One of the reasons we are moving towards a narrower set of
documents with enhanced facilitation benefits in them is to
reduce that time so that almost everybody is in the 10--to 20-
second range.
Mr. Carney. This RFID technology, I--I like that, actually.
What happens when that system goes down? We're not going to
close the border, are we?
Mr. Rosenzweig. No, we aren't, sir, and we have the exact
same problem now with the entire system, but what we do have is
localized backup databases that are accessible by the agents.
But if the whole system crashes, then it's like when the
system goes down in Congress. It becomes more difficult.
Mr. Jacksta. Sir, I--there are a couple of protocols that
are followed, sir, when--when systems are down. It is extremely
important for us.
If--in the case of the RFID goes down, we will have the
capabilities at our actual primary booth for our officers to
either manually put the data in on the individual or use the
machine readable zone that's currently embedded in the travel
documents.
That will help our officers to quickly read the
information.
In addition to that, when that system goes down,
nationally, on a national basis, we have the capabilities to
upload specific disks with--with various watch-list members on
it so that on a local basis, we're able to continue to work on
the process.
Now, if--in the case where the whole systems go down and
the ports shut down and there's no electricity, our officers
will use their discretion and their training, and in any type
of cases where we feel there's a concern, we will hold that
individual and reach out to maybe a location that does have the
capabilities to do proper name checks for us.
So there is protocols in place to make sure that we don't
lose that connectivity at our ports.
Mr. Carney. But if it goes down, backup at the lanes would
increase.
Mr. Jacksta. Yes, backup lanes would increase simply
because we would expect our officers to ask additional
questions and to look at the travel documents a little bit
closer.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Ms. Barrett, we know that you've commissioned an
independent contractor, too.
What was their impression of the number of applicants you
have?
I mean, did they confirm--or was there agreement across
everybody you asked this question?
Ms. Barrett. Well, we did contract an independent
contractor to try to get a better handle on--on what we were
facing.
Mr. Carney. Right.
Ms. Barrett. We have been planning for this for the last
couple of years.
The time--the time frame's changed since that--that report,
but frankly, they--they were--they were giving us large numbers
of how many people were on the border, did have documents,
didn't have documents.
We took that study--and at that time, the passport card
wasn't even thought of, so--so we--we really didn't have that
question to ask people at that point.
We took their numbers and also added them to our own
historical data that we--we traditionally have projected our
passport issuances--and added it to--to that projection.
As I said earlier, I think our projection was low mostly
due to some of the unknowns out there.
We can quantify who wants to travel across borders. We can
quantify pretty closely how many people want to travel
internationally.
But what we don't have and we have now commissioned a new
study to try to--try to get a better idea of what the non-
travel demand will be for citizenship and identity documents
like the passport and the passport card.
More and more, we have to prove who we are and what our
status is, and that, I believe, is driving up the demand of the
passport beyond what all our--our valid studies had shown in
the past.
We also had hired over 2500 people in the last two years
and had expanded a lot of our facilities, so again, I think it
was that concentrated amount of work that came in all at once.
And we are hiring 400, plus another 400 within the next
several months to--to mitigate any surge in demand again.
Mr. Carney. I think you mentioned 471,000 processed last
month; is that correct.
Ms. Barrett. Last week, we processed 477,000 passports.
Mr. Carney. Last week? Those are probably mostly out of the
10th District of Pennsylvania, judging by the call volume into
our office.
But are you satisfied, in fact, that nothing nefarious is--
that everything's being on the up-and-up, that no one's trying
to stick it to the system here?
I mean, you're processing a lot of applications.
Ms. Barrett. We have always had a robust anti-fraud program
in place. Every one of our employees goes through training.
We do have volunteers right now, but they're coming in from
overseas or have been through our citizenship and identity
training and then are having additional training.
In all of our volunteer work forces, task forces, we have
senior passport specialists that are auditing and monitoring
their work. They go through an anti-fraud training program
before they do any adjudication, and then again, their work is
audited to make sure that we're looking everywhere we can for
any fraud indicators.
All our applications will go through our database to do all
the name checks and the watch-list checks, so we are confident
that the integrity of the passport is intact, and that indeed
also is a reason we need more people.
A lot of--some of these positions we're asking for will go
toward more fraud management oversight in our offices, more
customer service employees in there to deal with the--the ever-
rising demand for passports.
As I said earlier, this isn't--this isn't going to go away,
and it also is a reason why to hire people, get them cleared
and trained does take a while.
So we want to make sure that everybody that is touching a
passport application has the--the relevant training and
oversight to do the job properly.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Ms. Barrett.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
One question associated with that:
Now, all the employees that are being trained, they will
become government employees?
They're not contract employees?
Ms. Barrett. Currently, the--the volunteers that we're
talking about are--are federal employees that--that work for
the State Department. We--they--some of them are temporary.
They will go back to their regular jobs at a post overseas or
wherever.
We do have contract employees that support the adjudication
function in all our offices. They are trained to do support
services. They do not do the--the adjudication of a passport.
They just support that--that effort. All adjudication is done
by federal employees.
We do have a lot of contract support staff that do the
other parts of it, but while these volunteers are here, we are
hiring permanent employees to take their place when they go
back.
We have over--we have offers out to over 400 people, and
we've gotten at least 200 of them on board. We hope to have
them--the 400 on board by the end of September.
Chairman Thompson. Do you pay contract employees more than
you pay federal employees?
Ms. Barrett. No, we don't, sir. It's----
Chairman Thompson. You pay the same.
Ms. Barrett. No, it's--it's--actually, contract employees
are paid according to the--the Department of Labor wage
standard in that area of the country.
Chairman Thompson. Is there a reason for contract employees
rather than hiring full-time federal employees.
Ms. Barrett. Well, we have--we--we long ago looked at our
process and determined that the adjudication of citizenship and
identity is the inherently governmental function that we do.
The rest of it we have supplemented with contract employees
because they--they aren't paid, frankly, as much as the federal
employees.
Chairman Thompson. Well, and some of us are concerned that,
you know--but they are U.S. citizens, and I would hope that,
you know, they would have health insurance. I would hope that
they--you know, that an employee--employer would give them a
retirement program just like federal employees.
So I wouldn't want us to take advantage of contract
employees when they could be brought into the system, because
at some point, they would retire, and I would want them to have
the same benefit. I personally would, but that's kind of my own
personal preference.
I now--thank you. No--no comment's necessary.
Now you have five.
Ms. Slaughter. Would you do Mr. Green first, and then I
will----
Chairman Thompson. Okay.
I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you
for your--your leadership. It's been outstanding. Your
bipartisanship is beyond reproach.
You have been very thoughtful, helpful, and I am honored to
serve on this Committee with you. I thank you so much, and
thank you for allowing me to have this experience and be a part
of this--this event.
I also am so thankful that I had an opportunity to travel
in with Representative Slaughter. We had a great conversation,
but aside from that, I'm honored that she would receive us in
her district--I believe this is her district--and I thank you
for the warm reception that we've received and the wonderful
weather as well. It's all been great.
And, of course, it's nice to always be with Representative
Carney, a quick study and who is doing quite well in the United
States Congress.
Thank you, witnesses and all the persons who have
assembled.
I know that I've used a lot of time, so I will have just a
few questions. I would like to continue with the question
related to volunteers that you mentioned, Ms. Barrett.
What countries are these volunteers from?
You did indicate that we have some from countries other
than the United States of America; is this correct?
Ms. Barrett. These are U.S. citizens, Foreign Service
officers who are serving at posts overseas, and we--we brought
in volunteers from the posts that could--could spare additional
employees.
We're also having----
Mr. Green. So if I may----
Ms. Barrett. Sure.
Mr. Green. --because I've used a lot of time already, let
me just ask this, please:
Every person who volunteers is a citizen.
Ms. Barrett. Yes. We--we have a requirement for all people
working in the passport office, including contractors, to be
U.S. citizens.
Mr. Green. Okay. Great.
Now, with reference to the contract workers, have you found
that you are hiring more contract workers since 9/11 or less?
Ms. Barrett. Well, actually, we've--we have been hiring
more, because our demand has gone up.
We've been issuing more passports, so----
Mr. Green. And if you're hiring more, is--may I assume that
contract workers are not going to have the longevity of what I
will call regular or permanent workers?
Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Barrett. Well, it's--the turnover rate with our
contract employees is probably higher than with the----
Mr. Green. And I also assume that if you have contract
workers and the turnover rate is high, that your training cost
is inversely proportional to the amount of time that they work
for you.
That you pay more because you have contract workers for
training.
Ms. Barrett. Well, actually, the training is--they are
doing the--the support functions like typing letters--
Mr. Green. So you----
Ms. Barrett. --printing----
Mr. Green. --pay for it indirectly.
You don't pay for it--you don't train them yourselves, but
when you hire the workers, somebody has to train them.
Ms. Barrett. The contract--the contractors.
Mr. Green. Can a case be made, in your opinion, for us to
hire more permanent workers as opposed to contract workers.
Since we're talking about the security of the United States
of America, can a case be made to hire more permanent workers
as opposed to contract workers, given that we've seen this--
this increase, if you will, since 9/11 in the necessity to have
more workers?
Ms. Barrett. Okay. We are hiring more permanent federal
employees, and the contract employees are, for the most part,
permanent.
They all have clearances. They're all U.S. citizens, and
some of the 400 people we've made job offers to are current
contract employees.
Mr. Green. You just raised an interesting question for me.
You said that they're permanent, for the most part.
How--how do you become a permanent contract worker, not
have the benefits of what we are calling the regular workers?
How do you do that?
Ms. Barrett. They do have benefits. They're just paid at a
different rate for the jobs they do.
Mr. Green. They have the same benefits--the same health
benefits that the federal employees have.
Ms. Barrett. Well, no, because they're not federal
employees.
Mr. Green. Right.
Ms. Barrett. But they do have health benefits, according to
the company they work for.
Mr. Green. Okay.
Chairman Thompson. Excuse me, but do you require the
company to offer benefits to the contract worker in your
contract?
Ms. Barrett. We--we do require them to offer benefits to
their employees.
The employees can choose to take those benefits or not or
add that money set aside for benefits to their salary.
Chairman Thompson. Can you provide the Committee with that
documentation of just what you said?
Ms. Barrett. Okay. Certainly.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I will go to another area, your
having covered it more than sufficiently.
Let me now ask--and I'm moving quite a distance away from
where we are, but I am going to ask questions about the--the
U.S. territories, if I may, quickly.
A person entering a plane--boarding a plane in the U.S.
territories, what is that person required to have?
Mr. Jacksta. Well, in certain locations, depending on what
territory they're arriving----
Mr. Green. Well, let's just talk about the Samoas. Let's
talk about Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Mariana
Islands, and the Swains.
Mr. Jacksta. Well, let me quickly--on the--from--those
individuals travelling from Guam coming to the United States,
we do take a look at the documentation because of the fact that
territory allows certain flights to arrive in the area, and
before they are able to continue on to the United States, we
have to verify that they're admissible into the mainland United
States.
Mr. Green. They do not have to have a passport; is that
correct.
Mr. Jacksta. You do not have to have a passport if you are
an individual who lives in Guam or Virgin Islands.
Mr. Green. Right.
Mr. Jacksta. That's correct.
Mr. Green. You do not have to have a passport.
Do you have to have proof of residence? Is that what you
have to have?
What do you have to have?
Mr. Jacksta. You would have to have some type of
documentation that we would have some level of confidence if
you're coming from Guam.
Now, Virgin Islands is handled entirely different because
of the fact that you are a U.S. territory, and--and for the
most part, you'll be--there's no check.
Mr. Green. What do you have to have to enter the Virgin
Islands.
A plane.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Let me try.
From the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, they are U.S.
citizens. The flights from there to domestic U.S. are like
internal domestic flights.
And as with the flight that we all took from Washington,
you have to have some form of federal identification in order
to get on the plane to match the boarding pass, but there's no
passport requirement for Puerto Rican residents.
Mr. Green. Let me tell you why I ask.
I was recently in that area of the world, and there were
concerns about persons breaching the borders of the islands,
and once they breach the border of the island, then they have
access to the airports, and once they get access to the
airports, they've got access to the country.
So just--just trying to get a better understanding from you
as to how we're trying to police what may be the real southern
border.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, I'm glad you asked that question.
And in fact, that's very true, that a person arriving
illegally in the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico and who then
obtained a fraudulent document would be within the borders of
the United States just as somebody who arrived by a go-fast
boat in Miami would be.
To combat that, we've done a number of things with--with
people in the Caribbean region. I've been down there twice now
as part of our work with them.
We've provided training and technical assistance to the
maritime agencies, and we've also engaged in efforts with them
to strengthen their ability to screen arrivals.
Mr. Green. Because my time is so limited, let me just do
this.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Sure.
Mr. Green. Suffice it to say we don't have the same type of
protections for those persons that we have for persons entering
the United States from Canada and other places; is this true?
Mr. Rosenzweig. I'm sorry, ``those persons'' being which
persons?
Mr. Green. Persons who are citizens who are coming in.
Let me do this:
Because if you're coming from Canada, you have to have a
passport, you have to have a pass card.
Mr. Rosenzweig. For a lawful arrival by plane from Canada,
right, must now have a passport.
The same is true for a lawful arrival who--who arrives at
the airport in the Virgin Islands or San Juan.
Mr. Green. I have to get through another line of questions
real fast, and I apologize, but I have to ask you this.
Let's talk about commercial and charter vessels.
As long as they don't make a port of call once they leave
the United States and come back, they don't have to have
passports as well, right?
Mr. Rosenzweig. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Green. Now, what about ship-to-ship contact.
Mr. Rosenzweig. So long as a person who departs the United
States returns without having entered a foreign country, there
would be no need for a passport.
Mr. Green. Ship-to-ship contact to me would indicate one
ship docking next to another, persons exiting one and coming
onto the other.
What do we do to protect ourselves from ship-to-ship
contact so that persons can come on a vessel without docking?
I'm talking about persons who are not of the country, now.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, for lawful arrivals in the United
States, if a person went ship-to-ship and then made a first
arrival in the United States, having entered the first ship
from Mexico----
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rosenzweig. --they would be obliged to declare
themselves at the port of entry upon arrival in the United
States, say the Port of New Orleans or the Port of Miami.
Mr. Green. They would be obliged to declare themselves.
Is this an honor system?
Mr. Rosenzweig. No, there's a manifesting requirement that
requires people to demonstrate--to provide a manifest in
advance.
Mr. Green. Do we have a person who is there when they dock
to say, ``Show me your identification''.
Mr. Jacksta. There are protocols that if--let me just
clarify, because I don't want to get the record incorrect here.
Today people who go to the Caribbean on a vessel, cruise
ship or regular vessel, would not have to have documentation.
We basically accept a government-issued ID, a birth certificate
or, in certain cases, oral declarations from U.S. citizens.
If you are--under the WHTI proposal, we are recommending
that if you are going from point to point--in other words, you
leave Miami, take a cruise, and come back to Miami--you will
not be required to have a passport.
We have more specific protocols with the vessel operators,
commercial, both cruise as well as cargo ships, that they are
required under law to provide us what we call advance passenger
information. Anyone who is leaving the ship is supposed to be--
first of all, when they're leaving the United States, we get
the information, and then when they return, we are required to
receive that information.
If someone gets on that vessel, the requirement of the
carrier is to provide that information as part of the APIS
protocol.
In addition to that, we do have CBP officers that meet any
vessel that goes to an international location, and that's a
requirement. If an international vessel intercepts another
vessel, a domestic vessel, that vessel becomes an international
vessel at that point because of the fact of that connection
there that the vessel is no longer considered domestic.
I hope I didn't confuse you there, but I just----
Mr. Green. No, I'm not confused. I have to yield back. The
Chairman's been more than generous with the time.
I'll have some additional questions afterwards.
Mr. Jacksta. Can I answer one more question? Just want to
make sure that we don't--that in the Virgin Islands, we do have
CBP officers. They do process all individuals who leave the
Virgin Islands to the United States because of a number of
customs-related laws that are--are currently required.
The immigration requirements are a little bit different for
coming out of the Virgin Islands, but we do--they do see--
anyone coming from the Virgin Islands has a requirement to be
cleared by a CBP officer, a CB--Custom and Border Protection
officer.
Mr. Green. Thanks.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
Slaughter.
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and I'd like
to ask unanimous consent to give a brief and reduced opening
statement before I ask my questions, if I may do that----
Chairman Thompson. Without objection.
Ms. Slaughter. --which will, I think, require me to have
just a little bit more than five minutes, I hope.
Chairman Thompson. You may hope.
Ms. Slaughter. All right. Thank you very much.
I want to first thank the Erie County Legislature for
allowing us to use their beautiful chambers for this hearing.
They've been most gracious and wonderful to work with.
And I want to give abject thanks to Chairman Bennie
Thompson. He not only has one of the most important jobs in the
Congress, he has one of the most important jobs in the country,
and he does it superbly, and I'm so grateful to him.
We don't get as much chance to be home with our
constituents as we used to when we worked two days a week, so
I'm pleased that he and Congressman Carney and Congressman
Green were both gracious and kind to be here with us today.
I want to state at the outset that I support, like
everybody else does in the United States, the intent of the
travel initiative. It's imperative we know that those entering
the country are who they say they are, that they mean us no
harm, and have secure documents to prove it.
In fact, every day I have reason to regret that 11 million
people came in here illegally, and it really startles me that
we have at this point so little control over our borders.
But there are ways that we can implement WHTI that are
smart and secure and make certain that our northern border
remains a vital conduit for travel and trade.
WHTI has occupied my time now, as many of my colleagues,
for the past three years, and I must say that the Department of
Homeland Security has been extremely gracious to me, and I
thank you for that.
Mr. Rosenzweig was here last month with Secretary Chertoff
for a meeting. The Secretary met last week in my office with
Governor Spitzer and others, and he has always kept me informed
as we go along.
And I do appreciate that reinventing an agency of 717,000
people was not easy to do, and I'm sure you had a lot of
growing pains.
But over the last two years, I have to say that I've
watched DHS and State stumble forward with a plan that will
unintentionally deter cross-border travel while doing very
little to improve our overall security.
In fact, the front page of the Washington Post this
morning--I don't know if you had a chance to look at that--
discusses a $1.2 billion purchase DHS wanted to make for
devices to detect nuclear devices. They had convinced the
Congress that they were necessary and that they were 90 to 95
percent accurate.
After 80 of them were ordered, the General Accountability
Office did a study and found that they were no better than what
we use now, that Congress had been misled by DHS about the
effectiveness of this.
And these are the kinds of things, gentlemen, that make me
worry about DHS.
Former 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gorton said that WHTI
incorrectly implements the 9/11 recommendations and will have
severe economic repercussions on the U.S. and Canada, and we've
seen that already.
