[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRAVEL AND TOURISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY: IMPROVING BOTH WITHOUT
SACRIFICING EITHER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-96
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-445 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi, Vice Chairman TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
Bud Albright, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Ranking Member
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MARY BONO, California KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
LEE TERRY, Nebraska TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
DARRELL E. ISSA, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Ex Officio)
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Allred, Barry, Chairman, Jacksonville Regional Chamber of
Commerce................................................... 46
Brown, Mark H., Executive Vice President, Association and
Club Services, AAA......................................... 42
Friend, Patricia A., International President, Association of
Flight Attendants--CWA..................................... 50
Lounsberry, Fred J., Senior Vice President of Sales,
Universal Studios Recreation Group......................... 33
Pearson, Eric, Senior Vice President, E-commerce,
Intercontinental Hotels Group.............................. 37
Verdery, C. Stewart, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Border and
Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security................................................... 7
Additional materiial submitted for the record:
Baker, Douglas B., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Service Industries, Tourism and Finance, prepared statement
of......................................................... 65
Travel Business Roundtable, prepared statement of............ 68
Travel Industry Association of America, prepared statement of 74
(iii)
TRAVEL AND TOURISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY: IMPROVING BOTH WITHOUT
SACRIFICING EITHER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Shimkus, Shadegg,
Radanovich, Bass, Terry, Otter, Barton (ex officio),
Schakowsky, Gonzalez, Green, McCarthy, and Davis.
Staff present: Chris Leahy, majority counsel and policy
coordinator; Brian McCullough, majority professional staff;
William Carty, legislative clerk; and Jonathan J. Cordone,
minority counsel.
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, everybody. I am pleased to
welcome everyone to the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection Subcommittee hearing on ``Travel, Tourism and
Homeland Security: Improving Both Without Sacrificing Either.''
Today's hearing will take a fresh look at our travel and
tourism industries through the prism of the increased homeland
security measures that were instituted in the wake of 9-11
attacks. We also will hear more about the current state of the
industry and how the additional security measures necessitated
by global terrorism are being facilitated and deployed by the
U.S. travel and tourism sector.
With the official start of summer just having passed, our
beaches, resorts and National Parks and amusement parks are in
full swing and providing travelers, both domestic and
international, the best this great country can offer. Families
are packing up their cars, boarding planes and heading to
destinations far and wide to enjoy their hard earned vacations.
As a member representing a State with a vast array of
favorite destinations and attractions, I am especially pleased.
I also realize that everyone in the country's 50 states--in
fact, almost every community--feels the positive impact of
travel and tourism in its local economy.
According to the Department of Commerce, the travel and
tourism sector contributes an average of 3.5 percent to U.S.
GDP and employs, directly and indirectly, over 17 million
Americans. In fact, the travel and tourism sector is one of the
few with a trade surplus, due in part to the lucrative business
from international visitors attracted to the incredible variety
and quality of U.S. tourist destinations for both business and
pleasure.
I think it is fair to say that the travel and leisure
business is a serious business here in the United States. There
is no question that the September 11 attacks severely impacted
the travel and tourism business nationwide, particularly in
States like mine that derive a very significant part of their
economic wellbeing from the travel and tourism sector.
While the period following September 11 was full of anxiety
and unprecedented challenges, average Americans dealt with its
challenges and stayed on course with their own lives. Americans
kept flying, driving, vacationing and simply living their lives
in the face of this change. This resolve and optimism got us
through some very dark days and now is contributing to the
resurgence of this very important sector of the U.S. economy.
In fact, AAA reports that for the first 4 months of 2004,
sales from their agents have jumped 23 percent over last year,
and are beginning to close in on pre-9-11 levels. Recent
surveys indicate that travelers feel more secure than ever when
they travel and visit destinations.
Much of this renewed confidence is a direct result of the
hard work being done to integrate heightened security into the
existing travel and tourism infrastructure. The result is that
more people are going on that dream vacation, because they feel
things are safer than ever before.
I share that enthusiasm, and would like to commend the
representatives from the travel and tourist industry and the
Department of Homeland Security who have joined us today for
their team effort to keep Americans and all travelers safe and
able to enjoy all the fantastic sights and attractions this
great country offers without undue fear and concern.
My colleagues, I would also like to especially welcome Mr.
Barry Allred, Chairman of the Jacksonville Regional Chamber of
Commerce, that represents an area I am especially proud to
serve in the Congress and call home. Jacksonville, like the
rest of the Nation, had a great deal to contend with after the
9-11 attacks: A travel and tourism sector battered by an
immediate collapse in business activity and an economy heavily
dependent on tourism.
I am very proud to say that Jacksonville has since
weathered those difficult times by using novel marketing,
expanding new tourism business investment, notably in the
cruise ship business, and managing risk while developing a
growing travel and tourism sector, skills and expertise that
will serve the Jacksonville area as we proudly host the
Superbowl in February next year.
Jacksonville's success highlights the importance of finding
ways to help better facilitate coordination between the
government authorities and stakeholders to make our skies and
highways safer and our resorts and attractions more secure.
We are off to a good start, with much work to be done.
Fundamental issues like security processing standards,
international harmonization, passport/visa policy are
challenges. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on
where things are today currently standing.
I am also anxious to explore how Congress can assist to
improve industry-government cooperation in this continuing
endeavor, including hearing about the progress we have made as
well, and the obstacles that remain.
Again, I want to thank you all for your important work to
establish the United States as the first and, I believe, safest
choice for worldwide travel and tourism. I welcome the
witnesses, and look forward to their testimony.
With that, my distinguished colleague. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
today's hearing on travel and tourism and homeland security. I
appreciate the opportunity to address this critical aspect of
the U.S. economy and U.S. national security. With the summer
travel season official off to a start, today's hearing is
particularly timely.
