Border Security: State Department Should Plan for Potentially	 
Significant Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls Caused by Changes 
in the Visa Waiver Program (22-MAY-08, GAO-08-623).		 
                                                                 
Under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), citizens from 27 countries  
can travel to the United States visa free. Terrorism concerns	 
involving VWP country citizens have led some to suggest 	 
eliminating or suspending the program, while the executive branch
is considering adding countries to it. Legislation passed in 2007
led the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop its	 
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), to screen VWP 
country citizens before they travel to the United States; if	 
found ineligible, travelers will need to apply for a visa. GAO	 
reviewed how (1) program elimination or suspension, (2) program  
expansion, and (3) ESTA could affect visa demand, resource needs,
and revenues. We collected traveler, staffing, facilities, and	 
cost data from the Department of State (State), DHS, and embassy 
officials and developed estimates related to the three scenarios 
above.								 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-623 					        
    ACCNO:   A82186						        
  TITLE:     Border Security: State Department Should Plan for	      
Potentially Significant Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls Caused
by Changes in the Visa Waiver Program				 
     DATE:   05/22/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Embassies						 
	     Employee transfers 				 
	     Employees						 
	     Facility construction				 
	     Federal facilities 				 
	     Fees						 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Human capital planning				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     International cooperation				 
	     International relations				 
	     International travel				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Security threats					 
	     Staff utilization					 
	     Terrorism						 
	     Travel						 
	     Visas						 
	     Waivers						 
	     Cost estimates					 
	     Program costs					 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Visa Waiver Program				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-623

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

May 2008: 

Border security: 

State Department Should Plan for Potentially Significant Staffing and 
Facilities Shortfalls Caused by Changes in the Visa Waiver Program: 

GAO-08-623: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-623, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Homeland Security, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), citizens from 27 countries can 
travel to the United States visa free. Terrorism concerns involving VWP 
country citizens have led some to suggest eliminating or suspending the 
program, while the executive branch is considering adding countries to 
it. Legislation passed in 2007 led the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) to develop its Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), 
to screen VWP country citizens before they travel to the United States; 
if found ineligible, travelers will need to apply for a visa. GAO 
reviewed how (1) program elimination or suspension, (2) program 
expansion, and (3) ESTA could affect visa demand, resource needs, and 
revenues. We collected traveler, staffing, facilities, and cost data 
from the Department of State (State), DHS, and embassy officials and 
developed estimates related to the three scenarios above. 

What GAO Found: 

The potential elimination or suspension of the Visa Waiver Program 
could cause dramatic increases in visa demandï¿½from around 500,000 (the 
average number of people from VWP countries who obtain a U.S. visa each 
year) to as much as 12.6 million (the average number of people who 
travel to the United States from VWP countries each year)ï¿½that could 
overwhelm visa operations in the near term. To meet visa demand, State 
officials said they could need approximately 45 new facilities, which 
we estimate could cost $3.8 billion to $5.7 billion. We estimate State 
would also need substantially more staffï¿½around 540 new Foreign Service 
officers at a cost of around $185 million to $201 million per year, and 
1,350 local Foreign Service national staff at around $168 million to 
$190 million per year, as well as additional management and support 
positions for a total annual cost of $447 million to $486 million. 
Because VWP elimination would increase the number of travelers needing 
a visa, we estimate annual visa fee revenues would increase 
substantially, by $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion, and would offset the 
year-to-year recurring staffing costs. State has done limited planning 
for how it would address increased visa demand if the program were 
suspended or eliminated. 

Adding countries to the Visa Waiver Program would reduce visa demand in 
those countries, but likely have a relatively limited effect overall on 
resources needed to meet visa demand and on Stateï¿½s visa fee revenues. 
The volume of visa applications is relatively small in most of the 13 
ï¿½Road Mapï¿½ countries the executive branch is considering for expansion. 
If all 13 Road Map countries were to join the program, and if all of 
those countriesï¿½ citizens who previously traveled with visas were to 
travel to the United States without visas, the reduction in workload 
would, we estimate, permit State to move about 21 to 31 Foreign Service 
officers to other posts in need, and to cut 52 to 77 Foreign Service 
national positions. In addition, though program expansion would result 
in less space needed for visa operations, this would likely result in 
little or no building or lease savings because any resulting excess 
consular space is in government-owned facilities, and could not be 
sold. If all 13 Road Map countries were admitted to the Visa Waiver 
Program, we estimate that State would lose approximately $74 million to 
$83 million each year in collected visa fees, offsetting any savings in 
personnel costs. 

State and DHS officials acknowledged that the implementation of ESTA 
could increase visa demand in VWP countries, though neither State nor 
DHS has developed estimates of the increase. DHS is currently 
developing ESTA, and DHS officials told us the ESTA rejection rate 
could be between 1 percent and 3 percent, but they currently do not 
know. In addition, State and embassy officials believe some travelers 
might choose to apply for a visa rather than face potential, unexpected 
travel disruptions due to ESTA. Neither DHS nor State has attempted to 
estimate how these two factors would affect visa demand, and, as a 
result, State has not estimated what additional resources would be 
needed to manage the demand, and what additional visa fees would be 
received. However, State officials told us that, if 1 percent to 3 
percent of current VWP travelers came to embassies in VWP countries for 
visas, it could greatly increase visa demand at some locations, which 
could significantly disrupt visa operations. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends: (1) State and U.S. embassies in VWP countries develop 
contingency plans in the event of program elimination; and (2) DHS and 
State develop estimates of increased visa demand resulting from ESTA, 
and State develops plans to manage the increased workload. State said 
it would ask embassies to discuss plans to manage possible program 
elimination, but did not note whether it fully concurred with our 
recommendation. State agreed with the need to plan for ESTA, but noted 
its ability to plan was limited because DHS had not yet resolved 
critical details about ESTA. DHS agreed with our recommendation. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-623]. For more information, 
contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-4128 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Elimination of Visa Waiver Program Could Dramatically Increase Visa 
Demand and Overwhelm Visa Operations in the Near Term, but State Has 
Not Developed Contingency Plans: 

Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program Would Reduce Visa Demand, but 
Likely Have Limited Effect on State's Visa Costs and Resources: 

ESTA Implementation Could Increase Visa Demand, but State and DHS Have 
Not Planned How to Manage an Increase: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Current VWP Countries and Average Number of Travelers and 
Average Number of Visas Issued from 2001 to 2007: 

Table 2: Road Map Initiative Countries and Average Number of Travelers 
and Average Number of Visas Issued from 2001 to 2007: 

Table 3: Potential Effects of ESTA on Visa Demand: 

Table 4: Estimated ESTA Impacts and Costs in Different Scenarios: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Current Visa Waiver Program Countries: 

Figure 2: Road Map Initiative Countries: 

Figure 3: Foreign Citizens Apply through ESTA for Travel to the United 
States: 

Figure 4: Cramped Visa Waiting Room in U.S. Embassy Paris, April, 2008: 

Abbreviations: 

9/11 Act: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007: 

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

ESTA: Electronic System for Travel Authorization: 

OBO: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations: 

State: Department of State: 

VWP: Visa Waiver Program: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

May 22, 2008: 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Homeland Security: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Chairman Thompson: 

Under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), citizens from 27 select countries 
can travel to the United States for business or pleasure trips of up to 
90 days without first obtaining a visa and paying a visa fee.[Footnote 
1] The program has many benefits, including facilitating international 
travel for millions of foreign nationals seeking to visit the United 
States each year,[Footnote 2] creating substantial economic benefits to 
the United States, and allowing the Department of State (State) to 
allocate resources to visa-issuing posts in countries with higher-risk 
applicant pools. However, the program also poses inherent security, law 
enforcement, and illegal immigration risks to the United 
States.[Footnote 3] In particular, VWP travelers are not subject to the 
same degree of screening prior to their travel to the United States as 
travelers with visas because they are not interviewed by a State 
consular officer before arriving at a U.S. port of entry. Therefore, 
there is a greater risk that some VWP travelers could exploit the 
program to gain entry into the United States with the intent to violate 
U.S. immigration or other laws. 

Terrorist acts and plots involving citizens of VWP countries have led 
some critics of the program to suggest that it be eliminated or 
suspended because of the security risks it could present. In September 
2007, the Director of National Intelligence testified that Al Qaeda is 
recruiting Europeans because many of them do not require a visa to 
enter the United States. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 
State officials have acknowledged that the program could be eliminated 
or suspended in the event of a major terrorist attack emanating from a 
VWP country. At the same time, however, some proponents of the Visa 
Waiver Program have called for expansion of the program. In fact, the 
executive branch established in 2005 a "Road Map" initiative to clarify 
the statutory requirements for designation as a participating VWP 
member and has been consulting with 13 countries as part of the 
initiative. In August 2007, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/ 
11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act)[Footnote 4] established more 
flexible criteria for participation in the program, and the executive 
branch is now considering adding several countries to the program later 
this year. In order to mitigate some of the security risks of the 
program while permitting program expansion, the August 2007 legislation 
required the implementation of an electronic travel authorization 
system, which DHS has named the Electronic System for Travel 
Authorization (ESTA). ESTA would require citizens from all VWP 
countries intending to travel to the United States under the Visa 
Waiver Program to apply for and receive electronic authorization prior 
to embarking on their travel to the United States. In the event that 
DHS concludes, based on the ESTA application, that a traveler is 
ineligible to travel under the Visa Waiver Program, or that the 
traveler poses a law enforcement or security risk, ESTA authorization 
will be denied and the traveler may not travel under the Visa Waiver 
Program. Travelers denied ESTA authorization would need to apply for a 
visa if they want to travel to the United States. DHS has announced 
that it intends for all visa waiver travelers to use ESTA by mid 2009 
and told us travelers from some VWP countries could be using it by the 
summer of 2008. 

In order to understand the potential impact on State visa operations as 
a result of significant changes to the Visa Waiver Program, such as (1) 
program elimination or suspension, (2) program expansion, and (3) 
implementation of ESTA, you asked us to examine how each of these three 
different changes could affect the demand for visas, and how changes in 
demand could affect the resources that State needs to maintain its 
consular operations and the amount of visa revenue that State receives. 
We did not assess the security, trade, commerce, tourism, diplomatic, 
reciprocity, or other potential effects of changes to the Visa Waiver 
Program.[Footnote 5] 

To address these three objectives, we analyzed DHS/U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) data on the number of travelers to the United 
States from each VWP and Road Map country annually from 2001 to 2007 
and reviewed State's data from 2001 to 2007 on the numbers and types of 
visas issued in each VWP country as well as on the number of staff 
involved in processing visas in VWP and Road Map countries. With State, 
we developed costs for each Foreign Service officer and Foreign Service 
national staff position. In addition, we met with officials in State's 
Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations 
(OBO), and at embassies in three VWP countries--Japan, France, and 
Spain--and in four Road Map countries--South Korea, Greece, Czech 
Republic, and Hungary--to determine the extent of possible visa demand 
and staffing and facilities needs in those countries. We chose these 
countries primarily due to the size of their traveler or visa volume 
and their geographic diversity. We also analyzed relevant laws 
regarding the program and its requirements, and met with State's Bureau 
of Consular Affairs to discuss the fee that State charges for visa 
applications, what visa processing costs the fee is intended to cover, 
and how much new revenue State would generate in the event of program 
elimination. We also reviewed State's Performance Plan for the Bureau 
of Consular Affairs to determine State's goals and objectives regarding 
visa issuance, as well as any planning State had done for these 
scenarios. Finally, we reviewed standards for internal controls in the 
federal government, including those addressing the importance of 
identifying risks to achieving program goals and planning ways to 
mitigate those risks in order to continue to meet program objectives. 