Now, I'm convinced that Buffalo's economy will be
irreparably harmed should WHTI move forward, and it doesn't
have to be this way. As you know, we had bipartisan legislation
which really said until that pilot project is finished in
Washington, which you're paying for, we shouldn't move forward
on anything. We need to know whether that's going to work or
not.
The Washington State is critically important, because the
Olympics will be held in Vancouver, and they need to know that
people can move safely back and forth across that border.
The PACT Act also wanted us to improve frequent traveler
programs by making sure that people know about the NEXUS card,
that we make it simple for them to get one as the easiest way
for those of us who live on the border to get back and forth.
Now, the PACT Act's been endorsed by a hundred groups in
the Greater Niagara region, every important trade and travel
association in the United States and Canada, and more
importantly this year, the House passed legislation that put
the PACT Act, or the majority of it, into DHS's appropriations
bills.
But we don't think you're going to pay any attention to it.
DHS and State shy away from it, continuing to say that
beginning in January 2008, you will have something in place.
The ongoing fiasco with passports, Ms. Barrett, we feel
your pain, a direct result, I think, of the WHTI air rule, and
people up here and in other parts of the country all along this
border don't know what they need, aren't sure when they need
it, and in many cases are simply not going.
The GAO, Government Accountability Office, cited passport
blunders last May when it asserted the two agencies had done
next to nothing to accomplish the implementation schedule.
Now, the House of Representatives recently voted 379 to 45
to prohibit DHS from putting WHTI in effect before June 2009,
and that has been voted on before both houses and passed into
law, but today I've never heard anybody from DHS say that they
plan to conform to that.
I look forward to having you tell me why you think 379
Members of Congress are wrong and to doubt the Administration's
ability to promote this effectively.
One of the most important issues is you didn't ask for a
single penny in the budget we're working under now, 2007, to
even install passport readers at land ports of entry.
Isn't that true? You requested no money for that
implementation.
Mr. Jacksta. Congresswoman, we have--currently, we have
document readers at all primary land border locations.
We don't have the RFID capabilities there yet.
Ms. Slaughter. Then you're not there by a long shot; isn't
that correct?
I'm really surprised, because, as I said, the Congress had
already stated that you couldn't implement anything until you
had all that in place.
Are you going to say that you're going to have that all
ready by next summer?
Either one of you.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Ma'am, we already have machine readable
zones at all of the ports of entry. Thus, the pass cards that
we are intending to deploy, the enhanced driver's licenses that
we're intending to work with the State of New York, as we
discussed in--in your office just last week, will all be
imminently useable at every port of entry.
What you're speaking of, I believe, is the RF technology--
--
Ms. Slaughter. Right.
Mr. Rosenzweig. --which is, of course, available in many
lanes in the Buffalo area already, and we've asked for $250
million to put that technology in.
We made that request once we determined what the technology
was that we would use, since there are several different types
of RF technology and you have to pick the right one responsibly
before you make the request.
We were pleased that--That the House appropriations bill
voted almost all of that money, though I must say that the
provisions of the appropriations bill that restrict a hundred
million of that would artificially delay our ability to
actually put that technology out.
And we're hopeful that as we work forward with you, we'll
find a way to free up all of that $250 million as soon as the--
as soon as the 1907 budget--1908 budget--fiscal year 1908
budget is passed, which we think will allow us to implement the
RF technology at, as we've planned, the 39 largest ports of
entry that cover about 95 percent of the--of all the traffic.
Ms. Slaughter. Well, I'm sure you know that the Government
Accountability Office had a report in December that stated that
the type of RFID technology that you want to use for the
passport card hasn't worked for the US-VISIT program, which has
been an utter disaster and, as far as I know, is pretty much
almost abandoned.
The DHS privacy Committee suggested that RFID is
inappropriate for human identification as the technology lacks
any privacy safeguards.
What safeguards are you going to take to make sure that
those cardholders have their privacy protected?
Mr. Rosenzweig. With respect, Congresswoman, with respect
to the GAO report, that's a different technology than the one
that we've tried.
Ms. Slaughter. RFID?
Mr. Rosenzweig. RFID is a broad definition of a large host
of different ones.
Ms. Slaughter. Let me tell you, they state--it's not a
different technology.
GAO does great work, and what they've said is the
technology that you want to use for the passport card has not
worked for US-VISIT.
Mr. Rosenzweig. With--with respect, ma'am, that is not what
the GAO----
Ms. Slaughter. But they went further to say that it is
inappropriate technology for human identification, because it
does not protect privacy.
Mr. Rosenzweig. With respect to the recommendations of the
data privacy Committee, which I formerly chaired before coming
over to the Department of Homeland Security, we've taken a
number of steps to ensure that there is indeed privacy
protection.
In particular, the RF chip in the pass card will have only
a single, randomly selected digit identifier. Thus, unlike
other RF technology that might broadcast personal
identification--your name, your date of birth, or something
like that--it will simply identify--distribute to the system a
unique, randomly generated identification number that will be
the key that unlocks the personal data, which is maintained not
on the card but in the government-developed databases, and that
will be the product of the issuance process itself.
Moreover, of course, that unique number will itself be
encrypted through--through the privacy-enhancing encryption
technologies that are available as well.
So we believe that, in fact, the--the answer to the
question is that the card itself is not used to identify an
individual but is used to unlock the information that will
identify the individual and populate the screens at the port of
entry for the CBP officer to use to ensure that the person who
presents himself is, in fact, the individual to whom the card
was issued: the picture is the same, the descriptors are the
same, the history of travel matches whatever answers the person
might give, et cetera.
Ms. Slaughter. And the privacy?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Well, in our judgment, ma'am--and in this
we have work closely with our friends at the Department of
State--the use of a single, unique identifying number on the
card ensures against the--the--the privacy concerns that the
privacy Committee addressed.
They were concerned that if one carried a card that
broadcast one's name or one's hometown--home address, or the
other things that are part and parcel of a passport
identification, that that information could be skimmed out of
the card, and thus, I could present myself falsely as Bob
Jacksta, having skimmed the information from his card.
If all I can skim from Mr. Jacksta's card is a unique, ten-
digit number that unlocked--that only the government can use to
unlock a database, then all I can do is pretend to be somebody
without even knowing that it belongs to Mr. Jacksta, somebody
with a unique ten-digit number.
Ms. Slaughter. Then you will have every American in that
database.
Mr. Rosenzweig. No, ma'am. We will have--we will have in
that database, of course, the people who apply for----
Ms. Slaughter. Apply for the card.
Mr. Rosenzweig. --and receive a pass card just as we have
in similar databases every American who seeks a passport or who
seeks a--a--a visa--or every foreigner who seeks a visa.
For border-crossing purposes, we do take the data of those
who seek entry into the United States. That, indeed, is the
very purpose of, in our judgment, an identification requirement
at the border, is to identify that person.
Ms. Slaughter. Wouldn't the NEXUS card do the same thing?
Mr. Jacksta. Yes.
Ms. Slaughter. Which is available right this minute?
Mr. Jacksta. That's correct. That's where I wanted to go.
Ms. Slaughter. Why are you looking for a new card? Why
don't you just push NEXUS, which would help Congressman Green
as well on the southern border.
Mr. Jacksta. I think, Congresswoman, that's exactly what
we're looking at.
We're looking at using the technologies that we've
developed for the NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST cards that are very
successful cards, where we have demonstrated that the
technology works, that we've demonstrated that we can protect
the privacy of individuals.
We have close to 330,000 cards out there. When we move
forward with the WHTI initiative, we're going to use that
technology at the ports of entry and embed that type of
technology and security into the pass card so that the privacy
of the individuals would be protected.
And--and I think that's important, and I--and the study
that GAO--you're talking about was specifically towards US-
VISIT and the use of RFID in the I-94 card, and it was not
successful, and as a result, the test was stopped.
And we have brought it forward to what we call Generation 2
type of technologies, and that's what we are looking for to
enhance the processing.
Ms. Slaughter. Now, US-VISIT was the same card that you
want to use at the border, correct?
Is that what GAO is saying?
Mr. Jacksta. No, that is--no, they're wrong.
Ms. Slaughter. It's the same technology.
Mr. Jacksta. RFID technology, but not the same type of
technology----
Ms. Slaughter. Tell me, why did US-VISIT fail?
You put a lot of money and a lot of time in that. Why did
that fail?
Mr. Jacksta. Well, I wouldn't--I think US-VISIT has been
very successful with what we do at the ports of entry,
recording the arrival of individuals who are visiting the
United States both at the land and air----
Ms. Slaughter. Do you intend it to either do eye
identification or fingerprints of every person coming into the
country?
Mr. Jacksta. Well, we do currently--we collect the two
fingerprints on all visitors to the United States, the index
fingers, and we collect that information and brought it against
our systems.
But the--in the case----
Ms. Slaughter. But is your system capable of taking care of
people coming into the country that you don't know?
Mr. Jacksta. Yes.
Ms. Slaughter. How.
Mr. Jacksta. Well, basically, we use that information--when
the person arrives, we check the fingerprints to verify whether
they have a visa--a proper visa or have they come to the United
States before, are there any type of--are they on any--on any
type of terrorist watch list, and based on that, we make a
decision on whether we need to do further inspection or
interview another person.
Ms. Slaughter. Well, that's good for people who've come
before, but what about the first-time visitor.
You have no information on them.
Mr. Rosenzweig. Ma'am, with respect to visa holders, they
must give their fingerprints first overseas at the time they
apply for the visa in one of our consular offices in Poland or
in--you know, or in Manila.
Thus, the fingerprint that they give when they apply for
the visa overseas is irrevocably linked to the same fingerprint
that they present upon arrival.
Of course, for visa-free travelers who don't have to
present themselves to seek a visa from our trusted allies in
Western Europe--France, Germany, those sorts of countries--the
first time they arrive will be the first time that we collect
their fingerprints.
But that, of course, is--is linked to their fingerprints
the next time they arrive and any other time that they arrive
and is linked to their passport, which also has a facial--a
facial picture that allows us to recognize them as well and
information about their prior travel.
All right.
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you.
I--given the thing in the paper this morning in the Post
about the nuclear detector has failed and US-VISIT has failed,
I know you're working as hard as you can, but I don't have a
lot of confidence that this is going to work either.
Ms. Barrett, two years ago, the State Department was
adamantly opposed to RFID. You said the smart-chip technology
and the e-passport met better operational needs and stronger
privacy safeguards.
But now you've changed your mind. Why is that?
Ms. Barrett. Well, we did have discussions with Homeland
Security. We use proximity technology in our e-passport.
Most of the discussion was centered around privacy issues,
and we do feel that the RFID technology that is going to be
used in the passport card has addressed our privacy concerns.
It is one number pointing to a very secure database, so
it's not going to be globally interoperable, and that's why
it's only limited to the land border, so it will only be going
into a secure government database.
And we are also going to put the passport card in a
protective sleeve that will prevent any skimming of even that
number.
So we feel that after--after our discussions, that our
privacy concerns were addressed and that the RFID technology
lends itself to the--the dual purpose of WHTI of not just
enhanced security but also facilitation, particularly at the
land borders.
Ms. Slaughter. Did you arrive at that after the GAO report
saying that the RFID card wouldn't do?
Ms. Barrett. No, this was after discussions with Homeland
Security.
We worked very closely with them to see how we could get a
technology that we would be satisfied with, and we just went
out with our request for proposal in May.
Ms. Slaughter. Did anybody take into account the GAO
report?
Mr. Rosenzweig. Indeed we have, ma'am. That is why,
pursuant to the direction of Congress, we had this technology
certified by the National Institute for Standards and
Technology as Congress requested as meeting the standards--the
generally applicable standards of privacy.
We've gone--we've taken into account a great deal of both
the GAO report, the concerns about privacy expressed, and, of
course, the Congressional interest that you all expressed in
last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill. It was in--
May of this year?--May of this year that, after--after testing,
the NIST certified this technology as appropriate pursuant to
your direction.
So we feel as though we have taken into account all of
these concerns and have indeed gotten the technology validated
by pretty much as neutral a--an arbiter as one can find.
That's not to say that other technologies are not also
possible choices, but in the end, the facilitation benefits
that we want to achieve--the ability to move traffic through
the Peace Bridge more quickly instead of--reducing that linger
time from 90 seconds to 10--is, in our judgment, substantially
greater with this technology than with other choices.
Thus--and, you know, diminishing the adverse impacts as
much as we can.
Ms. Slaughter. Well, let me just ask.
As of this morning, the three of you, despite Congress and
379 Members of the House, you are going to go ahead with this
in January?
Mr. Rosenzweig. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking says that
we are going to go ahead with limiting the number of oral
declarations and the 8,000 different types of fraudulent cards
of the sort that you have seen before you in January of next
year and that the further reduction to passport, pass card,
NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, enhanced driver's license cards, and an
assortment of other smaller cards like the Kickapoo
identification card will become--will become mandatory only in
the summer of next year.
So we have--we will not fully implement this program in
January of next year. We will begin the process of doing so
and--and in the--and in the course of that, we hope, educate
the public, begin to accustom them to the necessity of carrying
documentation, begin to transition to a point where we've put
out the rules.
This will, of course, all come after quite an extensive
public relations campaign.
Ms. Slaughter. Thank all three of you for being here.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Let me thank the witnesses for their testimony, and you
will probably receive some additional questions from the
members of the panel. Thank you very much.
I now welcome our second panel of witnesses.
[Recess.]
Chairman Thompson. The Committee will reconvene with our
second panel of witnesses.
Our first witness, Mr. Paul Koessler, is Vice-Chairman of
the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, better known
as the Peace Bridge Authority. The Authority is a binational
entity responsible for managing and maintaining the Peace
Bridge.
Our second witness is Mr. Howard Zemsky, managing partner
of Taurus Capital Partners, LLC. He's also director of Buffalo-
Niagara Partnership and the Binational Tourism Alliance.
Our third witness, Ms. Kathleen Lynch, is here representing
the 9/11 Families of Western New York. Her brother, Michael
Lynch of New York Fire Department, was killed on 9/11 when he
entered the World Trade Center Tower 2 to assist in the rescue
efforts.
Our fourth witness, Mr. Kelly Johnston, is Vice-President
of Government Affairs for Campbell Soup Company. He is also
Vice-Chairman of the Canadian American Business Council and
chairs their Program Committee.
Our final witness, Mr. Stewart Verdery, Jr., is partner and
founder of the Monument Policy Group. He previously served as
the first Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning at the
Department of Homeland Security in the Border and
Transportation Security Directorate.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his
or her statement for five minutes, beginning with Mr. Koessler.
STATEMENT OF PAUL KOESSLER, VICE CHAIRMAN, BUFFALO AND FORT
ERIE PUBLIC BRIDGE AUTHORITY
Mr. Koessler. Good afternoon, Mr. Thompson, and thank you
for this opportunity.
My name is Paul Koessler, and I'm Vice-Chairman of the
Buffalo and Public Bridge Authority--Buffalo and Fort Erie
Public Bridge Authority, more commonly referred to as the Peace
Bridge Authority.
Chairman Thompson. We can hear you now.
Mr. Koessler. Oh, good.
The Peace Bridge between Buffalo, New York, and Fort Erie,
Ontario, which opened in 1927, is the second busiest border
crossing between Canada and the United States with just under 6
million cars and 1.3 million trucks crossing in 2006.
Approximately $40 billion in two-way trade crosses the bridge
annually.
The Peace Bridge Authority is a self-funded entity relying
primarily on to say for its operation and to fund capital
improvements.
The Canadian market just across the Niagara River is the
lifeblood of Buffalo and Western New York. Two-thirds of
Ontario's 12.7 million population lives in Southern Ontario,
within two hours of Buffalo, and an additional 3.7 million
people are anticipated to live in this area by 2031.
This market is critical to the economic well-being of
Western New York.
Twentyone percent of the Buffalo Bills season tickets and
28 percent of the Buffalo Sabres games tickets are sold to
Canadians.
One-third of the passengers flying out the Buffalo-Niagara
International Airport are Canadians and are the primary reason
for the growth and success of that airport.
Forty percent of the D'Youville College students are
Canadian.
The Peace Bridge is a key conduit for companies like Rich
Products, Delphi, General Motors, and tourism attractions like
Darien Lake, Holiday Valley Ski Resort, Shea's Performing Arts
Theater, Kleinhan's Music Hall, and the Inner and Outer Harbor
projects.
Canada is New York's number one export market. It accounts
for 25 percent of New York's exports, larger than its next
three trade partners combined.
The Peace Bridge Authority supports the intent of the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to require improved, more
secure documentation for those crossing the border; however,
the confusion over what has become known as the passport
requirement has already had a negative impact on cross-border
travel.
At the Peace Bridge, traffic declined by 16.9 percent from
2000 to 2006 and has declined a further 7.5 percent so far in
2007.
We have some key concerns with the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. Let me elaborate.
One, there is no consistent, firm implementation date,
which has been stated before, notwithstanding that Congress has
already agreed to a June 2009 date for final implementation.
The proposed rule states the summer of 2008 with a date to be
determined.
We would recommend a June 2009 date supported by an
effective publicity and awareness campaign for the date and all
applicable rules and exemptions.
Two, we strongly support the inclusion of an enhanced
driver's license issued by the provinces and states as an
approved document under WHTI.
We are concerned that there is not a sufficient amount of
time to implement this initiative and that a much greater sense
of urgency must become evident for this to become a reality
even by June of 2009.
Three, we question the purpose and usefulness of a passport
card in that it detracts from the driver's license alternative,
it will--that it will confuse people, and it will actually
provide less value than a passport in that it cannot be used
for overseas international travel.
We would suggest that the NEXUS card be enhanced instead in
the following ways:
Harmonize the NEXUS and FAST eligibility criteria to allow
more people into the program.
Allow NEXUS to be used at all primary lanes, particularly
after hours when the NEXUS lane is closed.
Establish more enrollment centers in high demand areas.
Allow for an appeals process to allow for some objective
adjudication of a revoked NEXUS card.
Simplify and explain the renewal process.
Market the program and allow stakeholders like Bridge
Authorities to assist and develop innovative promotional
campaigns.
Four, we do not believe the economic impact study done by
the OMB accurately portrays the negative economic import on
Western New York and the Peace Bridge Authority itself,
particularly given the uncertainty associated with the
implementation of passport alternatives like driver's licenses
and the fear that the default position of DHS would then be
only passports.
Should that occur, the economic impacts of the Western New
York economy would be devastated, given statistics I quoted
earlier. The whole binational region would become less
attractive as a destination.
It is estimated that should this occur, then cross-border
traffic across the Peace Bridge could decline as much as 25
percent. The resultant decline in toll and rental service will
then reduce our bonding capacity by $50 million and seriously
put in jeopardy our capital expansion and improvement plans.
Peace Bridge is a member of the Public Border Operator
Association, which represents nine publicly owned border
crossings between the Province of Ontario and the States of
Michigan and New York.