International travel is one of the largest exports for the
United States, ahead of agricultural and automotive, and making
it the largest services export category, amounting to 27
percent of all service exports. In 2003, the travel surplus in
the travel and tourism sector was $4 billion.
This accounts for the higher level of spending by
international visitors to the United States versus what U.S.
residents spend abroad. International visitors, along with
business travelers, constitute the most lucrative part of the
U.S. travel market. According to data, international visitors
spend four times what a domestic traveler spends while
visiting.
In contrast to increased travel and tourism by Americans,
international visitors, however, have been in slight decline,
with about 40.4 million in 2003, down about 4 percent from
2002, and we certainly do hope that that is increasing.
I talked to my office, which my district is one of the most
diverse in the country, and we have a lot of requests from
people abroad who want to come and visit here. While in this
time since 9-11, etcetera, we have rightfully taken a closer
look at our visa processing system, major problems seem to
exist.
Would-be international visitors have been subject to
unnecessarily long visa approval times, have been arbitrarily
denied visas, and have been inconvenienced in the process. Many
of these travelers simply wish to come to the United States and
spend money on travel, lodging, dining, entertainment and
retail products.
If we want to help the industries that rely on those
travelers and the huge profits they reap from them, we need to
find ways to stop arbitrary visa denials and implement a policy
with some realistic, consistent and responsible rationale.
My Congressional office has dealt with numerous cases where
people have been invited to attend conferences and meetings on
human rights, labor, the environment, and other issues, but
because they are not personally wealthy, they are usually
denied.
I have a case, and have had similar cases before, where a
Russian scientist, a prominent and respected theoretical
biophysicist who runs the General Physics Lab at the Russian
Academy of Sciences, has been invited to speak at the Bio-
Electromagnetic Society Conference this week. His case has been
going through ``administrative processing'' for months, and he
was unable to attend the conference, because his visa never got
approved. I sent four e-mails to the consulate on this case.
I have heard from constituents who have been separated from
family members for years. Their relatives are repeatedly denied
visas because of the assumption that they will try and stay
here. These constituents have offered to put liens on their
homes and businesses and to post bonds to ensure the return of
their relatives, but there is not a process in place to allow
for such assurances.
The partner of one of the city of Chicago's aldermen wanted
his sister and parents to come for a visit from Mexico. They
were repeatedly denied, despite the alderman's assurances that
he would make sure they returned. Understand, being an alderman
in Chicago is the highest level of office.
One constituent asked for our help getting her brother here
for a visit from Pakistan to see their ill mother. He has a
business, wife and kids in Pakistan and was still denied. A
prominent member of the Indian community's daughter is getting
married. Her fiance's parents have been repeatedly denied
visitor's visas to attend the wedding, despite the fact that
they own a business in India.
One woman from Columbia was very ill, wanted to see her
sister before she died. Her sister was denied, because she does
not have any financial assets. The constituent died, and we
were able to get the sister here to pick up her sister's ashes
and take them back to Columbia.
Musicians, including the famous Grammy winning Buena Vista
Social Club, have been invited to participate in concerts or
festivals here and have been denied. At some point, we had
better start thinking seriously about how we view and approach
the world and about how we are perceived. If we don't, people
will choose to go elsewhere for vacations and business, and we
had better get our priorities straight and devote needed
resources to making America truly safer.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
comments made by colleague from Illinois, and I have worked on
some of these visa issues myself. There is legislation
especially for Polish emigres that we are addressing the visa
concern, and I think--I deal a lot with the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly and our NATO allies in some of these new emerging
democracies, former Eastern Bloc countries. Addressing the visa
issue is a concern.
We need to treat them like we do any of our other allies in
the North Atlantic Alliance. So I appreciate her comments on
that.
Let me use the rest of my time just to welcome someone from
Kosovo. She is Merinda Sana. She is in the back. She is
probably going to be embarrassed if I introduce her. She is
going to be shadowing me today. Now that might not be an
exciting thing for many folks, but we are glad to have her. She
studies economy and finance at the University of Pristina.
Merinda joined the Hope Fellowship Program with the purpose
to gain an understanding of relations between governmental
institutions, NGO's, and citizens of America to explore the
procedures and process of government. So we haven't had a
chance to visit. She gets to see me in action in this
subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that, and I look
forward to spending the day with her.
Ms. Schakowsky. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Shimkus. I will.
Ms. Schakowsky. If I could also introduce a guest from
Kosovo--I want to say this right--Nafiyeh Berisha, who
currently works in the Assembly of Kosovo as a deputy. She is
also Vice President of the Committee for Labor and Social
Welfare within the Assembly and represents the Democratic
League of Kosovo and the Parliament.
So I welcome her today, and she will be shadowing me as
well. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. It would be great for them to compare stories
after they are done, Jan. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. I waive opening statement.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. The same, waive.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Waive.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Waive.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles F. Bass, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Hampshire
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I will be very
brief.
I first would like to apologize that we were unable to provide
witnesses from New Hampshire for this hearing but I look forward to the
discussion.
I want to stress the importance this hearing has on protecting
American small businesses. Among all the other issues we'll talk about
today, the H-2B visa program is a crucial resource to fill jobs in
tourism and other seasonal industries throughout the nation. Reaching
the 66,000 cap in early March will hurt businesses across the nation
and particularly summer tourism in the Northeast.
In New Hampshire alone, this crisis will directly affect 600-700
jobs. Approximately, 65,000 people annually are employed in the
hospitality and tourism industry in the Granite State.
In FY2003, 1,200 of those positions were held by H-2B workers that
make up 1.8% of the NH tourism workforce. This may seem an
insignificant number to some, however, most likely these positions will
remain unfilled due to the inability to find a local workforce or
recruit from other regions of the United States.
Without filling these positions--it will be financially detrimental
both in the short- and long-term for small businesses. It will result
in poorer service which will ultimately lower spending and discourage
future travel to the mountain, lake, and seacoast areas of New
Hampshire. This affects a $3.8 billion dollar industry in New
Hampshire.