To assess the staffing and resource costs associated with each 
scenario, we developed our own high-level cost estimates, using data 
from State, DHS, and embassies we visited. CBP provided us with data on 
the number of travelers from each VWP and Road Map country. State's 
Bureau of Consular Affairs provided us with information on the number 
of visas processed in VWP and Road Map countries as well as estimates 
on the number of visas that could be expected to be processed by a 
Foreign Service officer, the number of Foreign Service national staff 
that could be expected to support Foreign Service officers, and--for 
the elimination scenario--estimates of the number of new facilities 
that could be needed. OBO provided data on the cost, type, and size of 
recently completed U.S. government construction projects overseas, the 
costs and sizes of overseas leased facilities used for visa processing, 
and estimates of operations and maintenance costs for U.S. embassy 
facilities. State's Bureau of Resource Management provided information 
on the costs of Foreign Service officers and Foreign Service national 
staff. In addition, we collected post-specific data on the above costs 
when we traveled overseas. We determined that the data provided to us 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report. We prepared 
the cost estimates using fiscal year 2007 constant dollars. Appendix I 
provides a detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

We recognize that there could be other implications of major changes in 
the program, particularly if the program were eliminated. For instance, 
major changes could affect security, tourism, commerce, business, 
trade, diplomacy, and reciprocity regarding visa-free travel. However, 
we limited the scope of our review to the impact on visa demand, visa 
resources--including staffing and facilities--and visa revenues. We 
conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to April 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

The potential elimination or suspension of the Visa Waiver Program 
could cause dramatic increases in the demand for nonimmigrant visas 
that could overwhelm visa operations in the near term. To meet visa 
demand, State would need substantially more staff and facilities. Based 
on current visa fee rates, the additional visa fee revenue collected 
would offset the costs for staff, but not of additional facilities. We 
estimate that, given recent travel patterns, the demand for visas at 
all VWP posts combined could jump from around 500,000 to around 12.6 
million,[Footnote 6] a level of demand that would overwhelm existing 
staffing and facility resources. State officials have not fully 
analyzed the extent to which demand increases would impact resources. 
However, in response to our request, State officials provided us with 
information indicating they could need approximately 45 new facilities 
to handle an increased visa demand of over 12 million. State did not 
estimate the cost of constructing new facilities, though we estimate 
the cost could range from $3.8 billion to $5.7 billion; moreover, State 
officials told us this construction effort could take around 7 years. 
In addition, we estimate State would need substantial numbers of 
additional staff to process visas to meet the increased workload-- 
approximately 540 new Foreign Service officers at a cost of around $185 
million to $201 million per year, and 1,350 local Foreign Service 
national staff at a cost of around $168 million to $190 million per 
year, as well as additional management and support positions overseas 
and in Washington, at a cost of around $93 million to $111 million per 
year. Because VWP elimination would increase the number of travelers 
needing a visa, we estimate annual visa fee revenues would increase 
substantially, by about $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion, and would offset 
the year-to-year recurring staffing costs.[Footnote 7] State has done 
limited planning for how it would address the increased visa demand if 
the Visa Waiver Program were suspended or eliminated. Although State 
periodically estimates global growth in visa demand, it has not 
developed estimates on what growth in visa demand could result from the 
elimination of the program in order to plan for that scenario. In 
addition, State has not evaluated all of the options for how to meet 
the facility and staffing needs described previously, Moreover, posts 
we visited had not prepared contingency plans. Embassy officials in the 
three VWP countries we visited told us that State had not instructed 
them to undertake planning for this scenario and that our visits there 
had fostered their first thinking on the matter. State said that it had 
not developed plans or tasked posts with contingency planning because 
it did not see program suspension or elimination as in line with 
current U.S. government policy. 

Adding countries to the Visa Waiver Program would reduce visa demand in 
those countries, but would likely have a relatively limited effect 
overall on resources needed to meet visa demand and on State's visa fee 
revenues. Visa volume is relatively small in most of the Road Map 
countries; for instance, the recent visa volume in Estonia and the 
Czech Republic, two countries currently being considered for expansion, 
is only around 6,000 visas and 32,500 visas per year, respectively. 
Further, even if all 13 Road Map countries were to join the program, 
and if all of those countries' citizens who previously traveled with 
visas now were to travel to the United States without visas, the total 
reduction in visa demand would be only around 710,000--and over 400,000 
of this reduction would be in South Korea alone. Such a reduction in 
workload would, we estimate, permit State to move about 21 to 31 
Foreign Service officers to other posts in need, and to cut 52 to 77 
Foreign Service national positions overall. U.S. consular management 
officials at locations we visited stated that, if their posts were 
added to the Visa Waiver Program, they would nonetheless need to retain 
a certain number of staff for several reasons--primarily to address 
projected growth in other types of visas--and therefore would be 
reluctant to lose more than 50 percent of their Foreign Service 
officers processing visas until they better understood their new 
staffing needs. In addition, though program expansion would result in 
less space being needed for visa operations, this would likely result 
in little or no building or lease savings because any resulting excess 
consular space is in government-owned facilities, with other U.S. 
government offices, and could not be sold. If all 13 Road Map countries 
were admitted to the Visa Waiver Program, we estimate that State would 
lose approximately $74 million to $83 million each year in collected 
visa fees, offsetting any savings in personnel costs. State would 
likely be able to accommodate program expansion with minimal disruption 
because of the limited impact expected on staffing and facilities. 

State and DHS officials have stated that the implementation of ESTA 
could increase visa demand in current VWP countries, though neither 
State nor DHS has developed estimates of the increase. As a result, 
State has not yet developed plans to manage the increased demand, which 
officials agreed would have the greatest impact in VWP countries with 
the highest numbers of travelers to the United States. DHS is currently 
developing ESTA and is uncertain how many applicants would likely be 
rejected through the ESTA screening process and therefore required to 
apply for a visa. DHS officials told us they believed that, when ESTA 
is fully implemented, less than 1 percent of all VWP country travelers 
would be rejected by the ESTA screening. However, DHS officials also 
told us the rejection rate could be 2 percent to 3 percent in early 
years, eventually tapering off to 1 percent, as the system became more 
established and travelers became more acclimated to using it. In 
addition, State and embassy officials believe that some travelers might 
choose to apply for a visa rather than face potential, unexpected 
travel disruptions due to ESTA. Neither DHS nor State has attempted to 
estimate how ESTA would affect visa demand, and, as a result, State has 
not estimated what additional resources would be needed to manage the 
demand, and what additional visa fees would be received. However, State 
officials told us that, if 1 percent to 3 percent of current VWP 
travelers came to embassies in VWP countries for visas, it could 
greatly increase visa demand at some locations, which could 
significantly disrupt visa operations. For example, if 1 percent of the 
United Kingdom citizens who currently travel to the United States 
without visas needed to or chose to apply for a visa, visa demand there 
could increase by 35,000 per year, or around a 31 percent increase in 
visa workload. Embassy officials in the three VWP countries we visited 
told us that if 3 percent of current visa waiver travelers applied for 
visas, it would result in visa demand that would overwhelm their 
current staffing and facilities. DHS officials told us that DHS has not 
determined what tests, if any, it will conduct to study ESTA rejection 
rates and determine ESTA's impact on visa demand. Furthermore, State 
has no plans to study how implementation of ESTA might affect the 
number of travelers who would choose to apply for a visa rather than 
using ESTA. State indicated that it has not developed plans for how it 
will manage the expected increase in visa demand, citing lack of 
information from DHS on the anticipated rejection rates of ESTA. 

To ensure that State is prepared to address the possible huge increases 
in visa demand that could result from elimination of the Visa Waiver 
Program, we are recommending that the Secretary of State develop 
contingency plans for VWP countries, which would include identifying 
what options State has for providing additional resources and taking 
actions that could be needed, as well as the extent to which increased 
visa fees would cover the cost of these resources. 

In addition, to ensure that State is prepared to manage a potential 
increase in visa demand resulting from the implementation of ESTA, we 
are recommending that DHS and State develop estimates of increased visa 
demand in VWP countries. Based on these estimates, we recommend that 
State develop plans for how it will manage the increased workload. 

We requested comments on this draft from State and DHS. Their comments 
are reprinted in appendixes II and III, respectively. 

State said it would ask U.S. embassies to discuss management plans in 
the event that the Visa Waiver Program were eliminated, but did not 
indicate whether it concurred with our recommendation that State 
conduct contingency planning. State agreed it was crucial to plan for 
the impact that ESTA may have on the 27 VWP countries. However, State 
said its ability to plan for the implementation of ESTA was limited by 
the fact that DHS had not resolved a significant number of crucial 
details about ESTA. 

DHS agreed with our recommendation that it work with State to develop 
estimates of the impact of ESTA implementation on visa demand. DHS said 
that it has been coordinating with State as DHS develops ESTA and plans 
its implementation. 

Background: 

The Visa Waiver Program was created by legislation[Footnote 8] in 1986 
to allow visa-free travel in some instances to citizens of select 
countries. According to State, the program facilitates international 
travel for foreign nationals seeking to visit the United States each 
year and allows State to allocate resources to visa-issuing posts in 
countries with higher-risk applicant pools. The program accepted its 
first participant country--the United Kingdom--in 1988. Currently 27 
countries participate in the program.[Footnote 9] See figure 1 for a 
map of the VWP countries. 

Figure 1: Current Visa Waiver Program Countries: 

This figure is a map of the current Visa Waiver program countries. 

Iceland; 
United Kingdom; 
Ireland; 
France; 
Spain; 
Portugal; 
Andorra; 
Switzerland; 
Monaco; 
Italy; 
San Marino; 
Liechtenstein; 
Slovenia; 
Austria; 
Luxembourg; 
Germany; 
Denmark; 
Sweden; 
Finland; 
Norway; 
The Netherlands; 
Belgium; 
Japan; 
Singapore; 
Brunei; 
Australia; 
New Zealand. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO; Map Resources (image). 

[End of figure] 

See table 1 for a list of current VWP countries and the average number 
of travelers to the United States and average number of visas issued 
from 2001 to 2007. This table demonstrates that most citizens from 
these countries who travel to the United States do so through the Visa 
Waiver Program, rather than by obtaining a visa. 

Table 1: Current VWP Countries and Average Number of Travelers and 
Average Number of Visas Issued from 2001 to 2007: 

Country: Andorra; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 645; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 29. 

Country: Australia; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 501,477; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 30,439. 

Country: Austria; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 119,790; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 6,194. 

Country: Belgium; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 153,544; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 6,215. 

Country: Brunei; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 1,050; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 175. 

Country: Denmark; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 146,217; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 8,028. 

Country: Finland; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 79,802; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 5,029. 

Country: France; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 869,331; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 47,690. 

Country: Germany; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 1,296,681; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 64,043. 

Country: Iceland; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 33,859; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 1,512. 

Country: Ireland; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 266,969; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 16,462. 

Country: Italy; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 555,126; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 26,029. 

Country: Japan; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 3,261,747; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 94,064. 

Country: Liechtenstein; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 1,764; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 54. 

Country: Luxembourg; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 7,005; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 311. 

Country: Monaco; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 711; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 24. 

Country: The Netherlands; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 451,505; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 15,304. 

Country: New Zealand; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 155,792; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 9,359. 

Country: Norway; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 125,156; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 8,656. 

Country: Portugal; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 90,928; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 4,831. 

Country: San Marino; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 495; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 19. 

Country: Singapore; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 98,911; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 8,703. 

Country: Slovenia; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 10,994; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 1,171. 

Country: Spain; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 397,028; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 18,740. 

Country: Sweden; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 247,809; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 13,254. 

Country: Switzerland; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 214,781; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 10,822. 

Country: United Kingdom; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 3,543,984; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 113,534. 

Country: Total; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 12,633,101; 
Average Number of Visas Issued: 510,693. 

Source: GAO analysis of State and DHS data. 

[End of table] 

The Visa Waiver Program affects U.S. security, trade, commerce, 
tourism, diplomatic, and other interests. Our previous work has found 
that eliminating the program could have significant negative effects on 
these interests, as well as on U.S. relationships with VWP countries. 
For example, if the United States decided to eliminate the program, 
those eliminated countries would likely reciprocate and require 
Americans to obtain visas before visiting their countries. 

Visa Fee: 

State has the authority, by law,[Footnote 10] to charge a fee for visas 
it issues to foreign nationals. According to State, State attempts to 
recover its costs for processing a visa with its fee, but the fee does 
not cover all associated processing costs.[Footnote 11] Consular 
Affairs officials said this cost recovery includes the direct costs of 
the activity, such as the costs of biometric information, conducting 
name checks, interviewing applicants, conducting follow-up 
investigations if necessary, and printing the visa. It also includes 
what Consular Affairs officials called the indirect costs of whatever 
percentage of a visa-processing staff position overseas is spent 
processing visas. The visa fee is neither meant, nor used, for covering 
the costs of facilities used to process visas, according to State. 

State's Efforts to Address Growing Visa Demand: 

The global demand for U.S. visas has grown substantially in recent 
years, and State expects it to continue to grow in the foreseeable 
future. In 2006, according to State, U.S. embassies processed over 8 
million visa applications and issued 5.84 million visas worldwide, 
which includes the more than 700,000 visas issued in Road Map 
countries. This included short-term business and tourism visas, as well 
as visas for students, temporary workers, foreign exchange visitors, 
and other visa types. As we reported in July of 2007, State has had 
difficulty meeting growing visa demand over the long term, which has 
led to operational challenges, including long wait times.[Footnote 12] 
We found that, though State has attempted to address this demand by 
adding and reallocating staff worldwide, even with the increased 
staffing, State has not been able to keep pace with visa demand. In 
addition, we testified in August of 2007[Footnote 13] that State's 
initiative to address its staffing shortages did not fully meet its 
goals and staffing shortfalls remained a problem. 

Security Threats Related to the Visa Waiver Program: 

Some members of Congress have stated and agency officials have 
acknowledged that the Visa Waiver Program presents security risks, 
citing terrorist attacks and plots involving VWP travelers. One of the 
terrorists involved in the attack against the United States on 
September 11, 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui, entered the country under the 
program.[Footnote 14] In addition, since the 9/11 attacks, there have 
been some high-profile terrorist plots emanating from VWP countries. In 
December of 2001, British citizen Richard Reid, flying to the United 
States under the Visa Waiver Program from France, attempted to detonate 
explosives midflight, but was prevented from doing so by flight 
attendants and passengers. In August of 2006, U.S. and British security 
officials announced the disruption of a plot by British citizens to use 
liquid explosives to blow up multiple airliners during flights to the 
United States. Finally, as noted earlier, in September of 2007, the 
Director of National Intelligence testified that Al Qaeda is recruiting 
Europeans because many of them do not require a visa to enter the 
United States. The director noted that this recruiting tactic provides 
Al Qaeda with an "extra edge in getting an operative or two or three 
into the country with the ability to carry out an attack that might be 
reminiscent of 9/11." 

Flexibility to Expand Visa Waiver Program: 

In 2005, President Bush announced plans to work with 13 Road Map 
countries to facilitate their eventual entry into the Visa Waiver 
Program. Figure 2 shows the 13 Road Map Initiative countries. 