PBOA members have or are investing hundreds of millions of
dollars in infrastructure improvements in order to make these
important gateways as safe and secure and efficient as
possible. The operators all rely on revenues received from
commercial trucks and passenger vehicles to finance these
projects, all of which would be put at risk should WHTI be
carelessly implemented.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns and
suggestions with you.
[The statement of Mr. Koessler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul J. Koessler
Good morning. My name is Paul Koessler and I am the vice-chairman
of the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, more commonly
referred to as the Peace Bridge Authority.
The Peace Bridge between Buffalo, New York, and Fort Erie, Ontario,
which opened in 1927 is the second busiest border crossing between
Canada and the United States with just under 6 million cars and 1.3
million trucks crossing in 2006. Approximately 40 billion dollars in
two-way trade crosses the bridge annually. The Peace Bridge Authority
is a self-funded entity relying primarily on tolls for its operation
and to fund capital improvements.
The Canadian market just across the Niagara River is the lifeblood
of Buffalo and Western New York. Two-thirds of Ontario's 12.7 million
population lives in southern Ontario within two hours of Buffalo and an
additional 3.7 million people are anticipated to live in this area by
2031. This market is critical to the economic well being of Western New
York.
--21% of the Buffalo Bills seasons tickets and 28% of the
Buffalo Sabres games tickets are sold to Canadians.
--1/3 of the passengers flying out of the Buffalo Niagara
International Airport are Canadians and are the primary reason
for the success of that airport.
--40% of the D'Youville College students are Canadian.
--Peace Bridge is a key conduit for companies like Rich
Products, Delphi, General Motors, and tourism attractors like
Darien Lake, Holiday Valley Ski Resort, Shea's Performing Arts
Theater, Kleinhans Music Hall, and the Inner and Outer Harbor
projects.
--Canada is New York's number one export market. It accounts
for 25% of New York's exports--larger than its next three trade
partners combined.
The Peace Bridge Authority supports the intent of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative to require improved, more secure
documentation for those crossing the border. However, the confusion
over what has become known as ``the passport requirement'' has already
had a negative impact on cross border travel. At the Peace Bridge
traffic declined by 16.9% from 2000 to 2006 and has declined a further
7.5% so far in 2007.
For example, earlier this week we received a call from a family who
had traveled to Buffalo from Pennsylvania with the intent of also
visiting Canada. While the parents had passports their 7 month old
child did not and they wanted to know if and how they would be able to
re-enter the U.S. without proper documentation for their child. They
had no idea that passports were not yet required for land crossings and
that their child would be exempt in any event.
This vividly illustrates some of the key concerns that we have with
the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Let me elaborate:
One: There is no consistent firm implementation date
notwithstanding that Congress has already agreed to a June 2009 date
for final implementation. The proposed rule states summer 2008 with a
date to be determined.
We would recommend a June 2009 date supported by an effective
publicity and awareness campaign for the date and all applicable rules
and exemptions.
Two: We strongly support the inclusion of enhanced driver's
licenses issued by provinces and states as an approved document under
WHTI.
We are concerned that there is not sufficient time to implement
this initiative and that a much greater sense of urgency must become
evident for this to become a reality by June 2009.
Three: We question the purpose and usefulness of a ``Passport
Card'' in that it detracts from the driver's license alternative, that
it will confuse people, and that it actually provides less value than a
passport in that it cannot be used for international travel.
We would suggest the NEXUS card be enhanced instead in the
following ways:
Harmonize the NEXUS and FAST eligibility criteria to
allow more people into the program.
Allow NEXUS to be used in all primary lanes,
particularly after hours and the NEXUS lane is closed.
Establish more enrollment centers in high demand
areas.
Allow for an appeals process to allow for some
objective adjudication of revoked NEXUS cards.
Simplify the renewal process.
Market the program and allow stakeholders like Bridge
Authorities to assist and develop innovative promotional
campaigns.
Four: We do not believe the Economic Impact Study accurately
portrays the negative economic impact on Western New York and the Peace
Bridge Authority itself; particularly given the uncertainty associated
with implementation of passport alternatives like drivers licenses and
the fear that the default position of DHS will then be only passports.
Should that occur the economic impacts on the Western New York economy
would be devastating, given the statistics I quoted earlier. The whole
binational region would become less attractive as a destination. It is
estimated that should this occur then cross border traffic across the
Peace Bridge will decline 25%. The resultant decline in toll and rental
revenue will reduce our bonding capacity by $50 million and put in
jeopardy our capital expansion and improvement plans.
The Peace Bridge is a member of the Public Border Operator
Association (PBOA) which represents nine (9) publicly owed border
crossings between the Province of Ontario and the States of Michigan
and New York. Together these international crossings facilitate the
movement of tens of billions of dollars worth of trade and tourism
between our two nations annually. As not-for-profit organizations, PBOA
members have or are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in
infrastructure improvements in order to make these important gateways
safe, secure and efficient as possible. The operators all rely on
revenues received from commercial trucks and passenger vehicles to
finance these projects, all of which will be put at risk should WHTI be
carelessly implemented.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns and our
suggestions with you.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Paul J. Koessler, Vice Chairman
Buffalo and Fort Eried Public Bridge Authority
Ron Rienas, General Manager_Designated Representative
OUTLINE OF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL STATEMENT:
1. The Peace Bridge is critical to the economic well being of
Western New York.
2. The Peace Bridge Authority supports the intent of the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, however, it has already
negatively impacted cross border travel.
3. Recommend a June 2009 date with publicity and awareness
campaigns.
4. Support inclusion of enhanced driver's licenses.
5. Question the purpose and usefulness of a ``Passport Card''.
6. Suggest enhancing the NEXUS card and program.
7. Economic Impact Study does not accurately portray the
negative impact on Western New York and the Peace Bridge
Authority itself.
8. The Peace Bridge cross border traffic could decline an
estimated 25% thus reducing bonding capacity by $50 million and
put in jeopardy our capital expansion and improvement plans.
9. All nine (9) publicly owned border crossings between the
Province of Ontario and the States of Michigan and New York
rely on revenues from commercial trucks and passenger vehicles
to finance projects and will be put at risk should WHTI be
carelessly implemented.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Zemsky to summarize his statement for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD ZEMSKY, PARTNER, TAURUS CAPITAL PARTNERS
LLC, BUFFALO NIAGARA PARTNERSHIP AND THE BINATIONAL TOURISM
ALLIANCE
Mr. Zemsky. Chairman Thompson, Congresswoman Slaughter,
Congressman Carney, Congressman Green, thank you for coming to
Buffalo. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.
I'm speaking on behalf of the Buffalo-Niagara Partnership,
our region's largest business association, and the Binational
Tourism Alliance, which represents more than 125 U.S. and
Canadian tourism organizations.
I can assure you that the multitude of business interests
represented by our remarks absolutely recognize the
overwhelming responsibility that falls on DHS to provide
homeland security since our world changed on September 11th,
2001.
We also believe there are ways to address security concerns
that will both increase our security and ensure the free and
fair flow of people and products that are so important to our
way of life and our economy.
We have shared a peaceful border with Canada for almost 200
years. Our relationship is extraordinary.
We share the world's largest trading relationship. An
estimated 1.2 billion in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada border
daily, supporting 5.2 million jobs nationally.
2005 statistics from the Office of Travel and Tourism in
Washington report 15 million Canadian visitors to the U.S.,
spending 8 billion on travel, accommodations, food, and
entertainment.
In New York State alone, that translates to 2.3 million
visitors and $2 billion spending.
You can best understand our cross-border relationships by
comparing the Niagara River to the Potomac River. Can you
imagine not being able to easily cross that river on a daily
basis and what it would do to the businesses and residents of
the D.C. area and surrounding communities if you could not?
The long-term health and sustainability of our region's
economy and communities depends on the ease of border
crossings. Local manufacturers receive and supply parts on both
sides of the border in just-in-time fashion. Our hospitals,
universities, colleges, retailers, sports teams, cultural and
tourism organizations, airports and transportation providers
all depend on the Niagara River crossings. From a local to a
national perspective, we believe it's critical to get WHTI
right.
My first testimony on this same subject was in November of
1905. The majority of our concerns continue to revolve around
implementation dates and documents.
The business community is skeptical that DHS and DOS have
allowed enough time to implement the proposed land crossing
plan, now less than a year away. At previous hearings, we've
been told by DHS their hands were tied by legislation which
mandated January 1, 2008.
But the legislation has been changed to June of 2009. Given
the importance of getting it right, we support June 2009
implementation.
The recent news stories regarding passport processing
problems, the press around the law's change to June of 2009,
DHS's announcement regarding land-marine delays until June of
2008, the prior published date of January of 2008 all lead to
confusion in the public's mind regarding implementation dates,
as you can surely understand.
We believe DHS should invoke a comprehensive communications
and public's awareness campaign throughout this process and
beyond this implementation to ensure all U.S. citizens and
visitors are made aware of travel requirements.
While both the organizations I represent continue to update
their members with regards to WHTI, the general public is quite
confused. The confusion also relates to documentation. Does one
need a license, a birth certificate, a notarized certificate, a
pass card, passport, or some combination? What will be required
to travel between our countries?
Add to that the different needs for air, land, and marine,
and you can understand the problem.
Confusion and congestion can't be good for security. I
think we've all got to the point where we acknowledge the
passport is a clumsy document for the types of crossings in our
region, generally stored in safe deposit boxes, not glove
compartments or wallets or handbags.
We are in favor of a secure driver's license. It is a
common document. It has multiple uses, is inexpensive, and can
be acquired at multiple locations.
We applaud DHS's acceptance of alternative documents to
cross the border with DHS supporting the Washington State
enhanced license program and encouraging other states to do the
same.
The appropriate time and resources should be allocated to
maximize this opportunity. This includes working closely with
the Canadian jurisdictions to complete the pilot program prior
to WHTI implementation.
Recent research indicates the vast majority of border
crossings are made by only 400,000 people at three crossing
points at Detroit, Buffalo, and Bellingham. By establishing
viable options of identification and inducing border residents
to use them, customs officials will be able to devote more time
to travelers they do not know, which enhances security and best
utilizes their services.
The business community believes the passport card that has
been proposed is still in the early planning and development
stages and will not be ready for implementation or wide
circulation by 2008. New and upgraded RFID reader technologies
will be required at most border crossing points to service
these programs. We need the time to properly implement these
technologies.
Additionally, all the ultimate changes will require
training for staff at the border so everyone communicates a
consistent message. Recognizing the number of full--and part-
time staff as well as seasonal workers who need to be kept
informed all suggest WHTI implementation in June of 2009.
We understand the logic in improving documentation
requirements for border crossings. We support that. Events have
shown terrorism is real, and we must take national security
very seriously, of course.
At the same time, we must take economic security seriously.
Here in Buffalo, our geography has always played a key role in
our economy. Historically, it has been our strategic location
along the east-west trade routes. In modern times, it's our
strategic location north and south.
We must think about how we can facilitate more trade and
tourism with Canada, not less. We seek physical security and
economic security, and we shouldn't settle for anything less.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Zemsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Howard A. Zemsky
Chairman Thompson, Congresswoman Slaughter and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Howard
Zemsky--I'm speaking on behalf of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, our
regions largest business association and on behalf of the Bi-National
tourism alliance, a not for profit organization dedicated to reducing
barriers across the Niagara River Crossings. Thank you for coming to
Buffalo.
We are here to discuss WHTI which came out of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which called for a
passport or ``other secure document or combination of documents to be
presented on seeking entry to the U.S.''.
This is a Homeland Security Committee and I know that all the
businesses represented by my remarks do recognize the overwhelming
responsibility that falls to DHS in providing homeland security. We
believe there are ways to address security concerns that will both
increase our security and ensure the free and fair flow of people and
products that are so important to our way of life and our economy.
We have shared a peaceful 3,000 + mile border with Canada for
almost 200 years. Our relationship is extraordinary--we share the
world's largest trading relationship between any two nations. An
estimated $1.2 billion in trade crosses the US-Canada border DAILY--
supporting 5.2 million jobs, this relationship is clearly not just of
local or northern interest it is clearly our national interest at all
levels. Last year Canadians visiting the U.S spent approx $10 billion.
About 4.0 million Canadians visit N.Y. State on an annual basis--many
hundreds of millions of dollars of impact--the majority come from
Ontario, our northern neighbor. For us locally, you can best understand
the Niagara River by thinking about the way you navigate the Potomac
River in the D.C area, you cross it every day. It's that way for us, we
live and work and play on both sides of the river. The health of our
economies including our local manufacturers that both receive and
supply parts on both sides of the border in a just in time fashion as
well as our tourist industry, our cultural organizations, many colleges
and universities, retailers including our largest retail centers, our
professional sports teams are all dependent on Niagara River Crossings.
So, from a national perspective (our largest trading partner in the
world) a State perspective and certainly a local perspective, we have
to get WHTI right, it's simply too important not to.
My first testimony on this same subject was in November 2005. When
you think about the rate of progress on this subject over the past
years, you can understand how the business community is skeptical that
we can implement WHTI at land crossings in less than a year. At
previous hearings we were told by DHS that their hands were tied by the
legislation which mandated 1/1/08. But the legislation has been changed
in response to the obvious inability to properly execute by than to
June 1, 2009. Given the importance of getting it right, why aren't we
taking the time that is now legislated? Instead, we create more
confusion by coming up with yet another date--June of 2008. It was hard
enough for people to keep track of the last dates, different for land
and sea, on top of different documents--is it nexus or drivers license
or birth certificate or notarized birth certificate, or passports, is
it Jan 2008, June 2008, June 2009???? All of these have been reported.
Is it any wonder the public is confused??? We sure haven't gotten it
right so far.
It's awfully hard to imagine that security is enhanced by the
confusion and congestion at our land crossings. We think we're headed
for trouble:
Does anyone really believe that given the frequency of river
crossings in our community a traditional passport is really the
appropriate document-would you want to use one to cross the Potomac? It
is clumsy and generally kept in a safe deposit box not a glove
compartment or a wallet or handbag. Furthermore we are all aware of the
severe backlog in processing passports- a backlog we were assured in
this same building by DHS only a few months ago was not going to occur,
has in fact occurred. Worse, once the land rule becomes a reality we
should expect an even greater backlog as there are many times more
people crossing the U.S Canada land border than by air. We believe the
summer of 2008 is not realistic and recommend planning for a later
implementation date of June 2009.
With respect to the passport card, we all know this card is still
in the planning stages and is no where near being available in wide
circulation by early 2008. We recommend planning for a later
implementation date of June 2009.
With new I.D's, RFID reader technology at most border crossing
points, state issued Ids to be negotiated, and many more items of
concern, we do not have the time nor resources available to implement
WHTI by summer of 2008. Implementation prior to DHS being fully ready
at all border crossings will cause severe delays at crossings, create
drops in number of crossings and create chaos and security concerns
that is easily avoidable. By implementing June 2009 DHS has the time
needed to fully prepare for the new rules.
The vast majority of border crossings are made by only 400,000
people at 3 crossing points--Detroit, Buffalo and Bellingham. If we can
establish a viable system of identification and induce these people to
use it customs officials will be able to devote much more time to
travelers they do not know. This enhances security.
We are in favor of secure WHTI drivers licenses. It has multiple
uses, is inexpensive and can be acquired at multiple locations. However
these programs have no chance of being widely available by the summer
of 2008 let alone early 2008. Time should be provided to the states,
provinces to engage with DHS and the Canadian Government to create
agreements on the format of the licenses, and implement these programs
before WHTI is implemented. We should take advantage of the Washington
State pilot program and to identify problems with the system and apply
solutions across the nation.
When a plan for WHTI is realistically developed it should be
supported by an extensive communications plan to inform the public.
Currently we have nothing but confusion.
When seek Congress to mitigate the cost of implementing WHTI
compliant licenses as a matter of national security.
We understand the logic in improving documentation requirements for
border crossings. We support that. Events have shown terrorism is real
and we must all take national security very seriously. At the same time
we must take economic security very seriously. Here in Buffalo our
geography has always played a key role in our economy. Historically it
has been our strategic location along the east-west trade routes. In
modern times it is our strategic location along north-south trade and
travel routes. We must be thinking of how we can facilitate more trade
and tourism with Canada, not less. We seek physical security and
economic security and we shouldn't settle for anything less.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts today.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Lynch to summarize her statement for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN LYNCH, 9-11 FAMILIES OF WESTERN NEW YORK
Ms. Lynch. Mr. Thompson and honorable members of this
Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address you here
today.
My name is Kathleen Lynch. I reside in Snyder, New York, a
local community. My brother, Michael Lynch, a firefighter, was
killed on September 11th.
I am here today representing a group of local 9/11 family
members to express our deep concern over the proposed delay in
the implementation of WHTI, the legislative enactment of an
important 9/11 Commission recommendation.
We are all residents of Western New York and recognize that
requiring a passport for land border crossings between the U.S.
and Canada will change a practice that has long been enjoyed by
border residents.
We are also family members of loved ones killed in the
September 11th attacks and a survivor. We have personally
experienced the cost or sacrifice that comes with a terrorist
attack. It is a sacrifice that we hope no person or family in
this border community will ever have to make.
So we watched in astonishment as Congress reacted to
panicked travelers by rushing to a so-called solution that
prolongs the risk to our national security.
Yes, the State Department botched the initial handling of
WHTI, but our elected representatives reacted by postponing a
vital border security initiative, putting our very lives at
risk. That, in our view, is both an overreaction and a high-
risk gamble, especially at a time when intelligence agencies
warn that al-Qa'ida is growing stronger and is seeking Western
operatives.
We realize that the language postponing WHTI was introduced
into the DHS appropriations bill in response to the backlog in
passport processing and the lack of development of passport
alternatives. We know that pressure has been placed on Congress
by constituents who resist this passport measure, citing
inconvenience, cost, and economic impact.
Though $9.70 per year for a 10-year passport is likely not
that burdensome for many travelers, we do recognize that it may
be so for low-income families and persons. Still, we believe
that with cooperation by Congress, the Departments of State and
Homeland Security, and our nation's citizens, these concerns
can be addressed without changing WHTI's original timetable.
Since passport cost and backlog are the key roadblocks
cited, we propose the following:
Lower the cost of passports by using unspent Homeland
Security funds to subsidize the expense to each passport
applicant. My understanding is that in Canada, a passport costs
$36. Maybe we should be aiming for the same.
Use available capital to reduce the cost of passports
themselves rather than now investing millions in creating
alternatives and see--provide federal income tax credits for
passport fees, especially for low-income families.
You can fix delays by increasing State Department
processing staff, by creating regional passport offices along
border communities like Buffalo-Niagara to expedite processing
and emergencies, and by requesting public cooperation so that
anyone with no immediate travel plans defers the application
until the backlog is under control.