I look forward to the discussion of how to deal with this situation
in a manner that will not sacrifice our national security. Again, I
would like to thank the witness panel for coming to today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing us with the opportunity to
look at the impact our nation's homeland security measures have on the
day-to-day activities of the American people.
Summer is the time when many Idahoans pack up their cars or board
airplanes to visit friends and family, travel to new and exciting
destinations, or just get away for a little rest and relaxation. As
many of them set out on these trips, it is timely that we take a look
at how recent changes in security measures have changed the way they
travel. New security measures have without a doubt brought the
government into more direct contact with the lives of ordinary
Americans, and I am interested to hear from our witnesses today how
travelers are responding to this added government presence as they move
from place to place.
Increased security has not only affected the normal activities of
individuals, but it has had a significant impact on our nation's
economic health. Tourism is a major component of Idaho's economy, and
every year people come from all over the country and the world to fish,
hike, and ski in my state. As many rural communities throughout my
district have been forced to be less dependent on logging and other
natural resource industries, they have increasingly turned to tourism
to sustain their economies and provide jobs for Idahoans. Increased
security regulations can significantly burden smaller communities that
do not have the resources to meet the new demands we have put on them.
It is important that we not overlook the rural areas of our country as
we consider the impact these new measures are having on the economy.
Traveling is important for more than just the opportunity to ``go
on vacation.'' When we go to new places and meet new people, we get to
experience a different kind of life and understand each other in new
ways. It's not surprising that one of the greatest ways to promote
freedom and democracy is to show it to people by letting them see it
being lived out. Freedom is contagious, and when those who live under
oppression see what they are missing, they will want it. In our quest
to take the light of democracy to the dark places of the world, our
best warriors and ambassadors are ordinary, freedom-loving Americans.
This is why I am so disturbed by our nation's current policy toward
Cuba. We talk about bringing democracy to a people who have suffered
under the harsh fist of a dictator for decades and we look for a regime
change in this area of the world. And yet for forty years we have
effectively shut off the Cuban people's access to democracy. We have
not allowed Americans to travel to Cuba or encouraged American
companies to do business with Cuba. Is anyone surprised, then, that in
four decades we have seen little change in the political climate in
that country? It is bad policy to say that we support families and then
encourage the breakdown of the family unit by limiting the support
Cuban-Americans can provide to family members still stranded in Cuba.
It is bad policy to say that we defend our God-given freedoms,
including the freedom to travel, and then deny American citizens the
right to move about the world as they please. And it is bad policy to
say that we long to see a democratic and free Cuba and then to refuse
the Cuban people the opportunity to see freedom in action.
I look forward to spending time today examining how we can
encourage travel to and within our country--and by extension, encourage
the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world. As we do,
let's not forget those areas of world, like Cuba, where we have
forgotten our ultimate goal in favor of outdated and ineffective
policies.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
Three years ago, we would have dismissed the suggestion that travel
to and within the United States would be higher three years later under
new, stricter security measures for travel coupled with higher fuel
prices. Yet that is exactly where we find ourselves today. Forecasts
predict this may be the best summer of travel in several years. The
Commerce Department recently reported it was the best quarter ever for
travel and expects that trend to continue. Additionally, some
traditional tourist destinations are reporting record-breaking numbers
of visitors this year.
We have an obligation to protect the safety of our citizens and
international visitors traveling to and within America. The long-term
health of the nation depends on protecting our borders and the safety
of everyone within them. That does not mean, however, that we have to
sacrifice our tourism industry for better security.
To the contrary, statistics demonstrating increased travel confirm
that increased security measures and increased travel in the U.S. are
not mutually exclusive. In fact, improved security can be an asset for
our travel and tourism industry competing in a global market. The more
comfortable foreign travelers feel about traveling here, the better it
is for our tourism industry and everyone whose job is related to
tourism.
It is important to recognize the economic benefits of travel and
tourism and why they are vitally linked to maintaining security. And
make no mistake; the economic impact is significant. The Commerce
Department projects receipts from foreign travelers at $86 billion
dollars this year. That will equate to a $3 billion dollar surplus. It
is one of our few industries that have consistently maintained a trade
surplus.
The economic impact is not limited to the billions of dollars that
visitors spend here. There is a multiplier effect. Industry calculates
that the various segments of the market--from hotels, restaurants,
airlines and local attractions--directly and indirectly employ 17
million workers.
Given this context, it is critical to maintain a system to
continuously examine the progress and impact of security changes that
have been implemented since 9-11. We need to ensure that the system
provides a diagnostic monitor for both sides of the equation--security
agencies and private industry--to evaluate and incorporate changes in
information as they become available. Information and communication are
two of the most valuable assets to providing meaningful security
policy. Federal agencies have to effectively communicate their policy
and regulations. Industry needs to be flexible to implement the changes
and at the same time provide feedback or suggestions where they have
the knowledge and experience that can enhance security.
This is no small task. Coordinating the many segments of the
industry and the information flow is an enormous undertaking. By any
measure, the Department of Homeland Security's progress to date is a
remarkable accomplishment given their mandate to implement dramatic
changes across all facets of our infrastructure in such a short period
of time.
Nonetheless, we remain committed to a long-term strategy that can
address security concerns efficiently. I am confident the process will
be refined and changes will flow smoothly and seamlessly as we gain
experience. In the meantime, we will continue to work with the affected
industries to address their concerns and suggestions that will enhance
tourism without diminishing safety and security.
Thank you Chairman Stearns, for focusing the subcommittee today on
a critical aspect of homeland security. I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. With that, we will start our first panel: Mr.
C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Border and
Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security. We welcome your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF C. STEWART VERDERY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Verdery. Mr. Chairman and madam ranking member and
other distinguished members of the committee, it is a pleasure
to appear before you today to discuss how the government can
better facilitate travel and tourism in light of the need for
enhanced security measures following 9-11.