Figure 2: Road Map Initiative Countries: 

This figure is a map showing the Road Map Initiative countries. 

Czech Republic; 
Hungary; 
Romania; 
Bulgaria; 
Greece; 
Malta; 
Cyprus; 
Slovekia; 
Poland; 
Lithuania; 
Latvia; 
Estonia; 
South Korea. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO Map Resources (image). 

[End of figure] 

See table 2 for a list of current Road Map Initiative countries and 
those countries' average number of travelers to the United States and 
average number of visas issued from 2001 to 2007. This table shows the 
number of travelers from Road Map countries to be around 1 million per 
year. 

Table 2: Road Map Initiative Countries and Average Number of Travelers 
and Average Number of Visas Issued from 2001 to 2007: 

Country: Bulgaria; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 32,229; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 25,295. 

Country: Cyprus; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 8,028; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 4,911. 

Country: Czech Republic; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 18,908; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 32,534. 

Country: Estonia; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 6,145; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 6,053. 

Country: Greece; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 52,044; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 34,146. 

Country: Hungary; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 38,828; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 22,925. 

Country: Latvia; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 8,703; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 7,648. 

Country: Lithuania; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 13,028; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 10,995. 

Country: Malta; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 3,780; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 3,021. 

Country: Poland; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 160,089; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 106,823. 

Country: Romania; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 46,347; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 37,754. 

Country: Slovakia; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 17,551; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 18,253. 

Country: South Korea; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 693,175; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 401,594. 

Country: Total; 
Average Number of Travelers to the United States: 1,098,855; 
Average Number of Visas Issued[A]: 711,952. 

Source: GAO analysis of State and DHS data. 

[A] According to State officials, the number of visas issued in a 
country could exceed the number of travelers from the same country due 
to several factors. For instance, individuals issued visas may not 
travel in that year, and visas may be issued there to citizens from 
other countries (third country nationals). 

[End of table] 

In August of 2007, Congress passed the 9/11 Act,[Footnote 15]which 
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, to waive the low, nonimmigrant visa-refusal rate 
requirement[Footnote 16] for countries that meet certain conditions 
enumerated in the act, including law enforcement and intelligence 
conditions. For example, countries must cooperate with the United 
States on counterterrorism initiatives. However, before the Secretary 
of Homeland Security can exercise this new authority, the 9/11 Act 
requires that the department complete certain actions aimed at 
enhancing the security of the program. 

One of these required actions is that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security must develop and certify the implementation of ESTA in VWP 
countries.[Footnote 17] According to DHS, ESTA will allow DHS to screen 
citizens from VWP countries who wish to travel to the United States 
before they depart for U.S. ports of entry.[Footnote 18] Officials told 
us that DHS will advise applicants to go online at least 72 hours 
before the date they plan to depart for the United States in order to 
complete the ESTA application, which will collect electronically 
information similar to the information collected in paper form by 
CBP,[Footnote 19] which all VWP travelers present to CBP officers upon 
arrival at a port of entry. According to DHS, after submitting the 
application,[Footnote 20] DHS determines the applicant's eligibility to 
travel under the Visa Waiver Program and whether there exists a law 
enforcement or security risk in permitting the applicant to travel to 
the country under the program. To the extent possible, DHS says, 
applicants will find out almost immediately whether their travel has 
been authorized, in which case they are free to travel to the United 
States, or if their application has been rejected, in which case they 
are ineligible to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver 
Program. Those found ineligible to travel under the Visa Waiver Program 
must apply for a visa at a U.S. embassy in order to travel to the 
United States. At the embassy, foreign citizens whose ESTA applications 
were rejected apply for a visa and pay the visa fee and are either 
approved to travel to the United States or denied. Figure 3 
demonstrates how ESTA will work, according to DHS and State. 

Figure 3: Foreign Citizens Apply through ESTA for Travel to the United 
States: 

This figure is a flow chart illustrating how foreign citizens apply 
through ESTA for travel to the United States. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and State information; Nova development 
(clip art). 

Note: In addition to the process described above, CBP officers screen 
travelers at U.S. ports of entry and can deny admission if the traveler 
is determined for any reason to be inadmissible under U.S. law. 

[End of figure] 

Elimination of Visa Waiver Program Could Dramatically Increase Visa 
Demand and Overwhelm Visa Operations in the Near Term, but State Has 
Not Developed Contingency Plans: 

Elimination or suspension of the Visa Waiver Program could cause 
dramatic increases in the demand for visas that could overwhelm visa 
operations in the near term. To meet visa demand, State would need 
substantially more staff and facilities. State also would receive large 
increases in the amount of visa fees collected, which would offset the 
costs for staff, but not the cost of additional facilities. State has 
conducted limited planning to address the potential impact of Visa 
Waiver Program elimination or suspension. 

Visa Demand Would Increase Dramatically if the Program Were Eliminated 
or Suspended: 

Elimination or suspension of the Visa Waiver Program could cause 
dramatic increases in the demand for visas. We estimate that, given 
existing travel patterns, the annual demand for visas at all VWP posts 
combined could jump from over 500,000 to as much as around 12.6 
million,[Footnote 21] a level of demand that would overwhelm existing 
staffing and facility resources. For example, the U.S. mission in 
Japan, a post that is accustomed to processing around 94,000 visas per 
year, could find 3.3 million potential travelers seeking visas if the 
program were eliminated. Even countries that have smaller numbers of 
annual travelers to the United States could see substantial demand 
increases. For example, in Singapore, the U.S. embassy--accustomed to 
processing around 9,000 visas per year--could see visa demand grow 
almost 11-fold to nearly 100,000. 

State Would Need Substantial Increases in Staff to Meet Increased Visa 
Demand: 

If the Visa Waiver Program were eliminated or suspended, State 
officials told us that existing visa staffing resources would be unable 
to meet the new visa demand. As a result, State would need a 
substantial increase in staff to process visas to meet the increased 
workload. State officials told us that, over the long term, they would 
likely hire Foreign Service officers and Foreign Service national staff 
to support those Foreign Service officers, though these officials 
acknowledged they have not evaluated all of the options for meeting 
their staffing needs for this purpose. At three U.S. embassies we 
visited in VWP countries--Japan, France, and Spain--embassy officials 
told us they would need hundreds of new Foreign Service officers to 
perform visa interviews and adjudicate visa applications for the 
millions of new visa applicants arriving at the embassies. In Japan, 
for instance, we estimate the embassy would need at least 134 new 
Foreign Service officers (an increase of 515 percent above the current 
visa Foreign Service officer workforce of 26) to meet the expected 
increased visa demand of over 3.3 million new applicants, as well as 
around 334 new Foreign Service nationals (an increase of 451 percent 
over the existing Foreign Service national workforce of 74). We 
estimate that State would have to hire around 540 new Foreign Service 
officers worldwide, at an estimated cost of between $185 million and 
$201 million per year. In addition, State would have to hire around 
1,350 new Foreign Service national staff worldwide, which would cost 
around $168 million to $190 million per year. Finally, State told us 
these new overseas positions would need the management and support of 
additional staff overseas and in Washington; we estimated these costs 
at $93 million to $111 million per year. Over a 10-year period after 
the elimination of the program, these costs would total between $4.4 
billion and $4.9 billion.[Footnote 22] 

State officials told us that a hiring effort of this kind would be 
historic in its scope and very difficult to undertake. Both Consular 
Affairs and embassy officials told us they were unsure exactly how 
State would accomplish a hiring increase of this magnitude, given 
current staffing and funding levels. Consular and embassy officials 
told us in the event that only one of the larger current VWP countries 
were dropped from the program, State may be able to provide a surge of 
staff on temporary duty to cope with the immediate spike in visa demand 
in that country, though State had not developed any plans on how to do 
so. However, these officials noted, with all 27 countries, or even 
several of the larger VWP countries dropped from the program, it would 
be impossible to meet new demand with existing staff. Moreover, 
consular officials stated that it could be very difficult for State to 
hire and for its Foreign Service Institute to train the number of staff 
that would be needed in a short period of time. For instance, from 
fiscal year 2005 to 2007, State produced around 300 to 400 new Foreign 
Service officers per year for all global State needs. As many as 200 to 
300 of these officers entered into consular functions upon their 
initial deployment overseas to enable State to meet recent year-to-year 
visa demand. State, however, would need around 2 to 3 times this number 
to meet the new demand for visas in the event of VWP elimination. 

State Could Need Dozens of New Facilities Costing Billions of Dollars 
to Accommodate Increased Visa Demand: 

Though Consular Affairs officials told us they have not fully analyzed 
the extent to which demand increases would impact resources in the 
event of program elimination, they provided us with information 
indicating they could need approximately 45 new buildings to handle the 
increased visa demand. OBO officials said this estimate was generally 
realistic, based on the potential increases in staffing that could be 
needed in the event of program elimination and the capacity of 
buildings to absorb those levels of new staff. However, both OBO and 
Consular Affairs officials indicated that it was impossible to predict 
the exact number of facilities that would be needed. OBO, Consular 
Affairs, and embassy officials told us it would be challenging to build 
these facilities in a timely and cost-effective manner or, 
alternatively, to find enough suitable space that could be leased for 
this purpose. State officials told us they would immediately outgrow 
their current visa processing space in dozens of posts, and embassy 
officials in all three VWP countries we visited said they would need 
new buildings to accommodate visa demand. In fact, these embassy 
officials noted that a relatively small increase in visa demand would 
cramp visa waiting rooms and consular adjudicating officer workspace. 
In addition, embassy officials told us it would be extremely difficult 
to find suitable land that would provide the space and the setting 
necessary for building, or leasing, according to State's building and 
security standards. Embassy officials in these countries added that 
land, facility construction costs, and leasing costs in their host 
countries would be extremely expensive--among the most expensive in the 
world. OBO officials confirmed that VWP countries' real estate markets 
did not offer easy or inexpensive opportunities for building new 
embassy or separate annex buildings for consular use. OBO officials 
further stated that finding appropriate sites and negotiating sales in 
this type of environment would not only cost more, but also would 
likely take longer to accomplish, tying up OBO resources and 
potentially delaying the point at which visa operations could resume 
within a U.S. mission. Until long-term arrangements are made to meet 
facility needs, OBO officials said, the embassy would likely be forced 
to lease space to accommodate increased visa demand. 

We calculated that it would cost between $3.8 billion and $5.7 billion 
to construct 45 new facilities in these countries. This total cost of 
$3.8 billion to $5.7 billion would include: (1) new building 
construction costs, (2) the costs of leasing temporary facilities to 
accommodate visa operations while new facilities are constructed, (3) 
facility operations and maintenance costs, and (4) the cost of 
additional OBO staff. OBO officials told us that if these 45 buildings 
supplanted those already scheduled to be constructed, it could take 
around 7 years to finish the design, planning, and construction so that 
visa operations could be conducted there. However, if OBO were to 
proceed with its existing building schedule in addition to the 45 new 
facilities, it would require an increase of approximately 400, or 
around 40 percent more, full-time permanent or temporary contractor 
staff. If OBO hired a mix of around 400 full-time and contractor staff, 
it would cost between $648 million and $897 million over the roughly 7 
years. OBO officials told us it would be difficult to find that many 
staff without using contractors. In addition, OBO noted that since the 
staff would be employed for only that 7-year period of time and phased 
out at the end of this period, there would be an advantage to hiring 
contractors since OBO would not have to provide them with benefits or 
severance pay. In addition, we estimated the cost of leasing facilities 
to accommodate dramatically increased visa operations over this 7-year 
construction period would be between $226 million and $416 million. 

State Would See Significant Increases in Visa Revenues, Offsetting New 
Staffing Costs: 

While staffing and facilities needs would increase if the Visa Waiver 
Program were eliminated, this scenario also would increase the number 
of travelers needing a visa; as a result, we estimate visa fee revenues 
would increase substantially. Using the current fee of $131 per 
application, we calculated the increase in State's visa revenue to be 
$1.7 billion to $1.8 billion per year. We estimate that this increased 
revenue would offset the year-to-year recurring costs associated with 
new staff. However, since visa fees would not be collected until the 
end of the first year, the initial annual staffing costs of $447 
million to $486 million would not be offset by visa fees. In addition, 
visa fee revenues would be far less than the costs for facility 
construction and, further, are not used for the purpose of offsetting 
facility construction costs--the largest portion of the initial costs-
-or the year-to-year facility maintenance costs on those facilities. 

State Has Done Limited Planning to Address the Impact of Visa Waiver 
Program Elimination: 

Though State has made efforts to address long-term growth in visa 
demand, as noted earlier, the department has conducted limited planning 
to address the significant operational challenges that could result 
from the potential elimination of the Visa Waiver Program. State 
Department and federal guidelines have highlighted the importance of 
planning for potential program changes that could impact operations. 
This is particularly important given that any significant disruptions 
to U.S. visa operations could have severe repercussions on U.S. travel, 
trade, business, tourism, and diplomatic interests. State's Performance 
Plan for the Bureau of Consular Affairs for 2007 sets a performance 
goal of "Proper Visa Adjudication" and acknowledges challenges that 
could seriously impede progress would include "an extended disruption 
of international travel and any significant change in participation in 
[the Visa Waiver Program]." State and embassy officials told us during 
our review that the elimination of the Visa Waiver Program could cause 
such disruptions of international travel. According to internal control 
standards for the federal government,[Footnote 23] once an agency has 
set its objectives and identified the risks that could impede the 
efficient and effective achievement of those objectives at the entity 
level and the activity level, the agency should analyze those risks for 
their possible effect. Management then should formulate an approach for 
risk management and decide upon the internal control activities 
required to mitigate those risks and achieve the internal control 
objectives of efficient and effective operations. 