We don't believe that the solution now lies in shifting
this important federal government function to the states, a
suggestion inherent in using enhanced driver's licenses as an
alternative. We fear that that concept poses its own problems,
not the least of which are delays in potential legislative
action, development and implementation of new technology, the
issue of funding and transferring cost to the state--from the
state--from the federal government to the state and to the
counties, hiring and training of specialized DMV staff,
security clearances that will be needed for DMV workers now
processing--basically processing citizenship documents, and
oversight measures to ensure that there are no security
breaches.
If every state implements a driver's license alternative as
an alternative to a passport, that security risk will be
multiplied by the thousands due to the vast number of DMV
locations.
A secure document for the purposes of verifying citizenship
already exists. It's a United States passport. Congressional
efforts should be directed towards facilitating passport
availability rather than delaying WHTI.
The fact that a record number of people have applied for
passports indicates a willingness on the part of U.S. citizens
to comply with this common-sense initiative. Unfortunately,
there was no effective early public awareness campaign to
accompany the initiative.
We recognize there is resistance to WHTI because of fears
that it will have an adverse impact on local economies of
border cities and states; however, if Americans can obtain
affordable passports within a reasonable time frame, the impact
of WHTI will be both temporary and minimal.
In contrast, the economic impact of a terrorist attack, no
matter where it occurs, will have a far more devastating ripple
effect on commerce and on travel, on our borders, on our first
responders, on our military, and--as we families and friends of
those lost on 9/11 can attest--on life itself.
On September 11th, my brother Michael performed the most
extraordinary act of sacrifice that a human being can perform.
Michael left behind a legacy of courage, courage in the face of
fear and adversity.
When my children ask me could Michael have said no, could
he have refused to enter the World Trade Center or allowed
others to perform this heroic act, I respond by telling them
no. Michael could not and did not abandon his obligation,
because it was his job as a firefighter to rescue others, even
if it meant losing his life.
Michael lived up to his responsibility to protect and save
others. We came here today to urge you, our elected officials,
not to abandon this primary responsibility to protect us as
citizens.
Please do not try to delay or transfer this important task.
You cannot falter simply because you have encountered obstacles
and opposition.
Stringent security at our borders is a very real and urgent
component of national security. WHTI eases a monumental burden
on our border officers who must otherwise sort through a vast
array of identification documents.
This measure should not be diminished in gravity or
priority. Rather than postpone WHTI, we urge you to support the
strategies we have suggested.
Solving the problems of availability and affordability
would enable WHTI, a vital national security safeguard, to be
implemented according to its original timetable. The American
people deserve nothing less.
I thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Lynch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen A. Lynch
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of this Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
My name is Kathleen Lynch. I reside in Snyder NY, a local
community. My brother Michael Lynch, a NYC Firefighter, was killed on
September 11th, while rescuing others from WTC Tower 2. I am here
today, representing a group of local WNY 911 family members, to express
our deep concern over the proposed delay in the implementation of
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), the legislative enactment
of an important 9/11 Commission recommendation.
We are all residents of Western New York and recognize that
requiring a passport for land border crossings between the US and
Canada will change a practice that has long been enjoyed by border
residents. We are also family members of loved ones killed in the
September 11th attacks and a survivor. We have personally experienced
the ``cost'' or sacrifice that comes with a terrorist attack. We know
that it is a far more devastating sacrifice than inconvenience,
frustration over delays, or the $97.00 ``cost'' attached to a passport.
It is a sacrifice that we hope no person or family in this border
community will ever have to make.
We watched in astonishment as Congress reacted to panicked
travelers by stampeding to a so-called ``solution'' that prolongs a
risk to our national security. Yes-the State Department botched the
initial handling of WHTI but our elective representatives reacted by
postponing a vital border security initiative, putting our lives at
risk. That is both an over-reaction and a high-risk gamble, especially
at a time when intelligence agencies warn that al-Qa'ida is growing
stronger and is seeking Western operatives.
We realize that the language postponing WHTI was introduced into
the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in response to
the backlog in passport processing and the lack of progress on passport
alternatives. We know that pressure has been placed on Congress by
constituents who resist this passport measure, citing inconvenience,
cost and economic impact. Though $9.70 per year for a 10-year passport
hardly seems burdensome for many people, when you balance that cost
against national security and the threat to human life, we understand
that it can be an obstacle for low-income persons and families.
Still, we believe that with innovative and collaborative thinking
by Congress, the Departments of State and Homeland Security, and our
nation?s citizens, these concerns can be addressed without changing
WHTI's original timetable.
Since passport cost and backlog are the key roadblocks cited, we
propose the following solutions:
Lower the cost of passports by:
(a) Re-appropriating some of the unspent Homeland Security
funds to subsidize the expense to each passport applicant;
(b) Applying available capital to reduce the cost of passports
themselves rather than investing millions in creating passport
alternatives;
(c) Introducing legislation that would give federal income tax
credits for passport fees, particularly for low-income
families.
Fix the delays by:
(a) Introducing and supporting legislation that will increase
State Department processing staff;
(b) Request public cooperation so that anyone with no immediate
travel plans defers their passport application until the
backlog is under control;
(c) Create regional passport offices along border communities
to expedite processing and handle emergencies.
We do not believe the solution lies in now shifting the
responsibility for this important federal government function to the
states, a suggestion inherent in using enhanced driver?s licenses as an
alternative. That concept poses its own problems, not the least of
which are delays in developing and implementation new technology, he
drawbacks and complications attendant in transferring the costs and
funding from the federal government to the state; the hiring and
training of specialized Department of Motor Vehicle staff; the security
clearances that will be needed for DMV workers processing citizenship
documents; and the oversight measures that will be needed by the State
to ensure there are no security breaches. If every state implements a
drivers? license alternative, that security risk will be multiplied by
the thousands, due to the vast number of DMV locations.
A secure document for purposes of verifying citizenship already
exists: a United States passport. Congressional efforts should be
directed toward facilitating passport availability rather than delaying
WHTI.
The fact that a record number of people have applied for passports
indicates a willingness on the part of US citizens to comply with this
common-sense initiative. Unfortunately, there was no effective early
public awareness campaign to accompany the initiative explaining the
need to start the application process early on, the exceptions for
children under 16, and the benefits of WHTI.
Finally, we recognize there is resistance to WHTI because of fears
that it will have an adverse impact on the local economies of border
cities and states. However, if Americans can obtain affordable
passports within a reasonable time frame, the impact of WHTI will be
both temporary and minimal. In contrast, the economic impact of a
terrorist attack, no matter where it occurs, will have a far more
devastating ripple effect: on commerce and travel, on our borders, on
our military and first responders, and? as the families and friends of
those lost on 9/11 can attest? on life itself.
We are Western New Yorkers, but we are Americans first. We should
be willing to bear the cost and minor inconvenience of using a passport
to cross the US land border.
On September 11th, my brother Michael performed the most
extraordinary act of sacrifice that a human being can perform. Michael
left behind a legacy of courage-courage in the face of fear and
adversity. When my children ask me, could Michael have said No? Could
he have refused to enter the World Trade Center or allow others to
perform this heroic act? I respond by telling them no. Michael could
not and did not abandon his obligation because it was his job as a
firefighter to rescue others-even if it meant losing his life. Michael
lived up to his responsibility to protect and save others.
We came here today to urge you, our elected officials, not to
abandon your primary responsibility to protect us as citizens. Please
do not try to delay or transfer this important task. You cannot falter
simply because you have encountered obstacles and opposition.
Stringent security at our borders is a very real and urgent
component of national security. WHTI eases a monumental burden on our
border officers who otherwise must sort through a vast array of
identification documents. This measure should not be diminished in
gravity or priority. Rather than postpone WHTI, we urge you to support
the strategies we have suggested. Solving the problems of availability
and affordability would enable WHTI, a vital national security
safeguard, to be implemented according to its original timetable.
The American people deserve nothing less.
Chairman Thompson. And thank you for your testimony, and I
assure you, this Committee and other Members of Congress that I
talk to will not abandon the families.
I now recognize Mr. Johnston to summarize his statement for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KELLY JOHNSTON, VICE-CHAIR, CANADIAN AMERICAN
BUSINESS COUNCIL
Mr. Johnston. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee. I really appreciate all of your leadership,
which is evidenced by your being here today, on border security
issues.
Congresswoman Slaughter, I want to thank you in particular
for being an especially tireless and effective advocate for
smart border policy. The business community is grateful for all
of your efforts.
I am here today in my capacity as Vice-Chair of the Board
of Directors of the Canadian American Business Council, the
CABC, which is a non-profit issues-oriented organization
dedicated to elevating the private sector perspective on public
policy challenges between the U.S. and Canada.
Our members are key business leaders from both sides of the
border. My company is a member of the CABC and supports the
work this organization is doing to enhance the Canada-U.S.
relationship.
I also want to note that my company is a member of the
North American Competitiveness Council, one of ten companies in
the U.S., the private sector entity of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership Initiative for North America, best known
as the SPP.
We support the goals of the NACC and the SPP to enhance the
secure flow of people, goods, and services in North America.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here today to express our commitment to
work with you, the Congress, and the Departments of Homeland
Security and State to successfully implement the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Let me stress the efficient
movement of people, goods, and services and a secure border are
not mutually exclusive or competing objectives. In fact, they
are necessarily intertwined.
Significant delays or ineffective and inconsistent border
procedures are not just hindrances to trade. They pose
potential security risks. The safety of our employees, our
products, and security of our supply chains is our first
priority, and without them, you simply cannot do business.
I am also here, Mr. Chairman, to express our significant
concerns about the harm that WHTI could inflict on legitimate
commerce, trade, and tourism if it is not implemented properly.
WHTI does not only affect border communities and
spontaneous travel but also the entire North American economy.
As we heard earlier, with more than $1.2 billion in goods and
services crossing our land border every single day involving
every state in the Union, it is imperative that we work
together to get this right.
The members of the CABC question the ability for WHTI to
increase security if DHS and State do not utilize the time
provided by Congress to ask for the necessary resources,
conduct pilot projects, and to perform an economic impact
analysis, including a study of the effect of border delays.
We are not seeking delay for delay's sake. We are not
seeking an indefinite extension. We're simply saying take the
time and the steps necessary to get it right.
Just to further summarize my written comments, the CABC is
ultimately concerned that the U.S.-Canada border crossings are
increasingly becoming a competitive disadvantage when compared
to the rest of the world and other key trading blocs in Europe
and Asia.
We're also concerned that the lack of adequate
infrastructure is not being adequately considered.
Also, security concerns must be balanced with economic
prosperity in a risk-based approach to border management.
Implementing WHTI without addressing border delays that it may
cause does not actually increase security. In fact, it may
become a security problem in its own right by creating economic
sitting ducks at busiest crossings.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to both the North American Free Trade
Agreement, NAFTA, and the closely connected economies of the
U.S. and Canada, the North American supply chain for many
companies, including my own, are highly integrated.
In the automotive industry, for example, a part may cross
the border as many as seven times before it makes its way to
the consumer.
In the food industry, a vegetable grown in the upper
Midwest or flour from New York, peppers from Texas or cocoa
from Pennsylvania may find its way into a product that is
processed just across the border in Ontario or Quebec and then
shipped back the U.S.
So delays at U.S. ports of entry don't just harm Canadian
processors. It backs up the entire supply chain, affecting even
the Midwestern farmer or the New York flour mill.
In addition, delays at U.S. ports have also resulted in
trucking companies dramatically raising prices to ship our
products or, in some cases, refusing our business because it's
just not worth the hassle.
And with the cascade of changes at ports of entry since 9/
11, from staffing shortages, reduced or changing hours of
service, mandates for secondary inspection of some products--
particularly in my industry, the food industry--and, of course,
new fees, it's hard to blame some transportation companies from
throwing in the towel.
Many of us simply get no advantages from C-TPAT membership
or FAST lanes.
In my written statement, I have highlighted key concerns
that must be addressed before full implementation of WHTI can
take effect.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee
members for providing me with this opportunity to present this
point of view. I want you to know the CABC is very grateful for
all of your work and hopes to remain a resource for you and
your colleagues in the future.
The Council strives to present a continental view in that
we look at WHTI as not just an issue that affects the border
communities but as one that affects the entire North American
integrated supply chain and the jobs that go with it, as well
as North America's ability to compete in the global
marketplace.
Thank you for your time today.
[The statement of Ms. Johnston follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kelly Johnston
Introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this
opportunity to testify this morning. I'd also like to thank
Congresswoman Slaughter for her terrific leadership on border
management issues. Congresswoman Slaughter has been a tireless and
effective advocate for smart border policy. The business community is
grateful for all of your efforts.
I look forward to engaging in a meaningful dialogue with you today
and am happy to answer any questions you may have.
I am here today in my capacity as Vice Chair of the Board of
Directors of the Canadian American Business Council (CABC). I am also
the Vice President for Government Affairs at Campbell Soup Company.
Established in 1987, the CABC is a non-profit, issues oriented
organization dedicated to elevating the private sector perspective on
public policy challenges. Our members are key business leaders from
both sides of the border. My company is a member of the CABC and is
extremely supportive of the work that this organization is doing to
enhance the Canada-US relationship. The CABC is the voice of business
in the US-Canada relationship, including border issues that affect the
entire North American economy. I also represent my company as a member
of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), the private
sector entity of the Security and Prosperity Initiative for North
America (SPP). We support the goals of the NACC, and the SPP, to
enhance the secure flow of people, goods and services in North America.
Campbell Soup Company is a global manufacturer and marketer of high
quality soup, sauces, beverage, biscuits, confectionery and prepared
food products. The company owns a portfolio of more than 20 market-
leading businesses worldwide each with more than $100 million in sales.
We operate 19 manufacturing facilities in 14 states, and additional
facilities in 21 other countries, including two in Ontario, Canada that
serve both the US and Canadian markets. The company is ably supported
by 24,000 employees worldwide, including more than 15,000 employees in
North America.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to express our commitment to work
with you, the Congress, and the Departments of Homeland Security and
State to successfully implement the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative. Let me stress the efficient movement of people, goods and
services and a secure border are not mutually exclusive or competing
objectives. In fact, they are necessarily intertwined. Significant
delays or ineffective border procedures are not just hindrances to
trade, they post potential security risks. The safety of our employees,
our products and the security of our supply chains is our first
priority, and without them, you simply cannot do business.
I am also here, Mr. Chairman, to express our significant concerns
about the harm that WHTI could inflict on legitimate commerce, trade
and tourism if it is not implemented properly. WHTI does not only
affect the border communities and spontaneous travel, but also the
entire North American economy. With more than $1.5 billion in goods and
services crossing our land border every single day, involving every
state in the Union, it is imperative that we work together to get this
right.
The Members of the CABC question the ability for WHTI to increase
security if DHS and State do not utilize the time provided by Congress
to ask for the necessary resources, conduct pilot projects and to
perform an economic impact analysis, including a study of the effect of
border delays. We are not seeking delay for delay's sake. We are not
seeking an indefinite extension. We are simply saying; take the time
and the steps necessary to get it right.
Key Concerns
The CABC is concerned that the US-Canada border crossings are
increasingly becoming a competitive disadvantage when compared to the
rest of the world and other key trading blocs in Europe and Asia.
Our concerns over the implementation of WHTI are based on
experience. Programs like CTPAT, Nexus, FAST, among others, haven't
lived up to expectations nor fully achieved their intended benefits to
commerce and tourism. Specifically, DHS decided not to implement US-
Visit at the land border because of the logistical nightmare it was
creating. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the business community
lacks confidence in the successful implementation of WHTI under the
current timetable?
On December 17, 2004, the Government of the United States and the
Government of Canada issued a statement announcing the signing of the
Smart Border Declaration. Among other important items, both governments
acknowledged in their statements that they were ``committed to building
a more secure, efficient and modern border. . .At the heart of the
Smart Borders process is the recognition that public security and
economic security can be achieved simultaneously and are mutually
reinforcing.'' The CABC is concerned that security concerns are not
being balanced with economic prosperity in a risk-based approach to
border management. Implementing WHTI without addressing border delays
that it will cause does not actually increase security, and may in fact
become a new security problem in its own right by creating economic
sitting ducks at the busiest crossings.
The US and Canada have the best intelligence sharing and law
enforcement cooperation in the world. Further, since 9/11, Canada has
spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the war on terror and homeland
security. The Harper government is eager to work closely with the Bush
Administration on homeland security issues. The business community is
not only concerned about the potentially negative impact WHTI will have
on commerce, but the current implementation plan's ability to better
secure the homeland.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to both the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the closely connected economies of the US and
Canada, the North American supply chain for many companies, including
my own, are highly integrated. In the automotive industry, a part may
cross the border as many as 7 times before it makes its way to the
consumer. In the food industry, a vegetable grown in upper Midwest, or
flour from New York, may find its way into a product that is processed
just across the border in Ontario or Quebec, and then shipped back to
the US. So delays at US ports of entry don't just harm Canadian
processors--it backs up the entire supply chain, affecting even that
Midwestern farmer or New York flour mill. In addition, delays at US
ports have also resulted in trucking companies dramatically raising
prices to ship our products, or in some cases, refusing our business
because it's just not worth the hassle. And with a cascade of changes
at port of entry since 9/11, from staffing shortages, reduced or
changing hours of service, mandates for secondary inspection of some
products, particularly in the food industry, and of course new fees,
its hard to blame some transportation companies from throwing in the
towel.
The following concerns must be addressed before full implementation
of WHTI can take place:
Given the uneven and incomplete implementation of the
NEXUS, FAST, CTPAT, Canpass, e-passport, Real-ID, Registered
Traveler and Transportation worker programs, what assurances
can DHS give about its ability to properly implement WHTI at
the land border by the summer of 2008 as estimated in the most
recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
The air rule was implemented in January 2007 and we
have already seen a variety of problems arise due to staffing
shortages at passport agencies and confusion among frequent
travelers. With greater commercial interests at stake at the
land border and greater logistical challenges with the variety
of crossings that exist, how can the business community be
assured that DHS and State will be ready to properly implement
WHTI by the summer of 2008 as estimated by the most recent
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
While we appreciate the administration's efforts to
outline a plan of implementation which will address
infrastructure enhancements, technology development, and
increased staffing--there is still a tremendous amount of
uncertainty. The business community needs to anticipate what's
coming next in order to properly adapt. This proves difficult
to do when there is a lack of transparency with regards to
implementation plans.
The NPRM, published in the Federal Register on June
26, 2007, states that DHS will comply with infrastructure
requirements by certifying that ``. . .the necessary passport
card infrastructure has been installed and employees have been
trained.'' We appreciate efforts to ensure that proper staffing
is in place and that the appropriate documents are issued, but
we are concerned about the physical infrastructure of the
Canada/US border crossings. How does DHS plan to address the
need for additional pull aside lanes for secondary inspections
and additional lanes for trusted travelers so that legitimate
goods, people and services can cross the border in a timely
fashion that does not impede commerce?