As recognized in the opening remarks of the members, as
well as the testimony submitted for the next panel, the ability
of prospective students, scientists, tourists, and business
partners to visit our country is crucial to our society.
If that travel is disrupted because potential visitors
believe that travel to the United States is too inconvenient,
we will experience a devastating effect on our economy in the
short run and, equally important, the ability of foreign
visitors to come to our country is critical in furthering
scientific development and promoting the image of America
abroad. Of course, we recognize that travel within our own
borders, especially via aviation, must be both safe and
convenient.
My written testimony details in great length many of the
programs in place or underway to secure our borders and
facilitate lawful trade and travel, and I will take just my few
minutes here today to discuss how the Border and Transportation
Security Directorate, part of the Department of Homeland
Security, is integrating these policies.
Now these are usually implemented by our bureaus,
Transportation Security Administration, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We are trying
to ensure a unified approach to border protection and
transportation security.
Now we are making revolutionary changes that are necessary
and possible in how we decide whether a prospective visitor
should be admitted to the country, and how that visitor is
screened and vetted along the way. If you think of points where
our government interacts with a potential visitor, almost none
are the same as they were in 2001.
The visa process, an international flight, the port of
entry, the departure--all these have changed significantly in
less than 3 years, and more changes are in store. But our
investments in better and more comprehensive watch lists and
better data sharing and in advanced technology are making it
much more likely we will be able to identify a terrorist or a
criminal trying to enter our shores.
The Department of Homeland Security, and BTS in particular,
work closely with industry partners to craft security conscious
but passenger friendly policies. Today I will touch on our
efforts to facilitate travel and tourism through our programs
affecting visa policy, passenger processing, and operations at
our 445 airports.
In relation to travelers required to obtain a visa to the
United States, DHS assumed lead responsibility for establishing
visa policy under the Homeland Security Act, and we have begun
stationing employees in high risk areas to assist consular
officials in the visa process.
We have listened to concerns, as was raised this morning,
raised by industry and academia, and are reviewing programs
which may be causing unnecessary travel delays. We will
buildupon the US VISIT and CVIS programs to create a seamless
process, based on biometrics. that will not only facilitate
travel, but ensure the integrity of our immigration systems.
We also aim to improve the customer service aspect of visa
issuance. This is a comprehensive review and will bear fruit in
the near future.
We, of course, also need to secure travel under the Visa
Waiver Program, which allows short term travel from low risk
countries without a visa. In fiscal year 2003, about 13.5
million visitors, about 46 percent of legal arrivals, entered
under the Visa Waiver Program. While visa-less travel, of
course, encourages travel and trade with our allies, it may
also be attractive to those wishing to avoid the visa security
checks now conducted at U.S. consulates.
DHS and an inter-agency group are currently conducting
reviews of the visa waiver countries, including site visits, to
ensure that each country meets the statutory security measures
required by Congress, most importantly reporting lost and
stolen passports, which could be used by terrorists to enter
the United States. We plan to have those reviews completed and
reported to Congress by October.
Additionally, we are very supportive of Chairman
Sensenbrenner's willingness to introduce and expedite passage
of a bill that was passed by the full House on June 14,
extending by 1 year the deadline for countries in the Visa
Waiver Program to include biometric features in their
passports, and we are hoping for prompt Senate action on the
legislation as well.
As Secretary Ridge has testified, this delay is required to
meet technical challenges and does not reflect an unwillingness
of these countries to secure their travel documents, and it is
very important to remember that we are going to enroll visa
waiver applicants in US VISIT beginning this fall which,
hopefully, will address the security gaps associated with the
extension or providing biometric watch list checks and identify
verification for subsequent visits to the United States.
Also last summer, based on specific and credible threat
intelligence, DHS and the State Department suspended the
Transit Without Visa and International to International
programs, which allowed transit through the United States
between foreign countries without a nonimmigrant visa.
We are aware of the significant revenue that these programs
generated for the airline and airport industries, and we are in
the process of drafting a new regulation which will establish
an improved transit process with its significantly enhanced
security measures.
In an effort to better secure international travel, last
month DHS finalized a landmark agreement with the European
Union that permits the legal transfer to DHS of advanced
passenger name record information, so called PNR information,
from airlines flying between the EU countries and the U.S. PNR
data helps us make a determination whether or not passengers
represent a significant security risk, and also allows us to
link known terrorists and criminals to co-conspirators.
Now whether a traveler arrives with a visa or not, DHS must
ensure that the traveler is who he or she says that she is and
that there is nothing in the traveler's history that suggests
he or she may pose a threat to our country. Through the US
VISIT program DHS is using biometrics such as digital
photographs and digital inkless finger scans to determine
whether the person applying for entry to the United States is
the same person who was issued the visa, and whether he or she
appears on a watch list or criminal data base.
Now this program has received much deserved praise for
adding security without inhibiting travel, and I merely note
the latest statistics for the record. As of yesterday, using US
VISIT capabilities, Customs and Border Protection has processed
5,379,716 passengers, and DOS and DHS have identified 651
criminals and other inadmissible aliens, based solely on the
biometric check.
Last, regarding domestic air travel let me briefly discuss
the current effort underway by the TSA to secure and streamline
passenger screening during this peak travel season. Working
with the Air Transport Association, the Airports Council
International, North America, the American Association of
Airport Executives, and other important stakeholders, DHS has
devised a strategy designed to accommodate the anticipated 200
million air travelers nationwide between Memorial Day and Labor
Day weekends.
Strategies include passenger education to improve
techniques at the passenger check point, and deployment of
airport and airline personnel to assist these travelers. In
addition, we are developing the ability to focus screening
resources and facilitate travel of ``registered travelers,'' in
quotes, who have passed the background check.