Although State has identified risks, it has not developed a plan for 
how it would deal with these risks. State has conducted limited 
planning to prepare for the possibility of Visa Waiver Program 
elimination, though such a scenario could create significant 
operational challenges for State, as visa demand would dramatically 
increase. Specifically, several years ago, State undertook some 
preliminary thinking about the scenario--including the general 
magnitude of the resource challenges that would be involved--and 
acknowledged the importance of doing so; we reviewed the documentation 
provided and found that the limited planning was general in nature, 
largely outdated, and does not address the full range of the challenges 
that would arise, particularly how to provide the additional staffing 
resources and facilities needed. For instance, a memo from Consular 
Affairs to OBO requests that OBO identify the space requirements that 
might be needed in the event of VWP elimination. However, there is no 
information about how OBO would acquire the substantial amount of 
additional space needed if the program were eliminated. State officials 
told us they did not think planning for program elimination or 
suspension was appropriate, given that current U.S. government policy 
does not support program elimination. However, in September 2007, the 
Director of National Intelligence testified that Al Qaeda is recruiting 
Europeans because many of them do not require a visa to enter the 
United States, which, he noted, provides Al Qaeda with an "extra edge 
in getting an operative or two or three into the country with the 
ability to carry out an attack that might be reminiscent of 9/11." 
Moreover, DHS, State, and embassy officials have acknowledged the 
program could be suspended or eliminated in the event of a major attack 
emanating from a VWP country. 

If State does not develop contingency plans and the program is 
eliminated, State could face tremendous challenges addressing staffing 
and facilities shortfalls. State has had problems dealing with large 
demand increases in the past. In 2007, when new passport requirements 
were implemented, State faced substantial increases in demand for 
passports. However, because State had not adequately planned for the 
implications of these new requirements, it faced shortages in staffing 
and other resources that led to tremendous backlogs that were only 
addressed when State redeployed domestic and overseas staff and took 
other emergency measures to address the surge in demand.[Footnote 24] 
Consular officials in Washington told us that the impact of the new 
passport requirements on that process and the resource shortages that 
State faced in 2007 would be minor compared to the challenges State 
would face in meeting visa demand in the event that the Visa Waiver 
Program were eliminated. For instance, given the potential historic 
level of visa demand that program elimination could bring about and 
State's inadequate resources to address this demand, State officials 
told us they would need to find creative staffing and facility 
solutions in the short term and, moreover, may need to make choices 
regarding changes in resource allocation, visa policies, and other 
considerations to ensure the right balance between security and 
facilitating legitimate travel. However, State has not developed a plan 
that identifies its options for meeting the facility and staffing needs 
described above, or how it would go about making any such changes. 

State officials at posts we visited in existing VWP countries told us 
they had not been contacted by their headquarters about undertaking any 
contingency planning in the event of program elimination. In addition, 
they said they had not been asked for data or post thinking on the 
issue, or been provided any information on how post activities, 
programs, or resources might change given such a scenario. Embassy 
officials in all three VWP countries we visited told us that our visit 
and questions had fostered their first real consideration of what was 
involved in these issues. Consular officials in these posts expressed 
concern to us that, in the absence of planning for this scenario, visa 
operations at their posts could be severely disrupted as existing 
staffing and facilities resources would be overwhelmed. 

Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program Would Reduce Visa Demand, but 
Likely Have Limited Effect on State's Visa Costs and Resources: 

Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program would reduce visa demand in Road 
Map countries, but have a limited effect on the costs and resources 
needed to meet the reduced demand and the amount of visa fees 
received.[Footnote 25] Expansion would only modestly reduce overall 
staffing needs. Further, expansion would not bring about significant 
cost savings from facilities, in part because Road Map countries lack 
consular or other embassy space that could be sold. If all 13 countries 
were admitted to the program, we estimate that State would stand to 
lose approximately $74 million to $83 million each year in collected 
visa fee revenues. State would likely be able to accommodate program 
expansion with relatively minimal disruption, therefore requiring 
limited planning because of the minimal impact expected on staffing and 
facilities. 

Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program Would Reduce Visa Demand in Road 
Map Countries: 

Visa demand in any Road Map country would decline after the country's 
admission to the program. However, visa volume is relatively small in 
most of the Road Map countries. For instance, the recent visa volume in 
Estonia and the Czech Republic, two countries currently being 
considered for expansion, is only around 6,000 visas and 32,500 visas 
per year, respectively. Even if all 13 Road Map countries were to join 
the program, and if all of those countries' citizens who previously 
traveled with visas were to travel to the United States without visas, 
the total reduction in visa demand would be only around 710,000; more 
than 400,000 of this reduction would be in South Korea alone. In 
addition, these posts, many of which already issue relatively small 
numbers of visas, would continue to experience some demand for tourism 
and business visas and continued growth in student, long-term work, and 
other types of visas. Officials told us they generally expect continued 
visa travel as some percentage of VWP travelers will be rejected by 
ESTA and directed to apply for a visa at the embassy. Further, consular 
officials told us they expect that some travelers may choose to obtain 
a visa rather than travel via the Visa Waiver Program due to the risk 
of being rejected by ESTA, as well as the greater flexibility a visa 
offers. For instance, travelers with a 10-year visa can choose to 
travel at any time during that 10-year period, and also can decide to 
extend the length of their visit for longer than the 90 days allowed 
under the program. In addition, consular officials in South Korea 
stated that they continue to have large increases year to year in other 
types of visas issued there. So, even if most demand for short-term 
business and tourism visas were to decrease following acceptance into 
the program, there could still be significant growth in demand for 
other types of visas. Consular officials in the Road Map countries we 
visited stated they expected that their visa volume in the near term 
would likely be between 20 percent and 40 percent of recent numbers of 
travelers--between 220,000 visas and 440,000 visas. Given all of these 
factors that could affect visa demand, consular management officials at 
locations we visited stated that, if their posts were added to the Visa 
Waiver Program, they would be reluctant in the near term to lose more 
than 50 percent of their Foreign Service officers processing visas 
until they better understand their new staffing needs. 

Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program Would Modestly Impact Overall 
Staffing Needs: 

Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program would modestly impact overall 
staffing needs in Road Map countries. Although consular conditions in 
Road Map countries vary, consular officials in the Road Map countries 
we visited expect modest reductions in their visa processing staff 
needs as these countries gain acceptance to the program. For example, 
in the three Road Map country posts of Athens, Prague, and Budapest, 
the combined annual visa workload of around 90,000 is relatively small, 
and consular management there told us that eliminating this workload 
would result in only around four fewer Foreign Service officer staff 
among the three countries. In the Czech Republic, where consular 
officials process around 32,500 visas per year, officials expect they 
will need only one fewer Foreign Service officer when accepted into the 
program, and only two to three fewer Foreign Service nationals. 
Similarly, consular officials expected relatively modest staff 
reductions for South Korea, where consular staff process around 402,000 
visas per year--the highest number of U.S. visas issued among Road Map 
countries. If South Korea is admitted to the program, consular 
officials expect to need 6 to 9 fewer Foreign Service officers and 15 
to 20 fewer Foreign Service nationals.[Footnote 26] In total, if all 13 
Road Map countries joined the program, we estimate that about 21 to 31 
Foreign Service officers could be moved to other posts in need of staff 
and 52 to 77 Foreign Service national positions could be cut. 

Beyond its limited impact on staffing in VWP Road Map countries, 
expansion of the program would have even less of an effect on State's 
overall worldwide staffing needs and costs. First, for fiscal year 
2006, Consular Affairs reported that posts in Road Map countries 
represented a small portion of total U.S. visa operations; these 
countries employed 105 Foreign Service officers and 301 other consular 
employees, less than 10 percent of the over 4,500 consular employees 
overseas in 2006. Moreover, officials in State's Consular Affairs 
Bureau said that Foreign Service officers no longer needed at new VWP 
posts will not be eliminated but rather transferred to other posts, 
thereby shifting, not eliminating, costs and revenues generated by 
those staff. Consular officials noted there is a need for additional 
staff in other countries with large backlogs of visa applications, such 
as China, India, and Mexico, and consular officials in South Korea 
noted that, if the country were accepted into the program, Foreign 
Service officers not needed would likely be transferred to such posts 
at the end of their regular tour of duty. 

Although acceptance into the Visa Waiver Program would reduce total 
visa processing costs for Road Map countries, State and embassy 
officials expect increases in some short-term costs, such as severance 
pay to the displaced Foreign Service national workforce and the costs 
of hiring new Foreign Service national staff to support the transferred 
Foreign Service officer staff at their new posts.[Footnote 27] State 
and embassy officials noted that short-term costs for severance 
payments to displaced Foreign Service national employees would vary 
depending on the laws of individual countries.[Footnote 28] We estimate 
that nonrecurring costs of expanding the program to Road Map countries 
would be between $3.7 million and $4.3 million--with around $3.3 
million to $3.9 million to cover severance costs and approximately 
$385,000 to $476,000 for the costs to hire and train additional 
supporting Foreign Service nationals in the Foreign Service officers' 
new locations. 

Little or No Consular Facilities Savings Anticipated as Road Map 
Countries Transition to the Visa Waiver Program: 

Embassy officials in Road Map countries we visited did not expect 
dollar savings from reduced facility usage after the countries are 
accepted into the Visa Waiver Program. In the countries we visited, the 
visa operations generally occupy a portion of embassy facilities. None 
of U.S. embassy visa operations in Road Map countries are currently 
housed in leased space, and therefore no lease savings will accompany 
reduced visa operations. Visa operations in South Korea, the Road Map 
country processing the greatest number of visas, are based in an 
embassy operating above normal capacity, and U.S. embassy officials 
there stated that any space freed as a result of gaining acceptance to 
the Visa Waiver Program would simply allow the existing consular space, 
which currently requires a waiver since it does not meet fire code, to 
operate under less cramped and strained conditions. Similarly, U.S. 
embassies in Road Map countries we visited in Eastern Europe do not 
expect to gain any facility cost savings as a result of joining the 
program. 

Reduced Visa Revenues Anticipated as Road Map Countries Transition to 
the Visa Waiver Program: 

Acceptance of Road Map countries into the program would significantly 
reduce the amount of visa fee revenues collected in those 
countries.[Footnote 29] While embassy officials in all four Road Map 
countries we visited told us they expected to retain some visa demand 
in the event their host country entered into the program, they agreed 
most business and tourism visa demands would significantly decrease. 
Assuming all 13 Road Map countries were admitted to the program and 
that most eligible foreign citizens traveled under the program, we 
estimate that State would lose approximately $74 million to $83 million 
each year in collected visa fees, generally offsetting any savings from 
reduced personnel costs. 

State Is Prepared to Adjust to Meet Program Expansion: 

State likely would be able to accommodate program expansion with 
minimal disruption because of the limited impact expected on staffing 
and facilities. As a result, preparing for potential program expansion 
would require little additional advanced planning by State. For 
example, as noted above, even in South Korea--the Road Map country 
issuing the highest number of U.S. visas, about 56 percent of all visas 
issued in Road Map countries--consular officials expected relatively 
modest staff reductions. Embassy officials in the four Road Map 
countries we visited told us that, were their host countries' entries 
into the program confirmed, they could take steps at the posts to 
adjust to and accommodate decreased visa demand and its impact on 
staffing and facility resources. In one Road Map country we visited, 
embassy officials told us that if they were instructed by State 
officials in Washington to prepare for immediate admission of the host 
country into the program, the embassy would make decisions about how to 
handle the repercussions of decreased visa demand on staffing and on 
current visa processing facility space. For example, given the 
decreases in the number of Foreign Service national staff positions 
needed at post under program expansion, embassy officials said they 
would try to find other positions for these staff, if possible, to ease 
the impact on the Foreign Service national workforce and mitigate 
potential severance costs. In addition, as discussed previously, while 
embassy officials in all four Road Map countries we visited said they 
did not think program expansion would significantly impact their 
mission's facilities, they noted that any freed space would be easily 
used by other consular or embassy functions, and such a transition 
would be planned and implemented by the embassy. 

ESTA Implementation Could Increase Visa Demand, but State and DHS Have 
Not Planned How to Manage an Increase: 

ESTA implementation could increase visa demand in existing VWP 
countries. However, State and DHS are uncertain how many applicants 
would likely be rejected through the ESTA screening process and 
therefore required to apply for a visa, and they also are unsure how 
many potential travelers would choose to get a visa rather than 
participate in the ESTA screening. State has not developed contingency 
plans for how it will manage the expected increase in visa demand, 
citing lack of information from DHS on the effect of ESTA. 