The NPRM addresses Executive Order 12866 which
requires the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a cost/
benefit analysis of the proposed rule. The assessment focuses
on travel and tourism and does not appear to address the larger
concerns of the business community and the integrated North
American supply chain. How does DHS plan to implement pilot
projects to assess the potential impact of WHTI on cross-border
commerce so that final implementation of WHTI does not
negatively affect our economic prosperity and security?
Recommendations
With the leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico schedule
to meet in Ottawa next month to discuss the Security and Prosperity
Partnership and the recent recommendations of the NACC, among other
things, what can we expect them to say about WHTI? What progress will
there be to report? What will the next steps being following the August
meeting?
The CABC urges DHS to adhere to the goals stated in the
Security and Prosperity Partnership and to work together with Canada in
an effort to make our common border both more secure and efficient.
Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the NACC, the
government leadership and the private sector have both identified
proper implementation of WHTI as a key priority.
In order to properly implement WHTI at the land crossings,
the CABC asks that DHS use the additional time provided by Congress to
get it right. As stated in the FY08 House Homeland Security
Appropriates bill, the CABC supports the need for DHS to provide the
results of pilot programs used to develop and implement WHTI.
Specifically, the pilot projects need to address infrastructure and
staffing requirements, detailed plans for further implementation,
explanation of technology requirements, and test results that ensure
operational success.
We ask that DHS recognize the need to advance the dual
objectives of security and facilitation. Enhancing security and
improving economic prosperity are mutually reinforcing.
We ask that DHS acknowledge the tremendous economic
impact of border management policy. Canada and the United
States enjoy the largest trading relationship in the world
which depends upon the efficient movement of legitimate goods,
services and people across our common border. Failure to
address key border management issues affects the integrated
North American supply chain, impacts US and Canadian business,
and reflects negatively on North American competitiveness vis a
vis the rest of the world.
Conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for providing
me with this opportunity to present the point of view of the larger
business community. The CABC is grateful for all of your work and hopes
to remain a resource for you and your colleagues in the future. The
Council strives to present a continental view in that we look at WHTI
as not just an issue that affects the border communities, but as one
that affects the North American integrated supply chain and North
American competitiveness vis a vis the rest of the world. We believe
that it is paramount that the public and private sectors work together
to get this right so that we actually achieve greater security and
improve our economic prosperity.
Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Stewart Verdery to summarize his
statement for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEWART VERDERY, PARTNER AND FOUNDER, MONUMENT
POLICY GROUP
Mr. Verdery. Mr. Chairman and Chairwoman Slaughter and
members of the Committee, thanks for the invitation to return
to your Committee in a different setting. As the last witness,
I'll try to--try to go fast.
I had the privilege of working as Assistant Secretary of
Homeland Security when we devised the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative and convinced the 9/11 Commission and eventually the
Congress to enact it and have had a good deal of experience
watching this over the last few years and hopefully have a
series of recommendations for you as we move towards final
implementation over the next couple years.
I, of course, agree with the rationale for the law that was
presented by the government witnesses on the first panel, and I
am convinced that, if done correctly, like US-VISIT at the
ports of entry can be a facilitator as well as a security
enhancement.
The--improving our entry process and identity documents is
a question of will and priority. Implementation of WHTI in a
manner and on a schedule that facilitates international
commerce while closing one of our most glaring holes in our
counter-terrorism strategy is not impossible, but it takes a
funding commitment from the Congress. It takes a willingness to
partner with states, with the Canadian government and
provincial governments, and it requires a very reasonable
request of our citizens and those from Canada that they cannot
expect to drive into the United States, into a--into the United
States, which is under attack from extremists, merely by
presenting a friendly face or an identity document that a 15-
year-old can create in ten minutes with photo-editing software
and a color printer.
Hopefully, these ten recommendations will help us get it
right:
First, Department of State should move as expeditiously as
possible to develop, purchase, and distribute passport cards
for WHTI compliance purposes.
Two, Congress should encourage DHS to enter into
partnerships with as many states as are willing to build dual-
use enhanced driver's licenses, EDLs, suitable for WHTI
purposes. An EDL will be issued after a security background
check that is better than what is used for a passport or a pass
card, not worse.
Third, DHS should promulgate regulations outlining exactly
what technical specifications states and Canadian governments
should follow in building EDLs, which will operate essentially
the same as a passport card. For the inspector, for Bob
Jacksta's individuals, it won't matter to them whether they're
seeing a federally issued passport card, a state EDL, or a
Canadian EDL.
Four, Congress should require the State Department to
accept inquiries from participating states as to whether a
driver's license applicant would be approved for a passport as
part of that state's decision whether to issue an EDL.
Five, Congress should fund the full request from the
Department of Homeland Security to retrofit travel lanes in and
out of the country to read the RFID documents in the passport
card, EDL, and other documents.
Six, Congress should provide a one-time appropriation of at
least $300 million for Real ID-related expenses incurred by
states, with grants that are meant to build the EDL receiving
first priority.
Seven, DHS should finalize regulations as soon as possible
that are in proposed form now to implement Real ID so states
know exactly what they need to do to come into compliance.
Eight, Congress should authorize a series of monthly
surveys to ascertain the percentage of Americans and Canadians
contemplating a land border crossing with the United States,
the percentages who are aware of the WHTI requirement, and the
percentage who have WHTI-compliant documents. Such surveys
should be conducted not only in border regions but also non-
border regions, who may not be as familiar with the
requirement.
Nine, DHS and the State Department should modify the first
phase of their proposed land border implementation plan
announced in June of this year to require only a government-
issued identification document for border crossing, not a
combination of a driver's license and a birth certificate,
which is destined to cause immense confusion and backlash,
especially when the interim rules are likely to only be in
effect for several months.
And finally, DHS and the State Department should seek full-
scale implementation of WHTI when the following conditions have
been met:
A, the passport card technical specifications have been
available to Canadian governments for at least six months in
order to build their own versions.
B, the passport card has been available to the U.S. public
for at least three months and applications are being fulfilled
within one.
C, DHS has issued regulations accepting EDLs for WHTI
compliance purposes.
And finally, Congress has funded and DHS has implemented
RFID and other infrastructure improvements at no less than one-
third of the primary lanes of ports of entry into the United
States.
I'm convinced that the criteria outlined above could and
should be implemented to allow WHTI implementation at the land
borders of the United States by the end of 2008.
With that, I welcome your questions and thank you for the
opportunity to be here again today.
Chairman Thompson. And thank you for your testimony and the
testimony of all the witnesses on this panel.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes. Mr.--
Koessler?
Mr. Koessler. Koessler.
Chairman Thompson. Koessler. Thank you very much.
Can our ports of entry, in your estimation, support the
current demand for these trusted traveler programs, as far as
you've been able to ascertain?
Mr. Koessler. I can only speak for the Peace Bridge.
Chairman Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Koessler. We desperately need a new plaza on the United
States side.
Chairman Thompson. You desperately need----
Mr. Koessler. A new plaza with customs--enhanced customs
facilities there to perform the--the duties that would be
needed under WHTI or any other.
Chairman Thompson. And your reason for--for saying that is
that if not, what do you see happening?
From a commerce standard.
Mr. Koessler. Long delays across the bridge.
They're occurring as we speak.
Chairman Thompson. Just trying to get it on the record.
Ms. --Lynch.
Ms. Lynch. Yes.
Chairman Thompson. Some of the witnesses here have
testified that an enhanced driver's license card would be the
direction to go.
Can you amplify why you have some concerns about that?
Ms. Lynch. Sure. It's--the concerns really revolve around
the delays in implementation.
First of all, the 9/11 Commission recommended the
passport--or alternative to a passport independently of
standardization of the driver's license. That was a
supplemental recommendation.
And while, you know, we understand that there is a pilot
program going on in Washington, our concern is--I mean, as we
can see, this is occurring. When will it happen? And each day
that we don't have a process that adequately protects our
borders to us is a grave risk.
So our concern really is in the delays.
We're not saying that ultimately, an enhanced driver's
license or other alternatives may not work. What we're saying
is right now, we need to focus on fixing the problems with the
passport issue, making it affordable so that people can cross
our borders now with those documents, ease some of the delays
that happen at the Peace Bridge, because it'll actually, I
think, enhance travel over the Peace Bridge.
That's the focus now.
We can't afford to wait, Congressman. That's our position.
We can't afford to wait.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Zemsky, can you provide for the Committee your analysis
of WHTI's potential impact on small businesses?
Mr. Zemsky. Well, in our region--this is a local
perspective.
We--the Niagara River is just such a core part of our
lifestyles here, and people live on both sides of the border.
Small businesses depend on cross-border tourism. Our cultural
organizations, our sports teams.
It's--it's like the Potomac. It's just central to our way
of life here. We've never thought of it or treated it any
differently.
So I--I don't have an exact economic impact study, but I
would tell you intuitively and just in speaking to so many
businesses in the associations that I'm involved with, people
are terrified about any increases.
The confusion already has been huge. You can imagine all
that's been published about the different dates and different
travel documents. We would have a hard time in this room,
people who have been close to this issue and answering
questions the same way on these issues--I guarantee you very
few of us would be able to get the right answers. That's how
confusing it is.
For the public, they've given up on this issue a while ago.
I mean, this is really becoming a very small dialogue between
people who are--it's becoming an esoteric topic.
But people are giving up on it, and I think it's a real
shame. I think it's going to have a huge impact, and--and has,
and I think the chances of it having a larger impact are great,
because there's going to be a lot, and especially now that
we're talking about partial implementation dates.
I mean, I don't think anybody understands what's coming in
January and then again in June and whether it's going to change
again. There's no communication efforts that we're aware of.
So I think we're--we're headed for real trouble, and I--and
we also believe that the confusion and the congestion is not in
the interests of security.
So we're worried about it.
Chairman Thompson. And I think we've heard that loud and
clear from a number of the witnesses on this panel, that both
from a marketing and an outreach standpoint, WHTI probably has
been a public relations nightmare, to say the least, and just
postponing the inevitable does not avoid the nightmare. It just
delays it. So this Committee is--is concerned about that.
I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Carney.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Zemsky, first of all, it's awful tough to get across
the Potomac about 7:45 in the morning. I, unfortunately, make
that drive every day.
You just said ``giving up on it,'' the local folks are
giving up.
What do you mean?
Mr. Zemsky. I just mean--I just mean that I think there's a
lot of people that have given up on really understanding what
the technical requirements are going to be or--or are, and so
they're just staying away from the borders because it's too
confusing.
You ask ten people on the street--friends, relatives,
business associates, you name it--``What do I need now,'' you
will get ten different answers.
So, I mean, that was maybe an exaggerated way of making the
point that I think people are awfully confused and many are
just staying away from the border.
Mr. Carney. Well, let me ask it this way to all of you, to
Mr. Koessler, Mr. Zemsky, and Mr. Johnston:
What has DHS done and the State Department done to educate
the area about what's needed?
Have they done outreach to any of you? Have you had
discussions with them at all?
Mr. Zemsky. It's been very limited. I think, for example,
the NEXUS card, which has been, I think, available for five
years or more, has an incredibly small number of users.
And we've talked for a long time about increasing
communications and streamlining the process and expanding the
number of locations you can apply for and receive the NEXUS
card, and there's still--there hasn't really been a lot in that
respect.
So I think we're worried about the communications. I don't
think money has been set aside or there's been a real effort
toward communicating with the public.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Koessler.
Mr. Koessler. I would agree with that. We've tried to
promote the NEXUS card ourselves and can't seem to get any
cooperation out of either--either side, U.S. or Canadian
customs, because they feel it's somehow a conflict of interest.
It's a valuable card, the NEXUS card, to both the customs
and to the users, and but there seems to be some blockage in
the ability to really promote it and bring it out.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Johnston?
Mr. Johnston. I would say that there hasn't been a
tremendous amount of outreach.
I will tell you that I know we don't ship our own products
from Canada into the U.S. We have third-party customs brokers
that do that for us.
They do encourage all the drivers they utilize to have a
NEXUS card; however, there is increasing analytical evidence
that even NEXUS cards--that an increasing number of drivers are
being pulled aside for secondary inspection, defeating the
entire purpose.
This is supposed to be a trusted traveler program, so it
defeats the purpose of trying to promote NEXUS cards when, in
fact, you're being pulled aside or have an increased chance of
being pulled aside for a lengthy secondary inspection.
Mr. Carney. From a business perspective gentlemen, have you
had discussions with DHS or State on what it means to the local
economies?
I mean, have you had your input? Have you had an
opportunity to have that input?
Mr. Zemsky. Well, for me personally, this is the third time
I've had an opportunity to speak on this subject in a hearing
of this manner, and oftentimes--and--and in addition to that,
there's been other non-Congressional hearings that DHS has
participated in.
And we've been able to say it. You know, we've been able to
say it many times. I just--you know, I don't know----
Mr. Carney. Whether anybody's heard it.
Mr. Zemsky. Yes, I'm not sure.
But, I mean, I'll say this: I guess the wheels of
government might be known to move slowly from time to time, but
we are starting to move, and--you know, the acceptance, for
example, of alternative documents and the enhanced driver's
license program.
I think--I don't want to characterize it as no progress has
been made in some of these areas. Some progress has been made,
and we think that's--that's good, and we're--we're--we're
pleased to be able to say that.
But, you know, these dates--we were assured not that many
months ago that there was plenty of staffing, everything was
fine, there'd be no problem issuing the passports. This was
only a few months ago.
I was in that hearing. I expressed my concern on that very
matter. I was told in no uncertain terms absolutely,
positively, I was, you know, incorrect, and--so, you know, we
are--we continue to be worried, and our experiences suggest
that we are right to be worried.
A programmatic change of this magnitude affecting the
largest trading relationship in the world with so many people
across such a wide area is going to take a long--some--more
time to change than I think has been identified to date.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
My time's up, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
witnesses, for appearing.
I especially thank you, Ms. Lynch, for your service and for
continuing to stay involved in this process. Yesterday, the
Chairman convened a meeting of a conference Committee, and we
had some persons there at that conference Committee who
represented 9/11 families, and I just want you to know that we
greatly appreciate the service that you're bringing to your
country.
Ms. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Green. I am a fairly good observer of body language. In
fact, I've gone out of my way to study it to some extent and
have had about four or five courses in body language, and it's
really helpful.
But I--the body language, Mr. Zemsky and Mr. Verdery--is it
Verdery?
Mr. Verdery. Verdery.
Mr. Green. All right.
Between the two of you--you weren't observing each other,
but I was.
And this is not to put you at odds with each other, but my
sense is that you each have some concern with what the other
has said, and I would like to give you an opportunity to say
it.
Not in a confrontational way, of course, but I want you to
have the opportunity to address some of the concerns raised by
each other.
Mr. Zemsky, do you have some concern that you would--would
address?
Mr. Zemsky. With respect to----
Mr. Green. In terms of some of the comments made by Mr.
Verdery as he was making his comments.
Mr. Zemsky. No, not--not really, actually.
Mr. Green. You don't want to make any comments about any of
the things that he said.
Mr. Zemsky. I think I might have just been hungry.
No, I feel generally what I've heard--what I--is I think we
mostly--I really like the ideas.
Mr. Green. So his recommendations----
Mr. Zemsky. I'm sorry.
Mr. Green. Did you--did you hear his recommendations.
Mr. Zemsky. He had several. I haven't read them. I was, you
know, paying attention to--to several.
I think that--you know, I won't be able to recite all of
them, but----
Mr. Green. Are you in agreement with those that you did
here.
Mr. Zemsky. Yes, I was in agreement with some of them in
terms of the lead time, and I think the essence of some of what
I heard--I may be wrong--is we should implement WHTI when we
really have the capability to implement WHTI as opposed to
picking dates arbitrarily and then backing into it.
So it's important that we get it right, and the date ought
to reflect and be--have some flexibility to reflect our
capabilities.
Mr. Green. Mr. Verdery?
Mr. Verdery. Just two--two quick points and not so much in
disagreement with his testimony, but----
Mr. Green. Not disagreement, just comments.
Mr. Verdery. I have some sympathy for the government
witnesses, having sat in their shoes, as to this idea of lack
of communication, and that's partially because the rules have
not been finalized.
There's a rulemaking going on. Congress last year put down
additional conditions, and so, you know, they're the goalposts
that move, and they are struggling their best to meet those
goalposts.
You'll see a rule that will be finalized this year, and
people will have a chance to comment on it, but I have some
sympathy for that kind of a complaint.
The second point is this is not an either/or situation. We
shouldn't have all of our eggs in one basket. It shouldn't be
just everybody's got to go get a pass card or everybody's got
to get a better driver's license.
We need people to have some options, because we don't want
to rely on one single program, as we saw with the passport
situation right now.
What the important thing is, is that, for the inspector,
they work the same and that he is not--he or she is not trying
to distinguish between 8,000 documents and that they access the
databases and they provide that inspector with the information
they need.
Who purchased it, who built the thing is irrelevant if it
works for the inspector.
And that includes the NEXUS cards that should also be
expanded.
Mr. Green. Mr. Koessler, did you make a comment about the
appeals process?
Mr. Koessler. NEXUS, yes.
When a NEXUS card has been taken away from someone, the
appeals process is very difficult to get through. People come
to me and our people to help, and it's a difficult situation
now.
And the renewal--at this point, there is no indication on
your card when it expires and when it needs to be renewed. I
passed through the NEXUS post about six weeks ago on my way
back from a--a board meeting at the Peace Bridge, and my card
was--was confiscated because they said it had run out.
And after all sorts of finagling, it turns out that what
happened is I renewed my passport, and the card is tied to the
passport, so they--it no longer had the same number on it.
Showed up on their scene. I had no idea.
Mr. Green. Has this been rectified.
Mr. Koessler. Yes.
Mr. Green. How long did it take.
Mr. Koessler. It--it--it was done very quickly.
Mr. Green. It was?
Just to give you some degree of comfort, we have a
colleague whose name is John Lewis, and we've been trying to
get his--his identification clarified for, I believe, a number
of--of years----
Chairman Thompson. Years.
Mr. Green. --years now.
When he attempts to travel, he still has some degree of
difficulty.
Chairman Thompson. There is a John Lewis who is a very bad
guy, but it's not him.
Mr. Green. One more thing.
You mentioned the need for a plaza.
In terms of this--this plaza, have you--have you called
this to the attention of--of persons who are in a position to--
to perhaps try to provide some--help you with your concern?
Mr. Koessler. Well, we're in the midst of trying to build a
new bridge and a new plaza. We have not--we have now completed
a plaza on the Canadian side which seems to work very well.
Initially, there was negotiations going on between Homeland
Security and the Canadian equivalent to put the U.S. customs on
the Canadian side. It was called shared border management.
Would have been much more efficient for--for us as bridge
operators.
They came to the conclusion, after almost two and a half
years of negotiating, that it wasn't going to work.
Now we're faced with building a plaza in the U.S., and
they're telling us that these things have to be updated and--as
quickly as possible.
And we're--we're in a go position. We just need what they
need.
Mr. Green. I'll yield to the Chair.