In TSA's work on Registered Traveler or RT pilot program,
we use biometric technology, security assessments, and
adjustments to screening procedures to determine whether
customer service can be improved without degrading security. On
June 28, TSA will launch the first RT pilot in Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport in concert with North West Airlines.
We also plan on testing pilots at LAX, George Bush
Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Boston Logan, Ronald
Reagan, and we appreciate our cooperation with United,
Continental and American Air Lines.
We are proud of the efforts that we have made to secure the
homeland and to facilitate the needs of travelers and tourists,
but we recognize our efforts to develop 21st Century borders
and transportation systems are not complete.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, I look
forward to your questions in these important areas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of C. Stewart Verdery, Jr.
follows:]
Prepared Statement of C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., Assistant Secretary for
Border and Transportation Security Policy and Planning, Department of
Homeland Security
Chairman Stearns and other distinguished Members, it is a pleasure
to appear before you today to discuss how the government can better
facilitate travel and tourism, both domestic and international, in
light of the need for enhanced security measures and policies in our
post-9/11 world.
The travel and tourism industry is comprised of hotels,
restaurants, shopping centers, travel agencies, airlines, passenger
rail, buses, rental car agencies, theme parks, and convention and
visitors bureaus, to name just a few. The travel and tourism industry
has not yet fully recovered from the enormous and disproportionate
impact of the September 11 attacks.
According to the Department of Commerce, travel and tourism
represented $741 billion in direct and indirect sales, averaging 3.5
percent of the gross domestic product in 2003. According to the Travel
Industry Association of America, more than 17 million Americans are
employed in travel and tourism-related jobs, with an annual payroll of
$157 billion in 2002. The industry is the first, second or third
largest industry in 28 states and the District of Columbia, and it is
estimated that in 2002, travel and tourism generated $93.2 billion in
tax revenue for federal, state and local governments.
While enhancing the security of our nation, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and particularly the Border and Transportation
Security Directorate (BTS) has worked with industry representatives
including the Travel Industry of America, Business Travel Association,
the Air Transport Association and others to craft polices aimed at
encouraging business and leisure travel throughout the United States.
In consultation with travel industry stakeholders we have initiated new
policies and programs that will facilitate travel while ensuring the
safety of our nation. Today I would particularly like to address
changes in visa policy, passenger processing, and finally operations of
our nation's 445 airports.
Visa Policy:
The movement of people across U.S. borders is critical to the U.S
economy. Foreign tourists, businesspeople and legal workers are crucial
to our success. There is a concern that with immigration and visa
policy under a department dedicated to security, the service side will
suffer. Over the past months, DHS has made a tremendous effort to
combat this perception, and examine how we can change policies to
facilitate travel while ensuring safety to our nation.
As you know, the Administration has made significant changes to the
visa process and entry screening requirements since 9/11 to provide
better security in light of the revised threat assessment to our
national security. The percentage of visa applicants who are required
to appear at a consular office for a personal interview has been
steadily increasing over the past year. As of August 2003, the
Department of State implemented a new policy which requires a personal
appearance for nonimmigrant visa applicants with a limited waiver to
only a few categories of exceptions, such as diplomats. And in
coordination with the Department of Justice and Department of State, we
have added more interagency security checks.
Under the Homeland Security Act, DHS has assumed lead
responsibility for establishing visa policy, and has begun stationing
employees in high-risk areas to assist the consular officers in the
visa process. Subject to certain exceptions, DHS can establish visa
policy and has final authority over DOS-initiated visa guidance
concerning: alien admissibility, classification, and documentation;
place of visa application; personal appearance/interviews; visa
validity periods and the Visa Waiver Program.
Over the past several months, DHS, and particularly BTS and the
Bureau of Citizens and Immigration Services, have conducted a
comprehensive review of the existing immigration laws, regulations, and
policies to ensure that our immigration goals, policies, and laws are
properly aligned in relation to visa issuance and policy. We have
called on staff from US-VISIT, Customs and Border Protection and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to bring their best people and
thoughts to the table to aggressively effectuate change in this arena.
Furthermore, senior DHS leadership, including myself, have met with
numerous private sector groups and schools to discuss their concerns
and identify what policies have an impact on the business travel,
international students, and scientific research, which are all vital to
our economy.
We have listened and over the next few months DHS will work with
the White House and interagency partners to consider changes to
programs, as well as looking at new ways to facilitate secure travel
through biometrics without causing any unnecessary travel delays We
will build upon the US-VISIT system to create a seamless process that
will not only facilitate travel but also ensure the integrity of our
system. We are taking a fresh look at old doctrines like reciprocity
and the customer service aspects of visa issuance. It is a
comprehensive review and will bear fruit in the near future.
Pre-screening
One of the keys to security and travel facilitation is knowing who
is getting on the plane so that our first line of defense is not when a
passenger arrives at a United States airport.
Last month working with a broad coalition of interagency partners,
BTS finalized an important agreement with the European Union that
permits the legal transfer to DHS of advanced passenger name record
(PNR) data from airlines flying between EU countries and the United
States. The purpose of our negotiations was to obtain an adequacy
finding, under the European privacy directive, which allowed Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to receive PNR data from major airlines.
PNR data is an essential tool in allowing CBP to accomplish its key
goals: (1) PNR data helps us make a determination of whether a
passenger may pose a significant risk to the safety and security of the
United States and to fellow passengers on a plane; (2) PNR data
submitted prior to a flight's arrival enables CBP to facilitate and
expedite the entry of the vast majority of visitors to the U.S. by
providing CBP with an advance and electronic means to collect
information that CBP would otherwise be forced to collect upon arrival;
and (3) PNR data is essential to terrorism and criminal investigations
by allowing us to link information about known terrorists and serious
criminals to co-conspirators and others involved in their plots,
including potential victims. Sometimes these links may be developed
before a person's travel but other times these leads only become
available days or weeks or months later. In short, PNR enables CBP to
fulfill its anti-terrorism and law enforcement missions more
effectively and allows for more efficient and timely facilitation of
travel for the vast majority of legitimate travelers to and through the
United States.