ESTA Implementation May Increase Visa Demand and Resource Needs, but 
Full Extent of Increase Remains Unknown: 

ESTA implementation will increase visa demand in VWP countries, though 
the full extent to which it will do so remains uncertain. DHS officials 
told us that, given CBP's operational experience administering the Visa 
Waiver Program as it currently exists, they currently believed that 
when ESTA is fully implemented, less than 1 percent of all VWP country 
travelers would be rejected by the ESTA screening. DHS officials also 
told us the rejection rate could be 2 percent to 3 percent in early 
years, eventually tapering off to 1 percent as the system became more 
established and travelers became more acclimated to using it, while 
some officials said it could range as high as 5 percent. However, DHS 
officials told us they can not yet determine the rate of rejection from 
ESTA, because DHS has not yet decided what databases it will use to 
screen names of ESTA applicants. In addition, given ESTA's potential 
for causing last-minute travel disruptions, consular staff at the posts 
we visited told us they believe an additional unknown number of 
travelers from VWP countries would choose instead to proactively apply 
for visas at embassies. For example, around 14 percent of annual 
entries to the United States from VWP countries are made by repeat 
travelers; one senior consular official estimated that these travelers 
who visit the United States multiple times a year may prefer to travel 
using a visa rather than through the program. Most officials predicted 
that the percentage of travelers who choose to obtain a visa could 
exceed potential ESTA rejection rates of 1 percent to 3 
percent.[Footnote 30] State officials told us that the influx of even a 
small percentage of current travelers in larger VWP countries to obtain 
visas could significantly disrupt visa operations at U.S. 
embassies.[Footnote 31] For example, if 1 percent of the United Kingdom 
citizens who currently travel to the United States without visas needed 
to or chose to apply for a visa, visa demand there could increase by 
35,000 per year, or around a 31 percent increase in visa workload. 
Further, embassy officials in the three VWP countries we visited told 
us that if 3 percent of current visa waiver travelers applied for 
visas, it would result in visa demand that would overwhelm their 
current staffing and facilities. However, DHS acknowledges that it does 
not know how many travelers may prefer to directly seek a visa rather 
than participate in ESTA-approved travel, and it acknowledges that ESTA 
rejection rates and the rate of voluntary visa travelers may vary by 
country. 

We developed a series of estimates of ESTA's potential impact on demand 
and consular staffing needs, as well as on visa fees. Though State 
officials provided us with data to support these estimates, they did 
not provide data on ESTA's impact on facility costs. A State official 
told us that predicting ESTA's impact was very difficult, particularly 
for facilities, and that developing such data for facilities would 
require an extensive analytical effort involving multiple offices 
within State, particularly OBO, as well as extensive management 
involvement--and, moreover, would take a long time. Our estimates in 
table 3 include scenarios where 1, 2, 3, 5, or 10 percent of travelers 
who currently travel under the Visa Waiver Program come to U.S. 
embassies for a visa, and they take into account increases in visa 
applications due to ESTA rejections as well as from travelers choosing 
voluntarily to apply for visas. Further, table 3 represents estimates 
of the potential increases in visa demand globally and for the largest 
VWP countries, as a result of the implementation of ESTA, assuming 1, 
2, 3, 5, or 10 percent of current VWP travelers went to the embassies 
to apply for a visa. 

Table 3: Potential Effects of ESTA on Visa Demand: 

Country: United Kingdom; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 113, 534; 
Average number of travelers annually: 3.54 million; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 35,440; 
If 2%: 70,880; 
If 3%: 106,320; 
If 5%: 177,200; 
If 10%: 354,400. 

Country: Japan; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 94,064; 
Average number of travelers annually: 3.26 million; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 32,617; 
If 2%: 65,235; 
If 3%: 97,852; 
If 5%: 163,087; 
If 10%: 326,175. 

Country: Germany; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 64,043; 
Average number of travelers annually: 1.3 million; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 12,967; 
If 2%: 25,934; 
If 3%: 38,900; 
If 5%: 64,834; 
If 10%: 129,668. 

Country: France; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 47,690; 
Average number of travelers annually: 869,000; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 8,693; 
If 2%: 17,387; 
If 3%: 26,080; 
If 5%: 43,467; 
If 10%: 86,933. 

Country: Italy; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 26,029; 
Average number of travelers annually: 555,000; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 5, 551; 
If 2%: 11,103; 
If 3%: 16,654; 
If 5%: 27,756; 
If 10%: 55,513. 

Country: Australia; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 30,439; 
Average number of travelers annually: 501,000; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 5,015; 
If 2%: 10,030; 
If 3%: 15,044; 
If 5%: 25,074; 
If 10%: 50,148. 

Country: Netherlands; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 15,304; 
Average number of travelers annually: 451,000; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 4,515; 
If 2%: 9,030; 
If 3%: 13,545; 
If 5%: 22,575; 
If 10%: 45,151. 

Country: Remaining 20 VWP members; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 119,590; 
Average number of travelers annually: 2.15 million; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 21,532; 
If 2%: 43,065; 
If 3%: 64,598; 
If 5%: 107,663; 
If 10%: 215,325. 

Country: Total; 
Average number of visas issued annually: 510,693; 
Average number of travelers annually: 12.6 million; 
If extra 1% of travelers, number of visas issued increases by: 126,331; 
If 2%: 252,662; 
If 3%: 378,993; 
If 5%: 631,655; 
If 10%: 1.26 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of State Department and DHS data. 

[End of table] 

All of these scenarios would place a strain on existing embassy 
staffing, particularly in larger VWP countries, while even small rates 
of increase in larger VWP countries could strain consular facilities, 
necessitating the construction of new facilities in some countries at 
potentially significant costs, according to State and embassy 
officials. As noted earlier, State has had a difficult time meeting 
recent staffing needs globally; State and embassy officials told us 
they could find it difficult to meet staffing needs in high-volume VWP 
posts in the near term if higher percentages of current travelers come 
to the embassies for visas. Furthermore, while we did not develop 
estimates of the number of facilities that would be needed, State and 
embassy officials agreed that the costs of new facilities could 
potentially be significant[Footnote 32] and that such facilities would 
most likely be needed in high-traveler-volume countries where existing 
facilities are more likely to become strained. Table 4 shows the 
impact, on all VWP countries combined, that such increases in visa 
demand--of 1, 2, 3, 5, or 10 percent--would have on staffing needs and 
visa revenues; the table does not include potentially significant 
facility costs. We estimate annual visa fee revenues would increase and 
offset the year-to-year recurring staffing costs. However, there would 
be a lag between when State would have to fund the staffing increases 
in the first year and when it would receive the offsetting increases in 
visa fees in the second year. Moreover, visa fee revenues would be less 
than the costs for facility construction, and, according to State, visa 
fee revenue is not used to offset the costs for constructing new 
facilities to process visas. 

Table 4: Estimated ESTA Impacts and Costs in Different Scenarios: 

% of current VWP travelers who could instead apply for a visa: 1%; 
Estimated increase in visa demand in current VWP countries: 126,331; 
Estimated increased number of FSO[A] staff needed: 11; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSO staff: $4.2 million; 
Estimated increased number of FSN[B] staff needed: 28; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSN staff: $4.2 million; 
Estimated increased amount of visa revenues collected: $16.55 million. 

% of current VWP travelers who could instead apply for a visa: 2%; 
Estimated increase in visa demand in current VWP countries: 252,662; 
Estimated increased number of FSO[A] staff needed: 23; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSO staff: $8.3 million; 
Estimated increased number of FSN[B] staff needed: 56; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSN staff: $8.5 million; 
Estimated increased amount of visa revenues collected: $33.1 million. 

% of current VWP travelers who could instead apply for a visa: 3%; 
Estimated increase in visa demand in current VWP countries: 378,993; 
Estimated increased number of FSO[A] staff needed: 44; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSO staff: $16.2 million; 
Estimated increased number of FSN[B] staff needed: 110; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSN staff: $16.5 million; 
Estimated increased amount of visa revenues collected: $49.65 million. 

% of current VWP travelers who could instead apply for a visa: 5%; 
Estimated increase in visa demand in current VWP countries: 631,655; 
Estimated increased number of FSO[A] staff needed: 67; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSO staff: $24.7 million; 
Estimated increased number of FSN[B] staff needed: 167; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSN staff: $25.1 million; 
Estimated increased amount of visa revenues collected: $82.75 million. 

% of current VWP travelers who could instead apply for a visa: 10%; 
Estimated increase in visa demand in current VWP countries: 1.26 
million; 
Estimated increased number of FSO[A] staff needed: 123; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSO staff: $45.3 million; 
Estimated increased number of FSN[B] staff needed: 307; 
Estimated cost of increased number of FSN staff: $46.0 million; 
Estimated increased amount of visa revenues collected: $165.5 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of State Department and DHS data. 

[A] FSO = Foreign Service officer. 

[B] FSN = Foreign Service national. 

[End of table] 

Two high-traveler-volume VWP countries we visited in particular would 
be challenged to address the likely increased visa demand resulting 
from ESTA. In Japan, with around 3.26 million travelers to the United 
States each year, embassy officials told us that if visa demand 
increased by 1 percent of Japan's current VWP travelers, it would 
present significant challenges for their existing staff and a workload 
level that could not be sustained over the long term. An increase of 2 
percent would increase visa demand by about 70 percent over current 
levels; as a result, existing staff could not meet the demand, and 
current facility space would become crowded and strained to capacity. 
Any increase over 2 percent, embassy officials said, would overwhelm 
existing staff and facilities; more staff would be needed, and new 
facilities for processing visas would need to be obtained or 
constructed. In France, where about 870,000 citizens travel to the 
United States each year, embassy officials told us that if visa demand 
increased by 1 percent of France's current VWP travelers, their 
existing staff would be greatly challenged to meet the demand. They 
said that existing staff could handle this increase only for a 
temporary period of time without additional staff. An increase of 2 
percent could not be accommodated with existing staff, and visa waiting 
rooms and processing space, which are already crowded, would be 
strained, embassy officials said. However, if more staff were added, 
embassy officials told us the embassy could develop creative ways to 
work within the existing space, for example, by adding another shift 
for visa processing every day. An increase of 3 percent, embassy 
officials told us, would require acquiring or constructing a new visa 
processing facility. Figure 4 shows that the visa waiting room space in 
the U.S. embassy in Paris is already crowded. 

Figure 4: Crowded Visa Waiting Room in U.S. Embassy, Paris, April 2008: 

This figure is a photograph of a crowded visa waiting room in the U.S. 
Embassy in Paris in April 2008. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: U.S. Embassy, Paris. 

[End of figure] 

State Has Not Developed Plans to Manage Increased Visa Demand Resulting 
from Implementation of ESTA: 

Though State has attempted to address general long-term growth in visa 
demand, the department has done little planning to address the 
increased visa demand that could result from implementation of ESTA, 
citing lack of information from DHS on the effect of ESTA. State 
Department and federal guidelines, as noted previously, have 
highlighted the importance of planning for potential program changes 
that could impact operations. Despite the fact that DHS officials have 
said they plan to have ESTA operational for all countries by mid-2009 
and for some countries by the summer of 2008, DHS officials told us the 
department has not determined what tests, if any, it will conduct to 
study ESTA rejection rates and determine ESTA's impact on visa demand. 
In addition, as noted earlier, State has not developed data on ESTA's 
likely impact on facility needs and costs, despite the fact that ESTA 
could be implemented by the summer of 2008 and that State officials 
have acknowledged that developing such data would be a complex and time-
consuming process. Furthermore, embassy officials we met with in three 
VWP countries told us that they have neither prepared plans to address 
visa demand upon ESTA implementation, nor has State headquarters 
communicated with them in order to plan for this new requirement. For 
example, in one VWP country we visited, we found that State had begun 
plans for a new embassy facility, but no additional space had been 
included to accommodate additional visa demand, including demand 
resulting from ESTA implementation. Consular and management section 
officials there told us they had never heard of ESTA and that OBO had 
not raised the issue of additional demand with them or considered new 
visa demand in their initial design of the new facility. Officials told 
us that our visit and questions had fostered their first real 
consideration of what was involved in planning for the impact of ESTA. 
In addition, consular officials in the three VWP countries we visited 
expressed concern that, without information regarding the likely impact 
of ESTA on visa demand, they are not able to plan at the embassy level 
to address the staffing shortfalls and space limitations that could 
result from ESTA implementation. 

Conclusions: 

Many important factors need to be considered regarding potential 
changes to the Visa Waiver Program, given its impacts on U.S. security, 
trade, commerce, tourism, diplomatic, and other interests. Ensuring 
that the proper resources are in place to handle visa demand globally 
is essential for State to meet its mission to facilitate legitimate 
travel to the United States while screening out possible threats. 
Elimination of the Visa Waiver Program has the potential to 
dramatically increase visa demand, severely disrupting U.S. visa 
operations in the short term and costing billions of dollars. And, 
while State would likely be able to accommodate program expansion with 
minimal disruption, U.S. embassies soon will have to deal with the 
impact of the ESTA requirement, which could result in a substantial 
number of new travelers needing or choosing to obtain a visa, 
potentially creating significant resource gaps and affecting the 
ability of the United States to conduct visa operations globally. State 
has done limited planning in headquarters or the field for any such 
changes in the program. Given the resource and cost implications 
involved, it is imperative that State work with posts to plan for 
imminent as well as potential program changes. Though the likelihood of 
program elimination is unknown, having a comprehensive understanding of 
how staffing and facilities would be impacted will enable State to help 
Congress make informed decisions on the fate of the Visa Waiver Program 
and to devise broad measures to address the immense challenges that 
would follow elimination of the program, should it occur. In addition, 
the development of estimates of the increases in visa demand in high 
traveler volume countries likely to result from ESTA implementation 
would give State's headquarters and embassy officials the necessary 
information to make decisions on allocations of staff among posts and 
also would give State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations the 
information it needs to construct any needed new facilities. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of State develop contingency plans for 
U.S. embassies in Visa Waiver Program countries to address the 
potential increases in visa demand that could result from program 
elimination. These plans would include identifying what options State 
has for providing additional resources and taking actions that could be 
needed, as well as the extent to which increased visa fee revenues 
would cover the cost of these resources. 