Chairman Thompson. Well, I guess that I'll--I'll let the
representative from the area help answer that question,
because----
Ms. Slaughter. Yes, I don't want to take any time, because
with the exception of Ms. Lynch and Mr.Verdery, I'm in pretty
much close contact with the other three.
Shared border management was negotiated under Secretary
Ridge and Prime Minister Hanley, and we operated, again, on--
two and a half years on the assumption that it would work. The
Canadians went ahead.
It really depended, Chairman, on who had the most land and
area on which side of the border.
So they were chosen all the way through. There was going to
be one on the York side up in Luque's (phonetic) district; on
our side, it was going to be over in Buffalo along the Peace
Bridge.
They built theirs, I think at a cost of about $43 million,
which was adequate to take all the traffic and do all the
inspections; and then one day --and I--I'm not exaggerating
this--one afternoon I got a call from DHS that they weren't
going to do it because it is so dangerous in Buffalo.
Now, it was not dangerous enough in Buffalo for them to
give us money last year, and the money that we want, if you
recall--we had this asterisk by our name, which meant that we
weren't going to get very much.
We eventually got some, but there are numbers of us all
across the border who think we would like to try to salvage it,
if we can. I think the cost on our side now would be about $36
million that we will need to pay, which we would not have
needed to pay had they kept the original agreement.
Second, on the fall-off on travel, I'm--I've been told by
Bridge Authority--and, of course, they use the revenue of
people crossing the bridges to maintain them--that they are
concerned enough about the fall-off in that money that they've
expressed it to me.
I've heard as high as one-third. I don't have any way to
prove that, but as high as one-third less people--fewer people
have crossed the border in the last year going either way than
had before WHTI came up.
And as both of you--all of you expressed so eloquently,
it's put us off considerably here not really knowing where we
stand.
But I'm not going to ask questions of the panel, but I want
to thank all of you for coming, and Ms. Lynch, we are all--we
suffered such an awful loss, New York more than any other
place, and--but I--I want to tell you, if it--if it's any
comfort to you at all, I've talked to people from the City of
New York and also from New Orleans.
They told me in--the governor in New Orleans told me not
two weeks ago that when that hurricane hit, that before the
government set a foot on the ground, firemen from Buffalo and
Rochester were there.
I--it's hard to understand your pain and your sacrifice,
but believe me, the idea--and I always like to say, ``How do we
thank people?''
When everybody else was trying get out of the World Trade
Center, they ran in.
Ms. Lynch. Yes.
Ms. Slaughter. So thank you for that.
Thank you for coming, Mr.Verdery, as well, and thank all of
you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much, and I'd like to
thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond expeditiously
in writing to those questions.
I'd like to again acknowledge our County Clerk, who's been
so attentive and helpful, and I look forward to her testimony
for the record.
It's one thing to hear the problems, but when you're
involved in the day-to-day processing of them, I can imagine,
just given the testimony that we've heard, how difficult and
challenging that can be.
So, Ms.Hochul, thank you very much.
For the witnesses, again, thank you very much. We will look
forward to trying to fix this issue associated with our border
here and our other borders.
The Homeland Security Committee has border as its primary
jurisdiction. We plan to look at some initiatives to facilitate
securing the border.
We want to do it smart. We are not at all challenged to
make sure that business can work and do their business on a
day-to-day basis.
We're not interested in putting people out of business
because of security. Americans--when President Kennedy
challenged us to put somebody on the moon, it was a little far-
fetched, but Americans did it, and if we have to provide
security for our borders, I'm certain we can do it smarter. I'm
certain it will not impede technology, and we can make it cost-
effective so that those individuals who need to travel across
the border will not be prevented because of a price associated
with the document.
Hearing no further business, I would allow our host to--to
close out the Committee, if she would like to.
Ms. Slaughter. I certainly would.
Again, I want to thank the Erie County Legislature for
their graciousness and the Clerk for her good work, but I
really thank all of you witnesses who have taken the time to
come this morning. I think you've been very enlightening.
And I certainly thank my colleagues for taking the time to
come up. I'm hoping we can show them the Whirlpool Bridge and
how NEXUS works before they have to leave.
Thank you, once again, and thank you again, Mr. Chair, Mr.
Carney, and Mr. Green.
Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
For the Record
Prepared Statement of Kathleen Courtney Hochul
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony before
the Homeland Security Committee at your hearing in Buffalo, New York on
July 20 relative to an enhanced driver's license as a proposed
substitute for a passport for the re-entry across the border from
Canada.
As Erie County Clerk, responsible for the administration of the
local auto bureaus, I certainly pledge full cooperation with State and
Federal Government to secure our borders. Having said that, as Erie
County Clerk, I am compelled to draw the Committee's attention to the
significant financial impact the enhanced driver's license proposal
would have on the operation of the auto bureaus. As currently proposed,
the taxpayers of Erie County could end up paying for this federally
mandated initiative.
As a border community, where our residents and our friends to the
North enjoy regular passage to and from our countries, any such
requirement will have a more significant impact than from non-border
States. If an enhanced driver's license is required, the existing
644,404 County licensed drivers and 259,000 holders of non-driver ID
cards in Erie County would be encouraged to apply for new licenses. The
anticipated volume would be staggering. Our existing staff, which is
still 40 less employees than were employed before layoffs of the Erie
County 2005 budget crises, would not be able to handle the dramatic
increase in activity. In order to implement this new mandate and
properly serve our residents, we would need to establish a separate
license processing center. Our initial start up cost estimates to
handle projected volume would be $1.4 million dollars to cover expenses
of training staff, computers, servers, work stations, cameras, T-1
lines, phones, faxes and leasing space. Another $1.2 million would be
required annually for operating costs. Prior to an effective date for
the requirement of an enhanced ID card, we would need to ensure that a
centrally located licensing center is fully funded, operational and
effective for the residents of this County.
While the proposed enhanced driver license proposal may well be to
be a viable alternative for re-entry across the border, I have
significant concerns that directly affect the operation of the Erie
County auto bureaus. As a former legislative assistant and attorney on
the Washington staffs of both Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and
Congressman John J. LaFalce, I am well familiar with the practice of
federal mandates being imposed that result in additional costs for
localities. In this situation, I asking that the source of the funding
be identified as part of the initiative, to eliminate any additional
cost to County taxpayers.
I wish to re-iterate that I am intimately familiar with the urgent
need to protect our borders and stand ready to offer the full services
of the Erie County Clerk's office to work with New York State and the
Department of Homeland Security to cooperate in any way necessary. This
offer includes Erie County as a pilot program similar to the pilot
instituted in the State of Washington. However, I need to be involved
in the planning and to ensure that the necessary resources are in
place.
I look forward to addressing to working in partnership with the
Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State of New
York in developing and implementing a proper enhancement in our system
of identification for purposes of border crossing.
Material Submitted by Kathleen Courtney Hochul
BESTT Coalition
Business for Economic Security, Trade and Tourism Coalition of the US &
Canada
TO:
Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
Ranking Member Peter T. King
House Homeland Security Committee
FROM:
BESTT Coaliton (Business for Economic SecurityTourism & Trade)
REGARDING:
Field Hearing on Western Hemisphere Travel Intiative (WHTI)
Land and Marine Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute Inc.
700 Ellicott St., Buffalo, NY
July 20, 2007
On behalf of the BESTT Coalition, please accept this written
testimony regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining
to the implementation of the land and sea portions of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).
The BESTT Coalition is an international coalition of businesses and
trade associations from across the United States and Canada, led by the
Buffalo (NY) Niagara Partnership, the Detroit (MI) Regional Chamber of
Commerce, and the Bellingham/Whatcom (WA) Chamber of Commerce &
Industry. We share a common concern about the ramifications of the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) as it pertains to the
northern border region. Our goal is to raise awareness of the important
cultural and fiscal ties that exist across the 5,500-mile-long border,
and to help ensure public policies that promote these ties, while still
addressing the legitimate security concerns of both countries.
Combined, members of BESTT represent 300,000 North American businesses,
and millions of jobs.
WHTI and the Northern Border
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which came out of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, called for a
passport or other secure document, or combination of documents, to be
presented upon seeking entry to the United States. The provision
specifically addressed areas like the Canada/US Border, where such
documents have not been required.
As residents of and/or businesses leaders located in the Canada/US
Border Region, we support the intentions of Congress and the Bush
Administration to address all legitimate security threats to the United
States, including those pertinent to our region. We believe there are
ways to address these concerns that will both increase our security and
ensure the free and fair flow of people and products. It is our
intention through this written testimony to assist Congress in
achieving that goal.
Relevance of Northern Border
Historically, it has been said that the United States and Canada
share the longest non-militarized, non-actively patrolled border in the
world. Canadian Ambassador to the United States Michael Wilson has
recently amended this common characterization, citing numerous facts to
proclaim that our shared border is the longest secure border in the
world.
One thing that is unquestionable, however, is our strong fiscal
ties, as we share the world's largest trading relationship between any
two nations.
An estimated $US 1.2 billion in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada
border daily, supporting 5.2 million jobs. Last year Canadians visiting
the U.S. spent roughly $10 billion, nearly 80% of which supported
activities like dining, hotel stays and gift purchases. Canadian
spending in the U.S. has increased 39% over the last ten years and is
one of few areas where Americans enjoy a trade surplus. These figures
should have been expected to rise as the Canadian dollar strengthened
in the last two years, yet disappointingly, given real and perceived
difficulties in border crossings, Canadian visits to the U.S. have seen
no significant increase. Total annual crossings in 2005 compared to
1995 show as much as a 50% decline, and there has been no significant
increase in Canadian visits in the last 5 years, diminishing the likely
potential benefits of the strengthening Canadian dollar.
In 2005 there were an estimated 32 million trips from the U.S. to
Canada, and an estimated 38 million trips from Canada to the U.S. An
estimated 75% of the time these trips are made crossing the U.S./Canada
land border, which accounts for the majority of crossings.
BESTT Coalition Response
The BESTT Coalition has reviewed the NPRM, and has found several
points to address. These areas include:
Areas in Which the Coalition Supports the NPRM
Support for Removing Children from the Requirements of
WHTI
Support for Ensuring Ease of Crossing for Native North
Americans
Support for other approved documents, including
Canadian province-issued Drivers Licenses
Areas in Which the Coalition Has Strong Concerns About the NPRM
No firm implementation date
Lack of definition for ``availability of WHTI
compliant documents''
Problems with proposed phased implementation
Lack of a publicity campaign about the rules and
timeframes for implementation
Concerns about the economic impact study provided in
the NPRM
Expenditure flows in impact study--Separate North and
South
Lack of time to implement alternative documents prior
to implementation
Lack of sufficient infrastructure to implement rules
RFID Infrastructure at more than the 39 most
frequently used crossings
No appeals board for NEXUS provided
No clear way of renewing NEXUS cards other than
reapplying
Lack of a streamlined mechanism for renewing passports
No discussion of the impacts of the increase in the
number of lost and stolen passports and other documents
No plan to address the enormous increases the plan
will create for wait times
Concerns surrounding the certification of preparedness
for final implementation
Suggestions on Items the NPRM Should Cover
Meeting with all state DL Directors by Jan 08, before
completion of pilot
Questions concerning whether Real-ID and WHTI
requirements are analogous
Strong desire to see a more robust coordination with
Canada
Each area of support, concern, or comment is described in detail
herein.
Support for Removing Children from the Requirements of WHTI
We support the provisions being made for children, both traveling
with their families and in groups with chaperones. These provisions are
important for border communities, and we encourage DHS to continue to
ensure children are not impacted in their ability to access the border.
Support for Ensuring Ease of Crossing for Native North Americans
BESTT supports efforts to ensure Native North Americans can easily
access the border, especially those whose tribes, bands or nations
cross the border region. We encourage DHS to continue to work with
Native Peoples on these programs, providing a mechanism to cross the
border that is as streamlined as possible.
Support for other approved documents, including Canadian province-
issued Drivers Licenses
BESTT especially wants to thank DHS for its acceptance of
alternatives to the passport as a means of crossings the border.
Approval of Drivers' Licenses, especially those issued by the Provinces
and Territories of Canada, is a substantial change in policy, and one
we are extremely pleased to see. We encourage DHS to continue to
promote these alternatives, and to implement WHTI only after these
forms of ID are available and in wide circulation.
No Firm Implementation Date
One of the most frustrating issues surrounding the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative has been the lack of a clear
implementation date. While Congress agreed to a June 2009 date for
final implementation, DHS has been extremely reluctant to that date,
and has continued until this NPRM to say January 2008.
Know that the NPRM has been released, that date for final
implementation is Summer of 2008, yet another new time frame, with no
date certain provided. The public across both the US and Canada is
already confused about what ID's are needed for what types of
crossings, and on what dates these rules will change.
The BESTT Coalition believes that we must provide clarity of the
date the rules will be imposed, while ensuring both the US and Canadian
Governments can meet the ID demands of their citizens so that they may
continue to access the border. We strongly believe that date is June
2009.
Lack of Definition for ``Availability of WHTI Compliant Documents''
In section IV, subsection 2 (Implementation and Effective Date of
Final Rule), page 35 of the NPRM, it is stated that the final rule will
be implemented after reviewing a number of factors, but most likely in
summer 2008.
One of the factors identified is the availability of WHTI Compliant
Documents on both sides of the border. However, this phrase has no
further definition provided.
What does ``Availability'' mean? Does it mean that documents can be
obtained within a certain time frame? Does it mean the documents simply
exist and the public can apply for them? Does the fact that the word
``documents'' is plural mean that WHTI can not move to final
implementation until at least two documents are ``available.''
Since this is one of the main factors in determining the final
implementation of WHTI, more information must be provided to ensure
that process whereby the final date is set is as objective as possible.
Problems with Proposed Phased Implementation
The ``phased implementation'' called for in the NPRM does not
address several problems affect certain modes of travel, including:
1. Ferry Boat Operations: Currently, the private and public ferry
fleet in the US and Canada relies on an oral declaration of citizenship
in order to move people quickly and efficiently through its system. By
implementing this change on January 31, 2008, without plans for
addressing the substantial problems caused to this mode of
transportation, and without a specific plan for addressing the severe
economic hit these systems will take, DHS is unwittingly serving notice
that such transportation services may no longer be viable. A very
simple solution to this would be one common implementation date, once
all forms of ID are available and in wide circulation. We have
recommended June 1, 2009.
2. Vehicle Crossings: DHS continues to assume that lines at the
land crossings will decrease with the implementation of WHTI, while
evidence to the contrary is being ignored. When a full document check
was implemented in the Summer of 2006 in New England, lines became much
longer and fewer people were able to cross because of delays. This sort
of process is what most border communities would expect from stopping
oral declarations without a clear plan to prevent problems before hand.
Given the mistakes made in many other areas by this administration when
assumptions were made without looking at available facts, BESTT
recommends delaying implementation until such a plan can be developed
and implemented. We have recommended June 1, 2009.
Lack of a Publicity Campaign about the Rules and Timeframes for
Implementation
BESTT was extremely concerned to note that the NPRM offers no
program or funding mechanism to ensure the public is fully aware of the
rules it enumerates. This is exacerbated by the ``phased
implementation'' which has been announced. By creating two separate
dates for implementation, we are further adding to the level of
confusion and uncertainty the average citizen on both sides of the
border will face.
This is clearly seen in our Zogby International poll, in which
neither Americans nor Canadians were familiar with proposed
documentation changes along the border. Of Americans, 87% say they are
either not familiar (59%) or somewhat familiar (28%) with changes in
requirements. Of Canadians, 82% are say they are either not very (40%)
or somewhat familiar (42%). Non-passport holders from both countries
are least likely to be at all familiar.
We strongly encourage DHS to formulate and implement a public
awareness campaign immediately, and more importantly, fund that program
so that we can ensure the traveling public knows when the new rules are
to be implemented.
Concerns About the Economic Impact Study Provided in the NPRM The
economic analysis provided in the NPRM is insufficient and incomplete
for the following reasons.
(1) How can an economic study be reliable if it is being
developed prior to or at the same time as the proposed policy
it is meant to examine? The Government Accounting Office (GAO)
said as much in their review of WHTI recently on behalf of
members of Congress.
(2) The NPRM effectively negates the concerns it confirms on
Page 70 about the monetary losses that will be incurred by
border communities. Table D shows a net loss of $30 million in
the first year, and $80 million in subsequent years when it
comes to spending along the Canada/US Border. However, DHS
effectively offsets this loss by showing a huge net increase in
spending by Americans forgoing trips to Mexico. This tactic
ignores two important facts. First, there is no guarantee (and
frankly, substantial anecdotal evidence) that Americans
forgoing travel to Mexico will instead spend their money in
communities along the US/Canada Border. In fact, they will most
likely look for other warm, sunny spots in the Sun Belt states.
Second, these US/Canada Border communities are being told by
their government that their losses will be substantial, but
that they intend to do absolutely nothing about it. This is
completely unacceptable.
(3) The economic impacts in border communities, outlined in
Table E, shows that Washington County Maine will lose 1.41% of
its employment, and Whatcom County, Washington will lose 0.53%
of its employment. For Whatcom County, that would mean over 500
people will lose their jobs, without the federal government
seeking to provide a remedy or address the impact in any way.
Expenditure Flows in Impact Study--Separate North and South
As the threats to national security posed to us from our border
with Mexico and our border with Canada are different, so must we assess
the economic impacts created by these rules differently. Any economic
review must address these two border regions as distinct entities, not
combined, and should address remedies to those communities that are
impacted.
Lack of Time to Implement Alternative Documents Prior to Implementation
The NPRM lists a number of documents that will be acceptable for
entering the US. However, most have issues with being available and in
wide circulation prior to implementation. They include:
1. Passport Book: The severe backlog in providing passports,
stemming from the air rules, has caused substantial problems
for millions of Americans. Most estimates suggest that we will
not recover from the backlog until at least November 2007.
However, once the land rule becomes a reality, we should expect
an even greater backlog to develop, as there are many times
more Americans traveling over the US/Canada land border than
Americans who were affected by the new air passport
requirements. One should assume that implementing in the Summer
of 2008 is unrealistic, and that we should plan for a later
implementation date. BESTT has recommended June 1, 2009.
2. Passport Card: The passport card is still in the planning
stages, and is no where near being available and in wide circulation by
early 2008. Furthermore, since individuals will have to go through the
same process to obtain the passport card as they need to obtain the
passport book, time delays will need to be taken into account. This
cannot be seen as an alternative document that can be used on the day
that WHTI is implemented at the land and sea borders.