Another important tool is Advance Passenger Information System
(APIS) data. This is the information coded in the machine readable zone
of your passport and transmitted electronically as part of a crew or
passenger manifest to CBP for advanced analysis and for targeting of
passengers traveling to and departing from the U.S. The National
Targeting Center (NTC) uses PNR and APIS data in combination with a
host of other passenger, cargo intelligence and threat information to
conduct a risk analysis that helps to identify potential terrorists and
targets for additional scrutiny. During the period of heightened alert
last December, the NTC played a pivotal role in analyzing information
that led to the delay of several international flights that were
determined to be at risk. In the coming months, DHS will develop
guidance governing the transmission of APIS data. This rule will
combine prior legacy US Customs Service Interim Rule and the legacy INS
Proposed Rule, both of which have received substantial comments from
the airline industry, together with TSA requirements for crew
manifests.
Visa Waiver Program:
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables citizens of certain countries
to travel to the United States for tourism or business for ninety days
or less without obtaining a visa. While visa-less travel encourages
travel and trade with our allies, it also makes the program attractive
to those wishing to avoid visa security checks conducted at U.S.
consulates abroad. To help address this security vulnerability, the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act (EBSA) requires that
beginning on October 26, 2004, VWP countries have a program in place to
issue their nationals machine-readable passports that are tamper-
resistant and incorporate biometric and document authentication
identifiers that comply with International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) standards as a condition of continued participation in the VWP
program. The law also requires that visitors coming to the United
States under the VWP present machine-readable, tamper-resistant
passports that incorporate biometric and document authentication
identifiers, if the passport is issued on or after October 26, 2004.
Furthermore, DHS is required to install equipment and software at all
ports of entry to allow biometric comparison and authentication of
these passports.
In FY03, over 13.5 million visitors (about 46 percent of all
controlled arrivals) entered under the VWP.
There have always been concerns about possible security
vulnerabilities created by any ``visa free'' travel programs. This is
particularly true now, in light of recent enhancements to the visa
issuance process. However, the permanent program legislation and
subsequent amendments include provisions to address the law enforcement
and security interests of the United States. The program now requires
that:
each participating Visa Waiver Program country certify that it has a
machine-readable Passport (MRP) program;
a VWP traveler present an MRP on 10/26/04--a deadline that the
Secretary of State has already extended--following a one-year
waiver by the Secretary of State;
participating countries be evaluated against statutory criteria every
2 years;
participating countries establish a program to issue MRPs that are
tamper-resistant and incorporate biometric and document
authentication identifiers that comply with standards
established by the ICAO by October 26, 2004; and
VWP travelers present ``biometric-enabled'' passports if the
documents are issued after that date.
By law, DHS is required to review all participating countries
periodically for continued participation and report to Congress.
Several countries (Slovenia, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Uruguay, and
Argentina) were reviewed by the legacy Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), and two (Argentina (2002) and Uruguay (2003)) were
removed from the program. DHS, in coordination with the Department of
State, is currently conducting reviews of the remainder of the
countries and will complete the reviews by October. This will be the
first comprehensive review of the countries and will form the
``baseline'' for future reviews. I can assure you that these reviews
will not be a cursory process: we will be asking tough questions as to
a VWP country's compliance with the statutory criteria. Among these
are:
a low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate;
a machine-readable passport program, and after 10/26/04, biometric-
enabled passport programs must be in place;
a country designation may not compromise U.S. law enforcement and
security interests, including enforcement of U.S. immigration
laws and procedures for extraditions to the U.S.;
the country must certify that it reports to the U.S. on a timely
basis the theft of blank passports issued by that country; and
low immigration violation rate (overstays, etc.).
Biometric Deadline and Biometric Enhancements
Under the Enhanced Border Security Act, after October 26, 2004, VWP
applicants with non-biometric passports issued after that date will not
be eligible to apply for admission under the VWP. While most VWP
countries will be able to certify that they have a program in place,
due to technological limitations, actually producing biometric
passports by that date will not be possible. Limiting VWP participation
could lead to serious disruptions to travel and tourism because
millions of VWP travelers may choose not to travel to the U.S.,
resulting in billions of dollars of lost revenue to the U.S. economy.
It may also cause friction with some of our closest allies in the war
on terror.
Additionally, the EBSA requires DHS to deploy passport readers to
authenticate these passports. On April 21st, Secretary Ridge testified
before the House Committee on the Judiciary that DHS is not currently
in a position to acquire and deploy equipment and software to
biometrically compare and authenticate these documents. DHS cannot
today acquire one reader that will be able to read all chips utilized
in the ICAO compliant biometrics passports. However we believe that by
the fall of 2006, the technology required to successfully implement a
security system based on the ICAO standards will be much more settled
and allow DHS to derive benefits envisioned when the original EBSA was
enacted.'' Accordingly, DHS and DOS jointly requested that the October
26, 2004 deadline be extended to November 30, 2006 for the production
of ICAO-compliant biometric passports and the deployment of equipment
and software to read them.
On June 14, The House approved bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4417,
extending for one year the deadline by which countries in the Visa
Waiver Program (VWP) must include biometric features in their
passports; we are appreciative of Chairman Sensenbrenner's willingness
to move extension legislation quickly. We need to continue the ability
of VWP nationals to travel to the United States visa-free. At the same
time, we are going to enroll VWP applicants in US-VISIT, which will
alleviate any security gaps associated with the extension by providing
biometric watchlist checks and identity verification for subsequent
visits to the United States.
ICAO specifications for biometrics in passports are part of a
process, not the end state. The international communities, both public
and private sectors, are moving this process forward. Based on the
information provided to us by these countries on their status and their
expected implementation dates, as well as DOS's own experience as it
moves to implement this standard for U.S. Passports, we believe that
all countries will be compliant by the November 30, 2006.