In addition, we recommend that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and 
State develop estimates of increased visa demand in Visa Waiver Program 
countries resulting from ESTA implementation. These estimates would 
include information on how many applicants can be expected to be 
rejected from ESTA and how many potential travelers can be expected to 
choose to come to the embassy for a visa. Based on these estimates, we 
recommend that the Secretary of State develop plans for how the 
department will manage the increased workload in the existing 27 Visa 
Waiver Program countries. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

State and DHS provided written comments on a draft of this report, 
which are reproduced in appendixes II and III, respectively. We also 
received technical comments from State and DHS, which we have 
incorporated throughout the report where appropriate. 

State said it would ask embassies to discuss management plans in the 
event that the program were eliminated, but did not indicate whether it 
fully concurred with our recommendation that State conduct contingency 
planning. State said that it has responded to situations that presented 
challenges to its workforce, during which it has considered and used 
several tools that could be helpful in addressing some of the 
challenges presented by program elimination. We believe that asking 
posts to discuss their management plans in the event the program were 
eliminated, as State said it would do, is a good step. In addition, we 
believe that State needs to develop contingency plans that include 
options for addressing program elimination so that State is better 
prepared to cope with the dramatic increases in workload that would 
result from the elimination of the program. 

State agreed with our recommendation that it develop estimates of, and 
conduct planning for, the impact of ESTA implementation, but said that 
its ability to do so was limited by the fact that DHS had not resolved 
a significant number of crucial details about ESTA and, as a result, 
had not provided State with key information it would need to conduct 
related planning. For example, according to State, CBP has provided 
data suggesting how many names might be rejected by ESTA by considering 
the rate of name rejections from CBP's Advance Passenger Information 
System (APIS) database. However, according to State and DHS, DHS and 
CBP have not decided which databases ESTA will screen against, and it 
is therefore unclear what the ESTA rejection rate will be. We believe 
it is important for DHS to determine which databases it will use for 
ESTA screening, so that it can develop accurate estimates of the number 
of people whose ESTA applications might be rejected, which is essential 
information for State's planning purposes. Moreover, State said there 
is no data on how many people would choose to obtain a visa to avoid 
the uncertainty associated with ESTA, and State believes that number 
could be significant. State said that the lack of such data is another 
factor complicating its planning for ESTA implementation. We agree that 
this is an important factor and that is why we recommend that DHS and 
State should develop a method for producing accurate information on the 
number of potential travelers who could be expected to choose to come 
to the embassy for a visa, rather than applying through ESTA. 

DHS agreed with our recommendation that it work with State to develop 
estimates of the impact of ESTA implementation on visa demand. DHS said 
that it has been coordinating with State as DHS develops ESTA and plans 
its implementation. However, as noted previously, DHS and State have 
not yet developed estimates of the changes in visa demand that could 
result from implementation of ESTA. For example, DHS has not determined 
how many VWP travelers would not be approved to travel under the 
program and would have to obtain visas. Without this information, it is 
difficult for State to plan for how it will meet changes in visa 
demand. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to interested congressional committees and to the Secretaries of State 
and Homeland Security. We will also make copies of this report 
available to others upon request. We will also make copies available at 
no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or [email protected]. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Jess T. Ford: 

Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

We examined how three changes--Visa Waiver Program (VWP) elimination, 
program expansion, and implementation of the Electronic System for 
Travel Authorization (ESTA)--would affect the demand for visas, and how 
changes in demand would affect the resources the Department of State 
(State) needs and the amount of visa fee revenue that State receives. 
We recognized that there could be other implications of major changes 
in the program, particularly if the program were eliminated. These 
implications--for security, tourism, commerce, business, trade, 
diplomacy, and reciprocity regarding visa-free travel, for example-- 
could potentially be significant. However, we limited the scope of our 
review to the impact on visa demand, visa resources--including staffing 
and facilities--and the associated costs and revenues. 

We undertook the following methodologies for all three of these 
objectives. We analyzed relevant law regarding the program and its 
requirements, and documentation, including State's most recent cost of 
consular services study from 2004, and met with State's Bureau of 
Consular Affairs to discuss the fee that State charges for visa 
applications, what costs of processing a visa the fee is intended to 
cover, and how much new revenue State would generate in the event of 
program elimination. To assess the staffing and resource costs to State 
under these scenarios, we developed our own high-level cost estimates, 
using State and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data. DHS/U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provided us with data on the number 
of travelers from each VWP and Road Map country. State's Bureau of 
Consular Affairs provided us with information on the number of visas 
processed in VWP and Road Map countries as well as estimates on the 
number of visas that could be expected to be processed by a Foreign 
Service officer, the number of Foreign Service national staff that 
could be expected to support Foreign Service officers, and--for the 
elimination scenario--estimates of the number of new facilities that 
could be needed. State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) 
provided data on the cost, type, and size of recently completed U.S. 
government construction projects overseas, the costs and sizes of 
overseas leased facilities used for visa processing, and estimates of 
operations and maintenance costs for U.S. embassy facilities. State's 
Bureau of Resource Management provided information on the costs of 
Foreign Service officer and Foreign Service national staff. In 
addition, we collected post-specific data on the above costs when we 
traveled to selected U.S. embassies. We determined that the data 
provided to us were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the 
report. We met with State officials to determine the sources of the 
data provided to us. For instance, State's data on the costs of putting 
a Foreign Service officer overseas came from Resource Management's 
database of actual expenditures, which they use to input costs and for 
budget purposes. In addition, we collected data from other sources to 
cross-check State data whenever possible. For instance, we collected 
data on the actual costs of Foreign Service officers and Foreign 
Service nationals in the specific countries we visited. Similarly, we 
cross-checked the costs of facility operations and maintenance against 
Department of Defense facilities pricing guide data to ensure 
reasonableness. Finally, the uncertainty analysis we conducted provided 
us with a level of confidence in our estimates, because we took into 
account and stated a range of possible costs spanning our point 
estimates. This analysis provided us with sufficient confidence for the 
high-level type of estimates we are presenting. We prepared the cost 
estimates using fiscal year 2007 constant dollars. For purposes of 
estimating State's costs, we assumed numbers of travelers to remain 
constant, as State officials told us and State documentation stated 
that its goal is to accommodate changes in visa demand and avoid 
disruptions of travel to the United States. In addition, we performed 
uncertainty analyses[Footnote 33] on cost models we developed for each 
scenario, using a Monte Carlo simulation tool called Crystal Ball to 
analyze the effects of varying inputs and outputs of the modeled 
scenarios. Monte Carlo simulation uses a random number generator to 
simulate the possible variance of designated inputs, such as estimates 
of the number of additional Foreign Service officers needed in the VWP 
elimination scenario, and calculates the subsequent possible ranges of 
the outputs. This allowed us to try multiple hypothetical scenarios 
with our spreadsheet cost model values. We used the results of these 
analyses to provide a probability value for our point estimates, as 
well as to provide a range of cost estimates for these scenarios. In 
addition to these activities, we undertook methodologies specific to 
each of the three objectives, which are described below. 

To determine how program elimination in particular would affect the 
demand for visas, and how changes in demand would affect the resources 
State needs and the amount of visa fee revenue that State receives, we 
analyzed CBP data on the number of travelers to the United States from 
each VWP country annually from 2001 to 2007, and reviewed State's data 
from 2001 to 2007 on the numbers and types of visas issued in each VWP 
country. We used 2001 to 2007 data from the number of travelers to the 
United States from each VWP country, rather than the number of 
travelers coming to the United States under the program. We did not use 
data on the number of travelers coming to the United States under the 
program because (1) data from 2001 to 2007 on the number of travelers 
coming to the United States under the program were not available; (2) 
available data from 2004 to 2007 averaged 12.5 million travelers, a 
difference of less than 1 percent from the 12.6 million calculated 
using the number of travelers to the United States from each VWP 
country; and (3) we could not independently calculate the number of 
travelers coming to the United States under the program by subtracting 
the number of visas issued in each country annually, because not all of 
those people who received visas necessarily traveled in that year. We 
also reviewed data State provided on the current number of Foreign 
Service officer and Foreign Service national staff involved in visa 
processing in each VWP country. We analyzed information provided by 
State on the number of visas that could be expected to be processed by 
a Foreign Service officer and the number of Foreign Service national 
staff that could be expected to support Foreign Service officers. We 
also analyzed State's rough order estimates of the number of new 
facilities that could be needed in the event of program elimination. 
Consular Affairs projected the possible number of facilities that could 
be needed based on information on the conditions of existing consular 
space in these countries, as well as assumptions of the number of 
people that would be seeking visas if the program were eliminated, and 
the subsequent increases in Foreign Service officer and Foreign Service 
national staff necessary to accommodate the new visa demand. OBO 
officials said Consular Affairs's rough order estimate was generally 
realistic, based on the potential increases in staffing that could be 
needed in the event of program elimination and the capacity of 
buildings to absorb those new staff. However, both Consular Affairs and 
OBO officials agreed that it was impossible to predict the exact number 
of facilities that would be needed. We met with officials in Consular 
Affairs, OBO, and at embassies in three VWP countries--Japan, France, 
and Spain--to determine the extent that embassy officials expected 
increases in visa demand and the number of additional staff and 
facilities that would be needed to meet those increases in those 
countries and to confirm information that we had collected from State 
officials in Washington. We selected U.S. embassies in Japan, France, 
and Spain for field work for several reasons. First, we selected these 
embassies because they are in VWP countries with high numbers of people 
traveling to the United States each year. Specifically, Japan 
represents the VWP country with the second-largest number of travelers 
to the United States each year, while France represents the fourth- 
largest number, and Spain the eighth. Further, of the countries we 
visited, differences in the sizes of traveler volumes provided us with 
information on differences in the extent of potential impacts among VWP 
posts in the event of program elimination. Second, we selected these 
countries for purposes of assessing the different potential aspects of 
program elimination for countries in different regions of the world. 
Lastly, we selected these countries because, in the case of France and 
Spain, there have been terrorist plots or attacks in those countries in 
recent years, contrasting with Japan, where this has not been the case. 
We met with officials in Consular Affairs and OBO and with officials in 
State's Bureau of Resource Management and the Office of Rightsizing to 
gain data for constructing our cost estimates on the staffing and 
facilities that would be needed to support increases in visa demand in 
VWP countries. Using the data provided by State and DHS, we created 
cost models to estimate the costs and savings due to changes in the 
number of consular and overseas buildings operations personnel; the 
construction, leasing, and operations and sustainment of consular 
facilities; and visa application fee revenue. For this scenario, we 
estimated two sets of nonrecurring cost elements: costs for the 
construction of new consular facilities, and the costs for the 
temporary staffing increase to manage the construction of those 
facilities. Also, we estimated four sets of recurring cost elements: 
costs of additional consular personnel, costs to operate and sustain 
new consular facilities, costs to lease consular facilities until the 
completion of new construction, and visa application fee revenue. We 
then performed the uncertainty analysis described above to generate 
cost estimate ranges for each of the scenarios. To determine the extent 
to which State had prepared for the possibility of program elimination, 
we reviewed State's Performance Plan for the Bureau of Consular Affairs 
to determine State's goals and objectives regarding visa issuance, as 
well as any planning that State had done. We also reviewed standards 
for internal controls in the federal government, including those 
addressing the importance of identifying risks to achieving program 
goals and planning ways to mitigate those risks in order to continue to 
meet program objectives. 