3. Trusted Traveler Program Documents:
a. NEXUS--This program has seen approximately 120,000 members
enrolled. . .after 5 years. This extremely poor showing is
exacerbated by the fact that almost half of those enrolled in
the program are in the BC/Washington area, whereas our largest
crossing area (Detroit/Windsor), has just a fraction of the
enrollees. More importantly, the existing NEXUS card is not
considered an acceptable form of ID at the border, and although
the NPRM calls for changing that, there are concerns that time
and resources might need to be allocated to ensure existing
cards, which are imprinted with the phrase, ``Not and Official
Travel Document,'' will be accepted as stand-alone ID. Finally,
there must be a renewed effort to ensure that NEXUS cardholders
meet the same rules and regulations at all crossings. Anecdotal
information shows BESTT that NEXUS cards are already treated as
stand alone ID in the regular crossing lanes in the Buffalo
area, where as attempting to use your NEXUS card to cross at
the regular lanes at the Peace Arch crossing is not acceptable,
and could be grounds for having the card revoked.
b. FAST--This program seems to be working efficiently, but only
address freight mobility, rather than passenger mobility.
However, like the NEXUS program, we would highly recommend that
enrollees in both programs be treated as trusted travelers. The
observations of higher rates of FAST trucks being sent for
secondary inspection because once enrolled, they are now the
potential target of smugglers, defeats the purpose of the
program and may convince some freight movers to opt out of
FAST.
4. Merchant Marine Document: While available, it is used by a
fraction of the individuals crossing the border between the US
and Canada. Furthermore, the card can only be used for Merchant
Marine travel. The bearer must use other WHTI-compliant
documents for personal or other types of travel.
5. US Military Card: Again, it is available, but only to those
in the military. Like the Merchant Marine Card, it can only be
used for official travel.
6. Secure Drivers License: This program, currently only
available in Washington State but being reviewed by Michigan,
New York, Vermont and California, as well as all Canadian
Provinces, is our preferred method of addressing the mobility
restrictions created by WHTI. However, these programs have no
chance of being available and in wide circulation prior to even
the Summer of 2008, let alone early 2008. Time must be provided
to the states, provinces and territories to engage with DHS and
the Canadian Government, create agreements on the format of the
licenses, and implement these programs BEFORE WHTI is
implemented.
Lack of Sufficient Infrastructure to Implement Rules
With new IDs, RFID-reader technology at most border crossing
points, state-issued IDs to be negotiated, and many more items of
concern, we do not have the time nor the resources available to
implement WHTI by Summer of 2008. Implementation prior to DHS being
fully ready at all border crossings will cause severe delays at border
crossings, create tremendous drops in the number of crossings, and
generally create chaos in the system that is easily avoidable. By
implementing on June 1, 2009, DHS has the time needed to fully prepare
for the new rules, and to ensure our Canadian counterparts are fully
prepared.
RFID Infrastructure at More Than the 39 Most Frequently Used Crossings
In the NPRM, the following statement is made concerning
infrastructure at the border: We anticipate that RFID infrastructure
will be rolled out to cover the top 39 ports-of-entry (in terms of
number of travelers) through which 95 percent of the land traffic
enters the United States. The remaining land and all sea ports-of-entry
would utilize existing machine-readable zone technology to read the
travel documents. Machine-readable zone technology is currently in
place in all air, sea, and land ports-of-entry.
BESTT believes that technology to read documents remotely must be
rolled out to all border crossings, not just the 39 most heavily
traveled ports of entry. This will ensure the availability of NEXUS at
all crossings, making that card a more viable travel document for
frequent crossers.
No Appeals Board for NEXUS Provided
One of the largest complaints about the NEXUS program since its
inception is the lack of an appeals process for those who have had
their card revoked. Since a revoked card can come for any reason, a
process whereby former card holders can apply for reinstatement is
vital to the effectiveness of the program, especially in border
communities where people cross frequently.
BESTT would recommend the creation of an Appeals Board as part of
the implementation of WHTI.
No Clear Way of Renewing NEXUS Cards, Other Than Re-Applying
Thousands of individuals are currently renewing their NEXUS cards,
as the initial members reach their five-year mark. Unfortunately, the
renewal mechanism is no different than the initial mechanism for
applying for a cards, essentially meaning that those in the program
must re-apply at the end of the five year period.
BESTT recommends a clear renewal process that ensures no down time
for NEXUS members, while addressing the legitimate security concerns of
Canada and the United States. As more people enroll in this program,
ensuring a streamlined way to renew will become more and more
important.
Lack of a Streamlined Way to Renew Passports
As with the NEXUS Card, it is important to recognize the hardships
a passport renewal will have on individuals living in border
communities and cross on a regular basis. These individuals cannot send
their passport in at the time they must renew, thereby potentially
being unable to cross for several weeks while the await they new
passport in the mail.
We must come up with an acceptable way of ensuring that Americans
can retain the existing passport while renewing it, or thousands of
Americans will be prevented from necessary travel back and forth over
the border.
No Discussion of the Impacts of the Increase in the Number of Lost and
Stolen Passports and other Documents
The NPRM does not address the potential impact on the US and
Canadian Governments caused by more passports and other documents being
lost or stolen.
It stands to reason that increasing the number of documents in
circulation will increase the number of documents that are lost or
misplaced. These individuals will need expedited replacement, and in
larger numbers than have been experienced in the past, which could
create a delays in providing this vital service.
We should also be planning for the expected increase in passport or
travel document theft. More and more Canadians and Americans will be
carrying their documents in their vehicles, and those in border
communities might simply leave the documents in their cars permanently.
Car prowls or outright car theft would not have to increase at all to
see a larger number of documents being stolen, since more documents are
in circulation, and being kept in vehicles. The potential impact on
government entities is substantial, not to mention the potential
impacts on North American security.
The NPRM does not address either of these issues, both of which
must be addressed and planned for prior to implementation.
No Plan to Address the Enormous Increases the Plan Will Create for Wait
Times
DHS and CBP have decided, with no scientific or independent review,
that wait times will actually decrease with the implementation of WHTI.
The BESTT Coalition, which predicted the passport backlog and the
problems with the PASS Card, has always disagreed with this, and
believes that, at least initially, wait times will actually increase.
Once WHTI is implemented, there will continue to be individuals and
families arriving at the border without proper documentation. The
additional time taken at the primary inspection point to address these
problems could take several times longer than a normal screening. More
time at primary means longer wait times.
Furthermore, back ups in secondary inspection will also occur, and
the workload for officers inside increases with each individual
arriving without proper documentation.
Some of these problems could be alleviate with the implementation
of an effective and well funded marketing program, informing Americans
and Canadians of the new rules and when they will go into place. Such a
campaign, using television, radio, print and billboards in border
communities, is not currently planned or funded, but has been requested
by the BESTT Coalition for several years.
Concerns Surrounding the Certification of Preparedness for Final
Implementation
BESTT continues to be concerned with the manner by which DHS is
certifying itself as being ready to implement WHTI. This situation is
analogous to having a development company providing its own occupancy
permit for a building it just completed. Without the necessary
oversight, we are opening ourselves up to countless potential problems.
BESTT strongly recommends that Congress should be the final arbiter
of the ability of DHS to implement WHTI, not the Department itself.
This independent oversight is vital to prevent problems such as we have
experiences with passport acquisition since January 2007.
Meeting with all State DL Directors by January 2008, Before Completion
of WA Pilot
BESTT recommends the DHS proactively call a meeting with all State
Drivers' License officials before the end of this year. The purpose of
the meeting would be to discuss the Washington State pilot, and how the
program could be implemented in other states in the most efficient
manner possible. Waiting until after Washington State has prepared the
program and has the secure license in wide circulation is unacceptable,
as it could preclude other states from having the option of providing
such a program prior to implementation.
Questions Concerning Whether Real-ID and WHTI Requirements are
Analogous
The NPRM seems to indicate that a state drivers' license that meets
the requirements of WHTI would by definition meet the requirements of
Real-ID as well. However, DHS representatives working on the Washington
State Pilot Project have indicated that WHTI-compliant licenses will
not be Real-ID compliant as well, unless additional security features
are added.
This question is important, because one selling point to states on
the Drivers License program is that the licenses will be Real-ID
compliant once that program is implemented. A definitive answer on this
question cannot be found in the NPRM, and we would ask for such an
answer as soon as possible, but certainly before final implementation.
Strong Desire to See a More Robust Coordination with Canada
The NPRM states yet again that coordination between Canada and the
US on the implementation of WHTI is healthy and substantial. However,
members of the BESTT Coalition continue to hear exactly the opposite
from your Canadian counterparts. This is not only unacceptable, but
frankly could be detrimental to the security of North America.
This program cannot be implemented in a vacuum. We must
immediately, if not sooner, sit down with Canadian officials to
coordinate implementation of WHTI. This meeting cannot be, as past
meetings have been, yet another ``the US is telling the Canadians how
this will be implemented'' meeting, but rather must provide a dialogue
and healthy discussion about funding, partnerships, marketing, and many
other aspects. Anything less will not only create longer delays and
more confusion, but could imperil the positive cross-border law
enforcement relationships that have developed, as Canadian officials
feel that they are treated as second-class partners.
Conclusion
There is logic in improving documentation requirements for border
crossings. Events have shown that the threat of terrorism is real, and
we must take national security very seriously; however, we must be
careful not to forsake economic security in the process. There is merit
in taking into consideration the full-range of policy options at our
disposal in implementing a program to verify nationality and identity,
including REAL-ID. No new border-crossing policy can succeed, though,
unless it is marketed successfully, developed with comprehensive
economic data and stakeholder input, and embraced also by the Canadian
government.
The final Notice of Proposed Rule Making answers some of the
questions the BESTT Coalition has been asking since December 2004, but
leaves many more questions unanswered. We believe that HR 1061, the
bill Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has authored along with 44 co-
authors, will provide the extra time needed to effectively implement
WHTI, as well as direction to DHS and State in a number of key areas
that will facilitate the process.
It is clear to the BESTT Coalition that we can expect continued
problems in distribution of passports as WHTI moves toward final
implementation, especially since DHS plans to implement it before other
documents, like secure drivers' licenses or the PASS Card, are
available and in wide circulation. We have encouraged DHS and State for
three years to review their ability to meet the demands final
implementation will place on them, and refrain from final
implementation until such time as they are truly prepared to provide
for our security while creating the smallest impact possible of the
free and fair movement of goods and people over our shared border. DHS
and State have been unwilling to meet this demand, and therefore we
encourage the Homeland Security Committee of the House, along with the
full Congress, to provide strong, unquestionable demands on these two
bodies to meet this important goal.
Joint Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan and the Honorable John M.
McHugh, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Thank you Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for your
leadership on national security issues and for holding today's hearing
in Buffalo, New York to discuss the challenges facing Northern Border
communities as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Department of State (State) move forward with the implementation of the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
As co-chairs of the Northern Border Caucus, we would like to share
our concerns about the economic impact the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI) could have on cross border travel and trade between
the United States and Canada.
Studies by the Canadian Tourism Commission and other groups have
suggested very clearly that American businesses stand to lose hundreds
of millions of dollars if the new requirements, as expected,
significantly interfere with existing trade and tourism. The stakes for
Northern Border interests are extremely high, with so many communities
and businesses dependent upon the ease of travel between the two
nations. Simply put, any economic or bureaucratic impediments to travel
could jeopardize thousands of local jobs in border states.
Cross-border trade between Canada and the United States is
estimated at $1.2 billion per day. Canadian travelers spent a record
$13.2 billion in the United States in 2006 and took 16 million
overnight trips to the United States in 2006. The vast majority of
these travelers entered the country by land. In addition, U.S.
residents made 13.8 million overnight trips to Canada and took an
additional 13.7 million same-day car trips to Canada in 2006.
The recent implementation of the first phase of WHTI, air travel,
has already revealed the negative effects of a rushed implementation.
Since January, travelers have seen significantly delays in obtaining a
passport and many congressional offices have been flooded with calls
from constituents encountering passport difficulties. The Passport
Agency has been inundated with applications and has been unable to meet
the ever increasing demands. Despite hiring more employees, opening an
additional regional office, and increasing working hours, wait times
for passports have gone from four to six weeks to as high as 14 weeks.
On June 20, 2007, DHS announced its plans to move forward with the
land and sea portions of WHTI. This announcement is especially
concerning to Northern Border communities. If the Passport Agency
continues to struggle in approving passports for Americans under the
air travel regulations, how will it possibly be prepared for the
millions of additional individuals who will apply between now and the
summer of 2008 in preparation for the added land and sea travel
regulations? Will constituents see the same delays they do now when the
land and sea regulations go into effect?
Currently, only 21 percent of Americans hold passports. That means,
in order to travel via air, land, or sea outside the United States,
more than 75 percent of the population must obtain a passport or an
approved alternative. It is questionable whether the Department of
State can accommodate such a large influx.
The Departments of Homeland Security and State intended to make the
PASS Card an acceptable alternative document for land and sea travel.
However, it is looking more and more unlikely that the PASS Card will
be ready for production and use when the land and sea regulations go
into effect.
While DHS and State have finally agreed upon the technology for the
PASS Card, it is still unclear how the proposal will address the
privacy and cost concerns raised by many Members of Congress. These
agencies have yet to confirm that the PASS Card has been adequately
tested to ensure operational success. Furthermore, DHS neither
requested nor received funding in the FY2007 Homeland Security
Appropriations bill to install the PASS Card infrastructure at land
border ports-of-entry. How will DHS implement WHTI regulations for land
and sea travelers by the summer of 2008 if it does not have the
necessary resources to purchase PASS infrastructure?
Congress has made numerous attempts to work with the Departments of
Homeland Security and State so that WHTI could be implemented properly
and all of the economic and technical impacts of the Initiative could
be fully considered.
As part of the FY07 Homeland Security Appropriations legislation,
Congress authorized DHS to delay implementation of WHTI as late as June
1, 2009. This year, the House has again acted in the FY08 Homeland
Security Appropriations legislation to delay implementation of WHTI. An
amendment offered by Representative Steven LaTourette was
overwhelmingly approved (379 to 40) to prohibit the use of funds by DHS
to implement WHTI before June 1, 2009. In addition, the House bill
would withhold $100 million in funds due to the lack of progress and
reporting by the agency, and would require DHS to complete an extensive
cost-benefit analysis before implementing the initiative.
In May 2006 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a
report expressing concerns about the ability of DHS and State to meet
the original January 2008 deadline. This report was one of the factors
that lead Congress to extend the deadline to June 2009. While DHS and
State currently have the legal authority to begin implementing WHTI as
soon as January 2008, we are concerned about the impact that such an
ambitious schedule would have on border communities. The report
concluded that ``[a]chieving the indented security benefits of the
Travel Initiative by the statutory milestone date, without simply
requiring all travelers to carry a passport, appears in jeopardy, given
the volume of work that remains.''
GAO is currently in the mist of another audit, as requested by
Representative Louise Slaughter, to analyze (1) the status of DHS and
State's efforts to implement the travel initiative; (2) the plans DHS
has for the intended technology to be used to facilitate border
crossing as defined by the travel initiative; (3) DHS's role in pilot
testing a proposal to use state drivers' licenses as official travel
documents; and (4) the cost and benefit study associated with the
proposed rule/s for land and sea to be performed by DHS. We urge that
DHS and State refrain from further implementing WHTI until this report
is completed.
Unfortunately, the Departments of Homeland Security and State have
ignored Congressional intent and continue to push forward on full
implementation of WHTI.
Before the Administration moves forward with WHTI it is imperative
that the President's Office of Management and Budget perform an
economic assessment, so that the full costs can be taken into account.
Such an economic cost-benefit analysis is required under Executive
Order 12866. A rushed or flawed implementation of WHTI could
potentially have economically devastating effects on Northern Border
communities. Therefore, any final regulations must be based on the best
available economic and technical information.
To ensure that WHTI is implemented with the fewest negative
repercussions possible and in as practical way as possible, Congress
must step-in. That is why Representatives Slaughter and John McHugh
introduced the Protecting American Commerce and Travel Act (PACT ACT).
We believe this legislation would better ensure that WHTI secures our
borders without unintentionally freezing cross-border tourism and
trade.
To make the regulations more manageable for our constituents, the
PACT ACT would require DHS to complete at least one pilot program to
determine if an enhanced driver's license can be designed to meet WHTI
standards. While DHS has agreed to conduct such a project with the
State of Washington, WHTI is currently scheduled to be implemented long
before the pilot project has been completed. This bill would prohibit
DHS from issuing a final rule and fully implementing WHTI until a pilot
project is completed.
The PACT ACT would reduce the cost of the PASS Card, which is to be
the low-cost alternative to obtaining a $97 passport, to $20. In
addition, it would require DHS and State to complete a cost-benefit
analysis as well as develop a public promotion campaign to inform
constituents about the new WHTI regulations.
As the Committee continues to work on the proper implementation of
WHTI, we respectively ask that you bring the PACT ACT to the House
floor for a vote.
Thank you again Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for
providing us the opportunity today to share our concerns on behalf of
the Northern Border communities throughout the United States.
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security
Responses from Ann Barrett
Question 1.: What are the anticipated similarities and differences,
including security features, between the proposed PASS Card and the
NEXUS, SENTRI, and Border Crossing Cards?
Response: The Department of State is developing a Passport Card in
response to concerns of the border resident communities for a more
portable and less expensive alternative to the traditional passport
book. This passport card, designed for use at land and sea ports of
entry only will be adjudicated to the same standards as a traditional
passport book. It will have the same validity period as a passport
book: 10 years for an adult, five for children 15 and younger.
Even though the card is a wallet-sized travel document, which does
not offer as many opportunities to embed security features as a
passport book, the Department will be using laser engraving and
multiple overt and covert state-of-the-art security features to
mitigate against the possibility of counterfeiting and forgery. While
no document is tamper proof, we are taking every care to ensure that
this Passport Card is as secure as current technology permits. To meet
the operational needs of DHS at ports-of-entry, the passport card will
contain vicinity-read radio frequency identification (RFID) RFID chip
will serve to link the card using a manufacturer-generated reference
number to a stored record in secure government databases. There will be
no personal information written to the RFID chip itself. The Department
is taking every measure to address the privacy concerns of American
citizens traveling with a Passport Card.
The Department of State will begin producing and issuing the next
generation of Border Crossing Cards (BCC) for Mexican citizens in FY
2008 as part of the BCC renewal program and will use the passport card
as a model. The new BCC will have different artwork design it as a BCC
to distinguish if the passport card but will use the same vicinity
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology as the passport card.
The NEXUS and SENTRI cards, issued under trusted traveler program,
currently utilize vicinity RFID technology. As is anticipated with the
Passport card, the RFID chip in the DHS trusted traveler programs
serves to link the card using a manufacturer-generated reference number
to a stored record in secure government databases. There is no personal
information written to the RFID chip itself DHS is in the process of
developing and procuring the next generation of trusted traveler cards
which are expected to contain a suite of security features similar to
the Passport card to guard against We would refer you to DHS for
details on the NEXUS and SENTRI card technologies.
Question 2.: What efforts has the Department of State made to
ensure Canada is consulted about WHTI implementation?