US-VISIT
What DHS and ICAO are working toward is a seamless border, which
expeditiously allows bona fide visitors to enter the country, while
catching those seeking to do harm. We have been able to work toward
this goal through the US-VISIT program.
Our border management system impacts the security of our citizens
and our visitors, affects billions of dollars in trade and travel and
helps define relations with our international partners. There is a need
to improve this system and bring it into the 21st century with a new
integrated system of technological processes that will keep our
country's economic and national security strong. This 21st century
technology will provide an important step toward achieving the
President's goal of secure U.S. borders.
US-VISIT is a continuum of security measures that begins before
individuals enter the United States and continues through their arrival
and departure from the country. Using biometrics such as digital,
inkless fingerscans and digital photographs, DHS is able to determine
whether the person applying for entry to the United States is the same
person who was issued the visa by DOS. Additionally, DOS and DHS use
biometric and biographic data to check against lookout data, including
extracts of criminal history data, improving DOS's ability to make visa
determinations and DHS's ability to make admissibility decisions at
entry.
US-VISIT procedures are clear, simple, and fast for visitors.
DHS deployed the first increment of US-VISIT on time, within
budget, and has exceeded the mandate established by Congress as it
includes biometrics ahead of schedule. On January 5, 2004, US-VISIT
entry procedures were operational at 115 airports (covering 99% of air
travelers who use visas to enter the United States) and 14 seaports. In
addition, we began pilot testing biometric exit procedures at one
airport and one seaport. As of June 8, more than 5 million foreign
visitors have been processed under the US-VISIT entry procedures.
At various points in the pre-entry, entry, status management, and
analysis processes, decision makers are supported by systems checks
against data extracts from law enforcement and intelligence sources
that identify persons of interest for various violations.
All names and fingerscans are checked against watch lists to
identify known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and immigration
violators. Terrorist watch list checks are coordinated through the
Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).
As of June 18, US-VISIT has matched over 579 persons against
criminal data and prevented more than 196 known or suspected criminals
from entering the country. Four hundred and seventy-nine people were
matched while applying for a visa at a State Department post overseas.
We respect our visitors' privacy and seek to enable them to pass
through inspection quickly so they can enjoy their visit in our
country. However, as people attempt to enter the United States, we must
know who they are and whether they intend to do us harm. The ability of
US-VISIT to rapidly screen applicants' biometrics and biographic
information through watchlists and other selected data means we can
have security and control without impeding legitimate travelers, and we
can also help protect our welcomed visitors by drastically reducing the
possibility of identity theft. Moreover, as visitors leave the country,
we must know that they have not overstayed the terms of their
admission.
US-VISIT will be rolled out in increments to ensure that the
foundation is strong and the building blocks are effective. With the
deployment of the entry components at air and seaports, we have made a
strong beginning. We are on track to meet the December 31, 2004,
deadline to integrate US-VISIT procedures at the 50 busiest land border
ports of entry.
US-VISIT is dedicated to safeguarding the privacy of traveler
information. US-VISIT has extended the principles and protections of
the 1974 Privacy Act to all individuals processed through the program--
even though the law only applies to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent
Residents. US-VISIT has implemented a privacy program that includes a
privacy policy and a three-stage process for redress, if individuals
have concerns about their information.
US-VISIT is critical to our national security as well as our
economic security, and its implementation is already making a
significant contribution to the efforts of DHS to provide a safer and
more secure America. We recognize that we have a long way still to go.
We will build upon the initial framework and solid foundation to ensure
that we continue to meet our goals to enhance the security of our
citizens and visitors while facilitating travel for the millions of
visitors we welcome each year.
Air Transit Program
The former Transit Without Visa (TWOV) and International-to-
International (ITI) programs allowed an alien to transit through the
United States without a nonimmigrant visa while en route from one
foreign country to a second foreign country with one or two stops in
the United States. Under the TWOV program, a passenger seeking to
transit through the United States was admitted as a transit passenger
by a DHS inspector and departed the Federal Inspection Service (FIS)
area. A TWOV passenger was permitted to make one additional stop in the
United States. Under the ITI program, the ITI passenger was inspected
by a DHS inspector but was not admitted to the United States and did
not leave the secure FIS area.
The primary purpose of the TWOV and ITI programs was to facilitate
travel for many qualified aliens allowing them to transit the United
States en route to a specified foreign country without a passport or
visa. However, both programs also served to provide the aviation
industry with significant financial returns. CBP estimates that these
programs generated approximately $130 million in revenue for
participating domestic airlines per year. In addition, many U.S.
airports have also relied heavily on the TWOV/ITI programs for revenue.
For example, Iberia Airlines has threatened to move its hub operation
from Miami due to the lack of a transit without visa program. If it
moves its operation to a Caribbean island, Iberia has estimated the
loss of revenue to South Florida to be $157 million. Cathay Pacific has
moved its operation from Anchorage, Alaska, to Vancouver, Canada, due
to the suspension of the TWOV/ITI programs. One vendor in the Anchorage
In-Transit Lounge estimates that the Anchorage International Airport
alone is losing $1.1 million a year due to Cathay Pacific's inability
to transit Anchorage with its 132,000 ITI passengers per year.
On August 7, 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs published regulations
suspending the TWOV and ITI transit programs. The suspensions were
based on specific, credible intelligence that certain terrorist
organizations had identified these programs as a way to gain access to
aircraft without first obtaining a visa in order to: (1) take over the
aircraft to use as a weapon of mass destruction, or to simply cause
damage to the aircraft; or (2) to abscond during their layover in the
United States in order to gain illegal entry to the United States.