To assess how program expansion in particular would affect the demand 
for visas, and how changes in demand would affect State's resource need 
and the amount of visa fees that State receives, we analyzed CBP data 
on the number of travelers to the United States from each Road Map 
country annually from 2001 to 2007. We also reviewed data that State 
provided on the number of Foreign Service officer and Foreign Service 
national staff involved in visa processing in each Road Map country. We 
met with officials in State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, OBO, and at 
embassies in four Road Map countries--South Korea, Greece, Czech 
Republic, and Hungary--to determine the extent to which embassy 
officials expected decreases in visa demand, the number of staff that 
could potentially be freed and any associated costs or savings, and the 
number of facilities, if any, that could either be sold or where the 
embassy could relinquish lease commitments. We selected U.S. embassies 
in these countries for several reasons. First, these countries 
represent four of the seven highest visa-issuing Road Map countries. 
The U.S. embassy in Seoul processes by far the most visas in the Road 
Map countries, while the embassies in Athens, Prague, and Budapest, 
while much smaller, process among the highest number of the remaining 
12 Road Map countries. In addition, we selected these countries for 
purposes of assessing the different potential aspects of program 
expansion for countries in different regions of the world. Consular 
Affairs provided data on the number of Foreign Service officers, 
Foreign Service nationals, and visas processed in each Road Map 
country. We used that data to estimate the number of Foreign Service 
officers that could be moved to other posts from Road Map countries 
once they enter the Visa Waiver Program, as well as the number of 
possible Foreign Service national positions that could be terminated. 
We met with officials in State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, OBO, 
Bureau of Resource Management, and the Office of Rightsizing to gain 
data for constructing cost estimates on any costs and savings that may 
result regarding staffing and facilities in Road Map countries. For the 
VWP expansion scenario, we created cost models to estimate the costs 
and savings due to changes in the number of consular personnel, ESTA 
development, initial and recurring reviews by DHS of candidate 
countries' suitability for the program, and visa application fee 
revenue. We reported on two sets of nonrecurring cost elements: 
estimated costs for the termination and hiring of Foreign Service 
nationals, and the cost of development of ESTA, as provided by DHS. We 
estimated two sets of recurring cost elements: costs of DHS's reviews 
of VWP countries, and visa application fee revenue. We then performed 
the uncertainty analysis described above on these models: 

To assess how implementation of the new ESTA requirement in particular 
would affect the demand for visas, and how changes in demand would 
affect the resources State needs and the amount of visa fees that State 
receives, we analyzed CBP data on the number of travelers to the United 
States from each VWP country annually from 2001 to 2007, and reviewed 
State's data from 2001 to 2007 on the numbers and types of visas issued 
in each VWP country. We also reviewed data State provided on the number 
of Foreign Service officer and Foreign Service national staff involved 
in visa processing in each VWP country. We met with officials in 
Consular Affairs and OBO and at embassies in three VWP countries-- 
Japan, France, and Spain--to determine the extent to which embassy 
officials expected increases in visa demand and the number of 
additional staff and facilities that could be needed to meet those 
increases. We selected these three countries for our field work for 
similar reasons as the VWP elimination scenario--for reasons of size, 
geographical diversity, and recent history, or lack thereof, of 
terrorist plots or attacks. We met with Consular Affairs and OBO 
officials and with officials in State's Bureau of Resource Management 
and the Office of Rightsizing to gain data for constructing our cost 
estimates on the staffing and facilities that would be needed to 
support increases in visa demand in VWP countries. We also reviewed 
relevant law, including the August 2007 Implementing 9/11 Commission 
Recommendations Act of 2007. For the five ESTA scenarios to demonstrate 
the effects of different possible percentages of travelers coming to 
U.S. embassies for visas, we created cost models to estimate the costs 
and savings due to changes in the number of consular and overseas 
buildings operations personnel and visa application fee revenue. We 
estimated two recurring cost elements: costs of additional consular 
personnel and visa application fee revenue. We then performed the 
uncertainty analysis described above to generate cost estimate ranges 
for each of the scenarios. To determine the extent to which State had 
prepared for the effects of the implementation of ESTA, we reviewed the 
fiscal year 2007 Consular Affairs Bureau Performance Plan to determine 
State's goals and objectives regarding visa issuance, as well as any 
planning that State had done. We also reviewed standards for internal 
controls in the federal government, including those addressing the 
importance of identifying risks to achieving program goals and planning 
ways to mitigate those risks in order to continue to meet program 
objectives. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to April 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial 
Officer:  

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Washington, D.C. 20520: 
May 1, 2008: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Border 
Security: State Department Should Plan for Potentially Significant 
Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls Caused by Changes in the Visa Waiver 
Program," GAO Job Code 320475. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Jennifer Savage, Management Analyst, Bureau of Consular Affairs, at 
(202) 663-2505. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Bradford R. Higgins: 

cc: GAO ï¿½ John Brummet: 
CA ï¿½ Janice Jacobs: 
State/OIG ï¿½ Mark Duda: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Border Security: State Department Should Plan for Potentially 
Significant Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls Caused by Changes in the 
Visa Waiver Program: 

(GAO-08-623, GAO Code 320475): 

The Department of State welcomes the opportunity to comment on the 
GAO's draft report, "Border Security: State Department Should Plan for 
Potentially Significant Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls Caused by 
Changes in the Visa Waiver Program" and offers the following comments. 

The current policy of this administration is to expand the Visa Waiver 
Program (VWP). State is very actively planning for the addition of new 
member countries and has considered broadly the budgetary, staffing, 
and facility impacts of expansion both under the current rules, and 
under Electronic Systems for Travel Authorization (ESTA). More 
specifically, State is developing individual action plans for each road 
map country. 

Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Secretary of State develop 
contingency plans for Visa Waiver Program countries to address the 
potential increases in visa demand that could result from program 
elimination. These plans would include identifying what options State 
has for providing additional resources and taking actions that could be 
needed, as well as the extent to which increased visa fees would cover 
the cost of these resources. 

Response: The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) has consistently 
demonstrated flexibility and quick response in its workforce planning. 
Through the annual consular repositioning exercise, CA has developed 
experience in shifting positions to locations where they are needed 
most. CA also maintains an active temporary duty (TDY) program to 
quickly send staff to posts to either fill anticipated staffing gaps or 
react to unexpected and urgent staffing crises. CA has very 
aggressively recruited retired officers through the When Actually 
Employed (WAE) program and has maximized hiring to the greatest extent 
possible. This has given us a relatively robust pool of available 
officers to address staffing issues. CA also uses Eligible Family 
Members (EFMs) as a staffing resource, with EFMs working as Consular 
Assistants and as Consular Associates in most consular sections abroad. 
Finally, CA makes full use of alternate staffing mechanisms, such as 
internship and fellowship programs. CA continually looks at 
possibilities for new staffing mechanisms and in fact, recently 
announced pilot programs for new roles of Professional Adjudication 
Specialists (EFMs who have authority to adjudicate based on their high 
level of qualifications, training, and experience), and Roving 
Adjudication Specialists (those with non-competitive eligibility ï¿½ 
EFMs, returned Peace Corps Volunteers, and members of the National 
Security Education Program - who will have authority to adjudicate at a 
variety of posts in Mexico based on their high level of qualifications, 
training, and experience). 

CA also constantly explores ways to gain efficiencies in the visa 
adjudication process and limit reliance on overseas staff and 
facilities as much as possible. For example, CA is currently piloting 
an offsite data collection program that places some of the visa data 
collection in the hands of an offsite contractor. The data collected is 
verified by a consular officer, and the initiative promises significant 
savings by keeping the need for consular workspace from growing as fast 
as currently projected, along with savings in time. In addition, CA is 
piloting a fully web-based Non Immigrant Visa (NIV) application form 
which, when expanded worldwide, will remove the data entry workload 
from posts and allow for some domestic pre-screening of applications, 
which will increase efficiency overseas. CA has reviewed but not 
implemented options such as interview via digital video conferencing 
(reduced reliance on USG facilities), expanding the pool of applicants 
who are eligible for visa adjudication without an interview (reduced 
reliance on USG facilities), and putting NIV software on a portable 
laptop (reduced reliance on USG facilities, but significantly decreased 
officer efficiency and increased travel costs). 

While facilities cannot quickly be modified (and facilities do present 
the most significant obstacle to expanding workload capacity), the 
programs described above could provide CA with the ability to respond 
to a VWP elimination scenario. Any response would be fully reliant on 
significant levels of additional funding and staffing, and would 
reflect the circumstances that brought about elimination. We also note 
that, in any scenario, any blanket suspension or elimination of VWP 
would be very expensive, and would have a serious impact on 
international travel and the economy, with the travel plans of many 
individuals being seriously disrupted for a significant period of time. 
A major requirement for dealing with any elimination would likely be a 
request to increase the number of Foreign Service Officers entering the 
Service. State has not received funds to increase intake above 
replacement of attrition for some time, with the exception of increases 
funded by visa fees. 

We engage posts in workload planning on a regular basis as part of our 
ongoing contingency planning, and will also ask them to discuss their 
management plans if VWP were to be eliminated. 

Recommendation 2: In addition. we recommend that the Secretaries of 
Homeland Security and State develop estimates of increased visa demand 
in Visa Waiver Program countries resulting from ESTA implementation. 
These estimates would include information on how many applicants can be 
expected to be rejected from ESTA and how many potential travelers can 
be expected to choose to come into the embassy for a visa. Based on 
these estimates, we recommend that the Secretary of State develop plans 
for how the department will manage the increased workload in the 
existing 27 VWP countries. 

Response: The State Department agrees that it is crucial to plan, as 
accurately as possible, for the impact that ESTA implementation may 
have on the 27 VWP countries, as well as the aspirant VWP countries. We 
have been working closely with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to obtain as much information 
as possible on the development, work plan, rollout schedule, and impact 
of ESTA. However, a significant number of crucial details have not been 
resolved, which limits our planning. 

We recently received an estimate of ESTA denial rates from CBP, based 
on APIS passenger information that was run against the currently 
planned set of ESTA screening databases. This data indicates that ESTA 
denial rates would range from 0 percent to 0.86 percent, with denial 
rates for the highest-volume VWP countries, the United Kingdom and 
Japan, at .05 percent and .02 percent respectively. While DHS and CBP 
have stated that the choice of databases they plan to use for ESTA 
screening is not yet final, using this preliminary data allows us to 
project some workload increases and plan some responses. Until any new 
positions required to address ESTA workload are authorized and created, 
and people are hired, trained and placed on the payroll, additional 
staffing requirements can be filled through the existing TDY program. 
France, Japan, and the United Kingdom would require modifications to 
existing facilities, but no post would require entirely new facilities. 

However, there are a number of other factors that, without additional 
data, we cannot add into our workload planning. For instance, we have 
not yet received clear guidance as to what the National Targeting 
Center (NTC) secondary screening procedure of ESTA near matches will 
entail, and how the result of that process will be communicated to 
posts and ports of entry. It is also not yet finalized how ESTA denials 
will be noted in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), 
which will affect the length of time posts will need to resolve these 
denials when that traveler applies for a visa. We are working with DHS 
on detailed outreach and press guidance information so that our posts 
can alert the travel industry and business organizations, as well as 
the travelers and host governments. 

All of these factors contribute to another element of our workload 
planning, which is the number of applicants we can expect to apply for 
visas in advance of ESTA "just in case." In light of the uncertainty 
surrounding ESTA implementation, we would anticipate this number to be 
significant.

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]: 

Homeland Security: 

April 30, 2008: 

Mr. Jess Ford: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Ford: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-08-623, Border Security: State Department Should 
Plan for Potentially Significant Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls 
Caused by Changes in the Visa Waiver Program (Job Code 320475):  

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft report referenced above. The United 
States Government Accountability Office (GAO) makes two 
recommendations, one of which involves the DHS. The GAO recommends that 
the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State develop estimates of 
increased visa demand in Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries resulting 
from implementation of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 
(ESTA). These estimates would include information on how many 
applicants can be expected to be rejected from ESTA and how many 
potential travelers can be expected to choose to come into the embassy 
for a visa. We agree with the recommendation and have been working with 
the Department of State to meet the intent of this recommendation. 

Pursuant to Section 711 of the "Implementing the 9/11 Commission 
Recommendations Act of 2007" (9/11 Act), DHS is required to develop and 
implement an Electronic System for Travel Authorization to determine 
the eligibility of aliens to travel to the United States under the VWP 
and whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk prior 
to the aliens boarding a carrier en route to the United States. ESTA is 
a cornerstone security enhancement from the 9/11 Act that supports 
transforming the VWP from a program that addresses security threats on 
a country-by-country basis into one that can screen for risks on a 
passenger-by-passenger basis. 

DHS has been coordinating the development of the ESTA program with the 
Department of State (DOS) since March 2007, before the program was 
statutorily required under the 9/11 Act. Since the early stages of ESTA 
program development, DHS has discussed ESTA screening methodologies 
with DOS, and shared analysis of the number of anticipated travelers to 
the United States under the VWP, together with projections on how many 
ESTA applications may result in positive matches against law 
enforcement databases that have been considered for ESTA screening. DOS 
has also been an active participant in the ESTA Integrated Project Team 
that was formally established in December 2007 by the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) ESTA Program Management Office. 

(See comment 1): 

DHS considers DOS to be a partner in the development of the ESTA 
program, and will continue to coordinate closely with DOS as we 
mutually work to address concerns and issues that evolve as the ESTA 
program is designed and implemented. DHS and DOS officials have 
previously reviewed anticipated volumes of VWP travel and potential 
rates for positive database matches against ESTA applications that may 
result in an ESTA applicant's referral to a United States Embassy or 
Consulate to apply for a non-immigrant visa. DHS is already 
coordinating with DOS, and providing them with updated statistics that 
will support the development of estimates for the potential increase in 
visa demand in VWP countries resulting from ESTA program 
implementation. 

(See comment 1): 

As a baseline for estimating potential visa applications that may 
result from ESTA applications that are not approved, DHS has provided 
DOS with the number of aliens that were refused admission into the 
United States by CBP at the ports of entry during fiscal years 2006 and 
2007. These statistics are broken out by both the existing and Roadmap 
VWP countries. This number of refusals, particularly for the existing 
VWP countries, presents a reasonable baseline for potential visa 
applications as these individuals would no longer be eligible to travel 
under the VWP and would be required to apply for a non-immigrant visa 
to travel to the United States. 

(See comment 2): 

Additionally, DHS is providing DOS with the results of a CBP Advance 
Passenger Information System query for all existing VWP and Roadmap 
travelers from July through September 2007 against the databases that 
DHS is currently planning to screen ESTA applications. This simulated 
query is designed to provide DOS with estimates that accurately reflect 
the anticipated number of ESTA applications that may not be approved 
during a peak period of travel. 

(See comment 3): 

The draft as written suggests that DHS has not shared information with 
DOS officials. As previously mentioned, DOS is a partner in the 

implementation of the ESTA program. Both parties are working together 
to identify technical solutions for the transmission of data, and are 
involved weekly in dissemination of ESTA information through the 
Integrated Project Teams and working groups with DOS and CBP. 