Response: Both the Departments of State and Homeland security have
been and will continue to work closely with Canadian authorities,
especially the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), to address their
concerns and find mutually acceptable solutions to issues surrounding
WHTI implementation. We and DHS participate in a monthly working group
with CBSA and maintain frequent contact with various elements of the
Canadian government in Ottawa and through their embassy in Washington,
DC, to discuss policy and operational issues of WHTI. The provinces of
British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario have expressed an
interest in developing an ``enhanced'' driver's license that will be
WHTI-compliant as a solution for Canadian citizens, similar to the
``enhanced' driver's license pilot program which DHS is currently
conducting with the state of Washington.
Question 3.: What efforts has the Department of State made to
ensure state and local stakeholders are consulted about WHTI
implementation and that deadlines are discussed?
Response: We and DHS that WHTI represents a significant change to
travel behavior and are committed to implementing WHTI in a manner that
not only enhances our border security but also facilitates legitimate
travel. We have and will continue to work aggressively with the
stakeholders in the private sector, particularly in the aviation and
travel and tourism industries, to inform the traveling public so that
they are aware of the new and so that they will be able to apply for
their passports in time to comply with the rules. They in turn have
been very pro-active in keeping their clientele properly informed of
the upcoming deadlines. Through our embassies and consulates in Canada,
Mexico, and the Caribbean, our Public Affairs Offices and consular
sections work closely with host country media and stakeholders to
inform the traveling public, particularly in Canada, of the new
requirements. Their efforts were reflected in the unprecedented demand
for passports for Canadian citizens so that they could comply with the
new air travel requirements.
We and DHS have issued four Notices of Proposed Rule Making since
the inception of the WHTI to solicit public comment on various aspects
of implementation. We and our colleagues at DHS will continue to work
with the private sector stakeholders and congressional delegations to
keep the public informed of developments as we move toward implementing
the land and sea phase in 2008.
Question 4.: How many non-federal employees, including contractors,
has the Department of State hired to meet the increased demand for
passports? In meeting the increased demand of passports, what are the
differences in the costs to the Department of State between the hiring
of federal employees and contract employees?
Response: The Department began planning for increased passport
demand when Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act (IRTPA) in December of 2004. We built capacity to meet
projected demand, adding staff, expanding facilities, and enhancing
service. We hired over 2,500 employees in Passport Services in less
than three years--passport adjudicators, prevention managers, line
supervisors, and the contractors who perform critical non-adjudicative
functions, such as data entry, book print and quality control, at our
passport agencies.
Over the past three years, we have more than doubled our contract
staff; as of September 30, we have 1617 In FY 2007 alone, we hired a
total of 622 contract personnel. Since April 2007, our contract
partners at our call center and book production center has hired 1048
personnel in support of our efforts to provide timely and accurate
passport services to American citizens. Attrition takes its toll, so we
are virtually always hiring.
The use of contract personnel to perform functions is cost-
effective. For FY 2008, total annual compensation including salary and
benefits for a typical federal government employee costs the Department
approximately $100,000 and for a typical contract employee
approximately $60,000. Thus we save average of $40,000 per employee
annually exclusive of contract administrative costs.
Question 5.: What are the differences in benefits received, if any,
between the Department of State employees and contract employees that
are working to meet the increased demand for passports?
Response: The major difference is that the contract employer
provides the benefits for its employees; the Department of State
provides the benefits for its hire government employees. The typical
contract employee receives benefits commensurate with those received by
Department employees: paid holidays; paid time off; and health and
welfare benefits, such as medical, dental, life and disability
insurance, or in-lieu-of those benefits. Hourly employees of our
current vendor receive the following benefits, which in the aggregate
complies with Department of Labor Wage Determination and Service
Contract Act requirements.
Health Insurance, including prescription drug benefit
Dental Insurance
Short-Term Disability
Long-Term Disability
Other Paid Leave
Employee Stock Ownership Plan
401(k) (matching employer contribution for employees
with one or more years of qualified service)
Flexible Spending Accounts
Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance
Paid Time Off (PTO)
Holiday Pay
State Department Federal Credit Union
529 College Savings Plan
Employee Assistance Plan
Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, chairman Committee on
Homeland Security
Responses from Robert Jacksta
Question 1.: What measures is the Department undertaking to address
security concerns and to implement WHTI at smaller or less traversed
land ports of entry?
Response: The implementation of WHTI will take place at all land
border ports of entry, large and small. The only difference between the
39 highest-volume ports, which account for 95% of land border
crossings, and the remaining less-traveled ports of entry is that at
this time it is anticipated that the smaller ports will not have RFID
readers and new License Plate Readers installed. This difference does
not affect the overall security of the inspectional process, but is
done because the low traffic volumes at the smaller ports allow the
Primary Officers to enter document data using either Machine Readable
Zone (MRZ) or manual input without compromising safety or security.
All ports currently have MRZ document readers at the primary
inspection booth. CBP will train all Officers in the requirements of
WHTI, RFID readers and the use of the new primary application, ensuring
uniform security and processing at all ports.
Question 2.: Of all land ports of entry, how many will have the
technology in place to read and/or scan the proposed PASS Card by
spring 2008, the anticipated release date of the card?
Response:
All vehicle land border primary booths currently have the
technology to read the Machine Readable Zone included in the Passport
Card.
CBP is in the process of awarding a contract for the installation
of infrastructure and technology to read vicinity RFID enabled travel
documents, such as the Passport Card, in vehicle primary lanes at land
borders.
Based upon available funding, vendor proposals, evaluation and
contract award, DHS anticipates that by 2008 the technology and
infrastructure to read vicinity RFID enabled Passport Cards will be
installed at 13 land border ports of entry, encompassing 237 vehicle
lanes at 28 separate crossing facilities. This accounts for 65% of the
annual land border volume. DHS will upgrade more crossings as
expeditiously as possible if funds allow based on contract proposals.
The contract will be awarded in September 2007. By Spring 2008 DHS
anticipates that technology and infrastructure to read vicinity RFID
enabled Passport Cards will be installed at a minimum of three land
ports of entry, consisting of separate five land border crossing
facilities.
The installation of this RFID technology is in addition to CBP's
current capability to manually input the information contained in the
proposed Passport Card and to read these cards using Machine Readable
Zone technology. All vehicle land border primary booths currently have
OCR-B document swipe readers installed that are capable of reading the
Machine Readable Zone of passports and other travel documents. This
reader will still be available in the booth, since it is needed to read
a wide variety of travel documents that utilize OCR-B technology. OCR-B
is a technology that will also be available on the proposed Passport
Card.
Question 3.: The Department has indicated that it will use RFID
technology to read the proposed PASS cards. What measures will the
Department implement to address any potential privacy vulnerabilities
in the RFID technology?
Response: To mitigate potential privacy vulnerabilities, the most
secure implementation of any technology incorporates a layered
approach. In this case, individual privacy will be protected through a
combination of storing no personal information on the card itself, the
use of a protective sleeve, encrypted networks, secure data storage
facilities, limited data access and public education.
The vicinity RFID technology proposed for the Passport Card uses a
unique number to access data stored elsewhere; no personal
identification information (PII) will be stored in the RFID chip
itself. The design of the system architecture further protects personal
privacy by storing PII data on secure storage devices at secure
locations, with access via encrypted networks for display to the CBP
Officer on a need to know basis and only in the course of official
duties.
In addition, the Department of State (DOS) will issue an
attenuating sleeve (or Faraday Cage) with each Passport Card. An
attenuating sleeve shields the card to prevent unauthorized reading of
the chip. DHS and DOS also propose to educate the public in the proper
use and storage of RFID tags.
Question: To meet the increased demand in passports, the Department
of State has begun an aggressive campaign to hire additional personnel
to process applications. What additional staff does Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) anticipate needing to meet any estimated increases in
border crossers under WHTI? Will CBP need personnel above statutorily
authorized levels?
Response: For FY 2008, the President's budget request included 205
additional Positions and $252.5 million to implement WHTI at 225
inbound lanes at the top 13 ports of entry by volume. In preparation
for the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI), and to mitigate any potential surge in the anticipated increase
of trusted traveler enrollments, additional CBP Officers will be
strategically deployed across trusted traveler enrollment centers and
land border field locations in FY 2008.
The deployment of 205 CBP Officers will be focused on current and
proposed trusted traveler enrollment centers as well as land border
secondary locations where increases in secondary referrals are expected
once WHTI is implemented.
Question: How often and what type of training do Customs and Border
Protection officers undergo to identify fraudulent travel documents at
the ports of entry?
Response: The identification of fraudulent travel documents is a
constant element in the training received by a CBP Officer (CBPO),
beginning with formal training at the CBP Training Academy and
continuing throughout the officer's career.
As part of the Office of Field Operations Pre-Academy Training, new
CBPOs are required to complete 16 hours of training in identifying
fraudulent documents, detecting impostors, and identifying suspicious
behavior. After graduating from the Academy, new Officers are required
to receive an additional eight hours of formal training in their
immediate post-Academy on-the-job training at their home ports.
Of the many additional courses offered, almost all offer strong
elements of fraudulent document identification, some of which are:
Basic Admissibility Secondary Processing
Counter-Terrorism Response Rover Training
Anti-Terrorism Contraband Enforcement Team Training
All formal training material on fraudulent documents is constantly
reviewed and updated based on input from the field and from the CBP
Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit (FDAU), working in concert with the
ICE Forensic Documents Lab (FDL). In 2006 the FDAU examined more than
34,000 fraudulent documents that were confiscated at ports of entry and
mail facilities.
Daily musters are held at ports of entry, and new information from
the FDAU (and other sources) on fraudulent documentation trends and
methods is presented to Officers at these musters. In addition to daily
musters many ports also develop their own port-specific training, which
can include refresher training on fraudulent document detection.
To further strengthen fraudulent documentation identification at
the port level CBP has deployed advanced document examination
workstations at 11 major ports of entry. The VSC-5000 workstation
contains a comprehensive digital imaging system with an advanced
capability for detecting irregularities on altered and counterfeit
documents.
Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Committee on Homeland
Security
Responses from Paul J. Koessler
Question 1.: With respect to the many existing and new travel
document that may be acceptable under WHTI, do you believe federal
resources should be invested in making current technology and cards
more robust or in facilitating the creation of completely new travel
documents?
Response: Current technology and existing cards, particularly
drivers' licenses, should be made more robust and secure. Creating new
travel documents will only confuse the traveling public.
Question 2.: Do you agree with the cost estimates of WHTI
identified in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?: If no, please explain
you cost estimates.
Response: No, the estimates are far too low. For example, a 25%
decline in cross border traffic will reduce the bonding capacity just
of the Peace Bridge by $50 million. there would be a similar impact for
all other crossings.
Question 3.: What do you believe will be the immediate and long
term economic effects of WHTI on the Buffalo region?
Response: There will be an immediate and long term decline in
visitation from Canada to Buffalo seriously affecting the tourism/
hospitality sectors, cultural and sports institutions. Further, Buffalo
is part of the binational Niagara Falls tourist region attracting
visitors from all over the United States. The inability of Americans to
visit Canada without a passport will reduce the attractiveness of
region resulting in further visitation declines.
Question 4.: How can the Departments of State and Homeland Security
Improve their WHTI outreach efforts?
Response: Better market the existing NEXUS program. Promotion of
this program is currently non-existent. DHS needs to work together with
stakeholders in joint marketing/promotion programs.
Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security
Responses from Paul Rosenzweig
Question 1.: What are the benefits of implementing WHTI in phases,
beginning with the transition phase proposed to begin January 31, 2008?
Response: Instituting a travel document requirement at the land and
sea ports of entry is a crucial and major change for our border
communities and those who cross the land borders frequently. A phased
approach allows DHS to meet the coming challenge in a way that balances
security and facilitation. It is a sensible and practical approach to
this complex and critical security enhancement. DHS proposes to end the
practice of accepting oral declarations of citizenship alone at our
land and sea ports of entry on January 31,2008. United States and
Canadian citizens will be required to carry a WHTI-compliant document
or government-issued photo identification (such as a driver's license)
and proof of citizenship (such as a birth certificate). will continue
to exercise flexibility in the processing of certain travelers based
upon unique and exigent circumstances. will take a phased, deliberate
approach to implementation of WHTI. The transition period will ensure
that citizens of the United States and Canada will be able to obtain
the documents necessary to comply with WHTI. This implementation will
provide United States and Canadian citizens sufficient time to become
accustomed to these new documentation requirements at our land and sea
borders, and time to obtain travel documents, such as a passport, a
passport card, to be issued by the Department of State, or an Enhanced
Driver's License to be issued by the state departments of motor
vehicles. The Department of State has developed an ambitious and
aggressive schedule to begin issuing the Passport Card to the public as
soon as possible in 2008. In March 2007, DHS and the State of
Washington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to commence an EDL project.
Washington is on track to issue the first EDL in January, 2008.
Question 2.: What efforts has the Department of Homeland Security
taken to ensure the general public is made aware of the various
requirements of and acceptable documents for WHTI?
Response: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has closely
coordinated messaging and public outreach activities with the
Department of State to help leverage resources and ensure consistent
messaging throughout the implementation of WHTI. DHS spokespersons have
participated in hundreds of media interviews, grassroots outreach
events, travel and tourism conferences, passport fairs and other
educational forums to inform affected travelers and groups about the
new requirements. CBP produced and distributed informational tear
sheets describing the documentary requirements to travelers arriving at
airports. These public education efforts for the air rollout were
particularly successful. As a result of close coordination with federal
government partners, private sector travel, tourism industry and the
air carriers, 99 percent of U.S. citizens and affected international
travelers have complied with this new requirement.
During the ongoing land and sea rulemaking process, the agencies
continue to take a proactive approach to educating the traveling
public, particularly border community residents. This includes
promoting Trusted Traveler Program documents as acceptable and secure
WHTI-compliant documents. CBP is procuring a public relations firm to
assist in developing a strategic communication plan, and to conduct a
multi-faceted campaign for implementation of WHTI in the land and sea
environment.
Just as important to the efforts of the United States Government
efforts to encourage public adoption of WHTI is the efforts of the
Canadian Government to encourage their own citizens to obtain
passports. To that end DHS and the administration as a whole are
working with the Canadian Government to ensure their close cooperation
and understanding of the looming deadlines.
Question 3.: According to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for
WHTI, several Canadian provinces have expressed interest in pursuing
pilots that would allow enhanced driver's licenses to be accepted under
WHTI. What are the Department's current efforts to accept enhanced
driver's licenses, including enhanced Canadian driver's licenses, under
WHTI?
Response: DHS has extensive efforts underway to support States in
developing enhanced drivers licenses (EDL) that would be accepted under
WHTI. In March 2007, DHS and the State of Washington signed a
Memorandum of Agreement to commence an EDL project. Washington is on
track to issue the first EDL in January 2008.
Several other States, including Texas, Arizona, New York, Michigan,
Vermont and California, have expressed interest in developing similar
projects. In August, 2007, Vermont and Arizona committed to producing
issuing joint press releases with DHS. The Washington, Arizona and
Vermont EDL projects provide an example for other States as to the
process and the partnership DHS offers. DHS has provided key documents
from the Washington State project to interested States and gone over
those documents at great detail to ensure States are clear on the
requirements.
DHS has met extensively with its Canadian counterparts and with
provincial leaders regarding documenting Canadian citizens for WHTI
implementation. Canadian Border Services Administration has met with
all of the provinces to gauge their interest in Enhanced Driver's
Licenses. British Columbia has a draft business plan regarding Enhanced
Driver's Licenses. DHS has reviewed and commented on the plan and will
continue to meet with both CBSA and the Provinces. Ontario is also
moving forward on its project.
Question 4.: In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for WHTI, the
Department estimates the government costs of implementation to be
roughly $100 million annually. What do the government costs include and
what part of the $100 million does each cost make up?
Response: WHTI requires that approved travel documents be carried
and produced at all ports of entry to provide information to verify the
identity and citizenship of all travelers seeking to enter the United
States. In order to implement this mandated requirement efficiently and
effectively, which means to minimize wait time at the border and
facilitate individual processing at vehicle primary, it is necessary to
upgrade the technical tools available to the CBP Officers to process
all travelers. The enhancements to the land border management system
include advanced information and a person-centric Vehicle Primary
Client application via the use of vicinity RFID technology. Vicinity
RFID technology will access keys encrypted in WID-enabled documents to
extract traveler information from secure databases and pre-position the
data for the CBP Officers. The costs to CBP of fully implementing WID-
enabled infrastructure can be classified into three broad categories:
facility construction, information technology, and personnel.
Facility Construction
Install or upgrade physical infrastructure to allow
RFID readers and workstations to be installed in vehicle lanes
CBP estimates that $95.1 million of the $252 million,
as requested in the President's 2008 budget, will install/
upgrade infrastructure in 297 lanes.
Information Technology
Install or upgrade RFID technology to process passport
cards
Develop common Vehicle Primary Client application for
all land ports-of-entry
CBP estimates that $78.7 million of the $252 million,
requested in the President's 2008 budget, will install/upgrade
RFID technology in 297 lanes.
CBP estimates that $22.5 million of the $252 million,
requested in the President's 2008 budget, will deploy the
Vehicle Primary Processing application.
Personnel
Hire new CBP Officers for anticipated increase in
secondary inspections
Train and support CBP Officers in use of new
technology
Manage budgets and oversee contracts
CBP estimates that $23.7 million of the $252 million,
requested in the President's 2008 budget, will hire 205
personnel.
CBP estimates that $32.5 million of the $252 million requested in
the President's 2008 budget will provide Program Management (PMO)
oversight to establish the framework necessary to manage this major
investment initiative following standard program management protocols.
The PMO costs include contractor support, systems support (security,
help desk, etc.), communications and a major public relations campaign.
Question: In light of concerns about child abductions across our
borders, what is the Department of Homeland Security proposing to
ensure children are being transported across the border with parental
consent?
Response: DHS takes the issue of child abduction very seriously and
has procedures in place for CBP officers to follow where they suspect a
child is entering or departing the United States under duress. CBP
plays an important role in protecting children at our borders through
the AMBER Alert system, work with ``Missing and Exploited Children's''
organizations, and screening of adults traveling with children through
our ports of entry. Single parents and others traveling with children
have certain documentary requirements to satisfy officers of an adult's
right to be traveling with that child across the border. Documentary
requirements are outlined on CBP.gov. Although presentation of written
parental consent for children entering the United States is being
considered, CBP has numerous concerns surrounding the integrity
associated with a hand-written letter, as well as the ability of CBP to
authenticate and enforce it. CBP does not have separate policies or
procedures regarding the examination and inspection of children at this
time. However, CBP scrutinizes very closely adults traveling with
children to determine that a legitimate adult-child relationship exists
and that the child is a bona fide applicant to the United States and
not endangered in any way. It is anticipated that once the true
benefits of facilitation are realized, children will possess
facilitative WHTI-compliant documents. The biographic information
recorded under WHTI will supplement existing, proven enforcement
efforts to detect and prevent the unlawful transportation into the
United States of abducted or trafficked children.