(See comment 4): 

GAO states that DHS has not developed estimates on the potential 
increase in visa demand that may result from ESTA implementation, and 
further implies that DHS has not been coordinating with DOS to address 
that issue. In fact, CBP has invited and welcomed DOS participation to 
all meetings and shared all data that was developed since March 2007 
when the ESTA program was initially being discussed. A project plan was 
developed in conjunction with DOS. The plan outlined the total number 
of VWP applicants that travel to the United States and also provided an 
overview of options that CBP proposed for screening ESTA applications 
against appropriate law enforcement databases to determine the 
eligibility of an applicant to travel to the United States under the 
VWP and whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. 

(See comment 3,4): 

The report states that DHS has not attempted to estimate what 
additional resources would be needed to manage the potential increase 
in visa demand and the anticipated additional fees received as a result 
of that potential increase. Since the visa application, denial, and 
issuance process is within the purview of DOS, DHS should not be held 
responsible for calculating anticipated visa revenue and resources. As 
previously stated, DHS is already coordinating with DOS, and providing 
them with updated statistics that will support the development of 
estimates for the potential increase in visa demand in VWP countries 
resulting from ESTA program implementation.

(See comment 5): 

GAO states that DOS lacks information on the effect of ESTA from DHS. 
The final report should mention that, to CBP's knowledge, officials are 
unaware of any request for information from DOS that has gone 
unanswered. DOS has been invited to participate in CBP's program 
development from the beginning stages and has always been able to 
request any information that DOS felt was necessary to prepare for ESTA 
implementation. 

(See comment 4): 

GAO accurately states that DHS does not know how many travelers would 
prefer to apply for a visa instead of using ESTA. While DHS cannot 
predict the mindset of potential VWP travelers that may seek to visit 
the United States, DHS believes that since initial implementation and 
use of ESTA is expected to be free for applicants, prospective VWP 
travelers are more likely to try to meet the requirement for an 
authorization via the ESTA website that is currently under development 
by CBP, rather than interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate to apply 
for a visa and pay the accompanying visa application fee. 

(See comment 6): 

DHS and CBP officials look forward to continuing the working 
relationship that has been established with DOS as we move toward 
implementing ESTA which will serve to enhance the security of the Visa 
Waiver Program. 

Technical comments have been provided under separate cover. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Penelope G. McCormack: 
Acting Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Homeland 
Security's letter dated April 30, 2008. 

GAO Comments: 

1. DHS has indicated that it will begin implementing ESTA in the summer 
of 2008. As of May 1, 2008, State had not received data from DHS 
indicating how many VWP travelers would likely not be approved for 
travel by ESTA and would therefore need to obtain a visa in order to 
travel to the United States. It is important that DHS provide data to 
State that will help State (1) determine how ESTA will affect visa 
demand and (2) formulate plans to meet the demand. 

2. Under ESTA there would be some foreign citizens whose ESTA 
application would not be approved and would therefore be required to 
obtain a visa, and some who would choose proactively to obtain a visa 
for the increased flexibility and travel convenience that a visa could 
offer. DHS and State need to develop estimates of the total possible 
increase in visa demand due to both outcomes brought about by ESTA. DHS 
and State have asserted that there are existing data that could be 
helpful in developing these estimates. We agree. However, until DHS 
determines which databases it plans to use for screening ESTA 
applications, DHS officials told us they will not be able to determine 
how many VWP travelers would likely not be approved for travel by ESTA. 
In addition, DHS officials told us that it was unclear at this point 
what testing, if any, DHS would do to determine how many foreign 
citizens would choose to obtain a visa, rather than use ESTA. 

3. We believe that sharing of this type of information between DHS and 
State is a first step toward implementing our recommendation that DHS 
and State estimate how ESTA will affect visa demand in existing VWP 
countries, but we believe much more needs to be done. 

4. We did not intend to suggest that DHS is not sharing information 
with State. Our point is that DHS has not made a final decision on what 
databases it will use to screen ESTA applications; as a result, neither 
DHS nor State can estimate the number of VWP citizens who would not be 
approved to travel under the program. Without this information, it is 
difficult for State to plan for how it will meet changes in visa 
demand. 

5. We do not believe that DHS should estimate the resources that State 
would need to manage increased visa demand or how ESTA could affect 
visa fee revenues collected by State as a result of the implementation 
of ESTA. These are actions that State needs to take. However, State has 
not yet performed this analysis and planning largely due to, according 
to State officials, the lack of information from DHS on the number of 
foreign citizens whose ESTA application might be rejected and might 
seek a visa from U.S. embassies. 

6. We agree that it is difficult to predict how many travelers would 
prefer to apply for a visa instead of using ESTA. Consular officials in 
Washington and overseas said that the number of travelers choosing to 
do this could be significant. Some DHS, State, and embassy officials 
suggested that an actual test or pilot use of ESTA in one or more 
existing VWP countries could provide information on the number of 
foreign citizens who choose to obtain a visa rather than use ESTA and 
the number of foreign citizens whose ESTA applications are not approved 
by ESTA. However, as noted previously, DHS told us it is unclear what 
tests, if any, it will undertake to better understand ESTA's impact, 
even though DHS stated it plans to implement ESTA in the summer of 
2008. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Jess T. Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade, (202) 512-4128 
or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, John Brummet, Assistant 
Director; J. Addison Ricks; Brian Bothwell; Joe Carney; Carmen Donohue; 
Jennifer Echard; Tim Fairbanks; Grace Lui; and Karen Richey made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The visa application fee, which is $131, is meant to offset some of 
the costs associated with processing visa applications, interviewing 
applicants, and issuing or denying the visa. The Department of State 
raised the visa fee to $131 on Jan. 1, 2008. The fee had been $100 
since 2002. 

[2] The program also requires reciprocity from VWP countries, allowing 
U.S. citizens to travel without visas to VWP countries under certain 
circumstances. 

[3] See GAO, Border Security: Stronger Actions Needed to Assess and 
Mitigate Risks of the Visa Waiver Program, GAO-06-854 (Washington, 
D.C.: July 28, 2006). 

[4] Pub. L. No. 110-53, ï¿½ 711 (c), 121 Stat. 266, 339. 

[5] In GAO, Border Security: Implications of Eliminating the Visa 
Waiver Program, GAO-03-38 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002), we 
reported that eliminating the program could have significant negative 
effects on tourism, trade, and commerce, as well as on U.S. 
relationships with VWP countries. 

[6] 12.6 million is the average traveler volume from VWP countries 
between 2001 and 2007. This number specifically represents the number 
of travelers from VWP countries--not the number of entries under the 
Visa Waiver Program, which, for example, was around 16 million in 2006. 

[7] However, there would be a lag between when State would have to fund 
the staff increases in the first year and when it would receive the 
offsetting increases in visa fees in the second year. 

[8] The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 
ï¿½ 313, 100 Stat. 3359, 3435-39 created the Visa Waiver Program as a 
pilot in 1986. It became a permanent program in 2000 under the Visa 
Waiver Permanent Program Act, Pub. L. No. 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637 
(2000). 

[9] Two countries--Argentina and Uruguay--have been removed from the 
program after failing to meet several program criteria. In 2003, the 
Attorney General removed Uruguay from the Visa Waiver Program, stating 
that Uruguay's participation in the program was inconsistent with U.S. 
interests. According to a 2003 Federal Register notice on the subject, 
Uruguayan nationals were, on average, 2 to 3 times more likely than all 
nonimmigrants to have been denied admission at the border. See Attorney 
General's Evaluations of the Designations of Belgium, Italy, Portugal, 
and Uruguay as Participants under the Visa Waiver Program, 68 Fed. Reg. 
10954 (Mar. 7, 2003). Uruguayan air entries had an apparent overstay 
rate more than twice that of the average apparent overstay rate for all 
nonimmigrant air entries. In addition, Argentina was removed from the 
program in 2002, following an economic crisis in that country and an 
increase in the number of Argentinean nationals attempting to use the 
Visa Waiver Program to live and work illegally in the United States. 
See Termination of the Designation of Argentina as a Participant Under 
the Visa Waiver Program, 67 Fed. Reg. 7943 (Feb. 21, 2002). 

[10] 8 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1351. Also, by law, State shall charge the higher of 
$65 or the cost of the machine-readable visa service. See 8 U.S.C. ï¿½ 
1713(b). 

[11] State adjusts the visa fee periodically, following cost of service 
studies conducted by independent contractors under the supervision of 
State, in order to ensure that State recovers its costs of processing 
visas. The visa fee increased from $65 to $100 in 2002, and to $131 
January 1, 2008. The 2004 cost of service study found that the $100 fee 
State was charging did not cover the full cost of processing a visa 
application and issuing a visa, and the actual cost in 2004 was 
calculated to be $107.32. However, State did not increase the fee until 
2008. State officials told us the fee was increased $31 due to $13.75 
of increases in State's direct costs and to a new per-visa fee cost to 
State of $17.25 for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct its 
applicant screening for State. State officials told us that when the 
current cost of service study is completed in 2008, the visa fee could 
change again, based on the study's findings. 

[12] See GAO, Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace 
with Increasing Demand for Visas, GAO-07-847 (Washington, D.C.: July 
13, 2007). We reported that State had difficulty in reducing visa wait 
times, but had made progress. 

[13] See GAO, State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language 
Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps, GAO-07-1154T 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2007) and GAO, State Department: Staffing 
and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address 
Gaps, GAO-06-894 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006). 

[14] See GAO, Border Security: Stronger Actions Needed to Assess and 
Mitigate Risks of the Visa Waiver Program, GAO-06-854 (Washington, 
D.C.: July 28, 2006). 

[15] Pub. L. No. 110-53, ï¿½ 711 (c). 

[16] Before the 9/11 Act, the program was open only to countries whose 
applications for nonimmigrant visas were refused less than 3 percent of 
the time in the prior fiscal year, among other requirements. The 9/11 
Act provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority to 
waive this rule, in consultation with the Secretary of State, for 
countries whose applications for nonimmigrant visas were refused 
between 3 percent and 10 percent of the time in the prior fiscal year, 
as long as other prescribed conditions are met. 

[17] Pub. L. No. 110-53, ï¿½ 711 (d)(1)(E). 

[18] CBP officials told us that initially ESTA will apply to travelers 
arriving by air and sea, but not at land border crossings. 

[19] This form is CBP's I-94W Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/ 
Departure Form. 

[20] DHS and CBP officials told us that, while DHS has the statutory 
authority to charge a fee to recover its ESTA costs, DHS currently does 
not plan to do so initially, because DHS received enough funding for 
ESTA from Congress in the 2008 Appropriations. However, DHS will 
continue to assess the issue and may charge a fee in the future. 

[21] The average traveler volume to the United States from VWP 
countries was 12.6 million from 2001 to 2007. 

[22] State officials told us that, while it is impossible to predict 
visa demand with any precision, they would expect an initial surge of 
visa applicants in the first few years following program elimination, 
and another surge 10 years later, when those visas expire. State 
officials told us that, given projections on future travel to the 
United States, visa demand would generally remain strong in all years 
for the foreseeable future. 

[23] See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[24] We are currently reviewing this issue and plan on issuing a report 
on this later this year. 

[25] DHS would incur some costs associated with expansion of the 
program--among them, the costs of developing and implementing ESTA and 
conducting the initial and recurring reviews to determine a country's 
suitability to join or continue in the program. DHS officials told us 
that the cost of developing ESTA would exceed $20 million, and 
recurring ESTA costs at this point are unknown; however, they noted 
that in the future, DHS ESTA costs could be recovered by user fees. We 
estimate recurring annual costs to conduct reviews for all Road Map 
countries would be between $132,000 and $251,000. 

[26] Consular officials in Seoul stated that, if the program were 
expanded to South Korea, they could attempt to mitigate the costs of 
severance payments and the impact on Foreign Service national staff, 
when possible, by finding other non-visa-related positions for these 
staff within the embassy, using attrition to reduce Foreign Service 
national staff levels, and hiring Foreign Service national workers to 
temporary positions or short-term contracts. 

[27] Consular Affairs officials told us they believed that most 
transfers of Foreign Service officers to new posts would occur at the 
time of their already-scheduled rotations, meaning that transferring 
these officers out of new VWP countries would add no additional cost to 
the overall costs associated with the normal rotation cycle. 

[28] Consular Affairs officials observed that some Road Map countries, 
such as Poland, may not require severance payments while others, such 
as South Korea, may require substantial severance payments. Embassy 
management officials told us that South Korean law generally requires 
severance payment of 1 month's salary for each year of work for an 
employer. 

[29] Transfer of Foreign Service officers from Road Map countries to 
other countries likely will result in increased visa fee revenue at the 
new posts receiving the transferred Foreign Service officers, as the 
Foreign Service officers will process additional visa applications. 

[30] State officials in Washington told us that because this visa 
demand is driven by choice, it could be partly managed, for example, 
through its visa application interview appointment system or, over 
time, through embassies conveying information to the public in VWP 
countries encouraging the use of ESTA. 

[31] Further, State and DHS officials stated that visa approval for 
travelers rejected by ESTA may be more difficult and time consuming 
because of the need to resolve the issue identified by the ESTA 
rejection. 

[32] We determined the average cost of constructing a facility to be 
between $63 million and $101 million. This number includes only the 
construction cost and not the recurring cost of operating and 
maintaining the facility year to year. 

[33] Uncertainty analysis is an important tool that establishes a 
confidence interval for a range of possible costs--as opposed to a 
single-point estimate--and facilitates good management decisions and 
oversight. Such analysis is a best practice in GAO's Cost Assessment 
Guide. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***