In August and September 2003, BTS conducted field visits and held
meetings with airline industry and the Departments of State and
Transportation on the possible reinstatement of a security-enhanced
transit program. On September 22, 2003, the public comment period
concerning the suspension of the TWOV and ITI programs expired. BTS
reviewed 17 comments submitted by the air and sea industries on the
regulation and formulated a proposed plan to potentially reinstate a
program to allow transit without a visa, the Air Transit Program (ATP).
On January 12, 2004, special transit procedures were initiated at
Miami International Airport for certain groups of international
passengers, including passengers holding Visa Waiver Program country
passports, passengers in possession of a visa to enter the U.S., and
Canadian citizens. Similar programs were implemented on a case-by-case
basis at Los Angeles, Orlando, and San Juan International Airports.
DHS is now in the process of drafting a new regulation, which will
set forth a program that will allow airports to have air transit
lounges, but ensure that the right security measures are in place. We
are working with Office of Management and Budget and through the
interagency process to finalize this regulation.
Transportation
DHS also recognizes that airline transportation is an essential
component of travel and tourism, being one of the major means of moving
travelers to tourist destinations. Since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, the United States has made tremendous strides in
revamping our aviation security system to respond to what was
previously the unthinkable, and the airline industry has worked closely
with the federal government in carrying out these efforts. DHS is
committed to continuing its work with transportation stakeholders such
as air carriers, the tourism industry, and airports.
Facilitation in Airports
DHS, airports and major airlines together devised a strategy
designed to help accommodate an anticipated 200 million air travelers
nationwide between the Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends. The
Aviation Partnership Support Plan (APSP) identifies numerous steps each
partner can take to smooth the flying experience. Tactics include
passenger education to improved techniques at the passenger checkpoint
and the deployment of airport and airline personnel to assist
travelers.
On the Memorial Day weekend TSA began a multi-level program to
increase passenger throughput at U.S. airports. This includes a focus
on specific airports requiring special attention. In planning for the
summer travel season, TSA built upon nearly two years of experience
with high peak travel periods, working with the Air Transport
Association, the Airports Council International-North America, and the
American Association of Airport Executives to develop a plan that deals
proactively with a wide range of challenges posed by the summer travel
period. The normal increase in air travel occasioned by summer vacation
plans is only one dynamic that is factored into TSA's planning, and TSA
is mindful that the summer period will require the agency to sustain
robust operations over a longer period than during the winter holiday
season. A number of special events scheduled for the summer months will
require particular attention, not only because they will increase the
concentration of travel to particular airports for short periods of
time, but also because the nature of the events may attract the
attention of those who wish to do us harm.
TSA distributed a guidebook to airport Federal Security Directors
(FSDs) and other TSA airport staff detailing ``best practices''
covering a comprehensive range of techniques to speed and enhance
throughput at the screening checkpoints. The guidance is easy to
understand and use, and will be amended as techniques are refined and
improved. As part of the APSP, we identified twenty-five ``focus
airports'' for special attention. These airports warrant particular
examination for a variety of reasons that have an impact on the level
of traffic through the airport-size, proximity to special events that
may be threat targets, or proximity to high-traffic summer vacation
destinations. At the focus airports, we are coordinating with our
stakeholders to provide additional resources to support the screening
process, such as exit lane monitors, queue handlers, or ticket
checkers. TSA also provides additional staffing to support screening
utilizing headquarters personnel and administrative staff in the field
on a temporary basis. Also, our National Screening Force (NSF) is being
mobilized as necessary.
Since the release of the APSP, FSDs have initiated discussions with
their airport and local air carrier stakeholders to determine which
best practice opportunities can be implemented locally. Many airports
submitted their plans early, demonstrating the commitment from all
parties to collaborate on reducing summer wait times. Our industry
partners are undertaking a wide range of initiatives from funding part-
time non-screener support for the checkpoint and queuing lines to
assisting TSA with local outreach programs to providing more space
surrounding the checkpoint for passengers to ready themselves for
screening. For example, at Chicago O'Hare, the airport is removing some
queue space to add additional divestiture tables. At Fort Lauderdale,
air carriers are providing personnel to assist in managing the queues
at checkpoints throughout the airport.
At Logan International Airport in Boston, TSA is using the
materials provided in the APSP to enhance and clarify training for
screeners in checkpoint screening procedures, and Logan already
supplements TSA screening by providing exit lane monitors. At Logan,
Massport is an extremely important partner in our security efforts.
Every morning, TSA, Massport, airlines, airport concessionaires, and
other governmental stakeholders convene to discuss and resolve
operational issues at the airport. TSA also meets weekly with Massport
and the airlines to project passenger volumes, helping TSA efficiently
schedule screener resources and prepare for the activity levels in the
immediate days ahead.
We also recognize the importance of educating summer travelers and
helping them prepare for what can be expected at our busy airports
during this high travel season. In conjunction with the release of our
APSP guidebook, we are conducting national and local media campaigns to
help prepare summer travelers to do their part in easing traffic
through our Nation's airports. We are expanding existing passenger
outreach efforts with a more comprehensive passenger assistance
program, called READY-SET-GO, to dispense advice to travelers and to
increase awareness of procedures that will speed up throughput. First,
this campaign instructs passengers to start getting READY for travel at
home, by packing and dressing in a way that will expedite processing
through x-ray machines and magnetometers, and getting information about
how long it will take to get to the airport, park, check in, and check
baggage. Second, passengers are encouraged get SET for screening by
arriving at the screening checkpoint with identification and boarding
pass accessible, placing carry-on items on the x-ray belt, and
listening to the guidance of the screener regarding divestiture of
metal items and shoes. Third, guidance instructs passengers to GO
through the magnetometer; listen to instructions for a second pass
through the magnetometer, if necessary; retrieve property; quickly move
away from the screening area if waiting for other passengers; and
proceed to the departure area. To ensure wide dissemination to
travelers, the passenger guidance is posted on TSA's website, and TSA
works with the airlines to continue providing updated travel support
information to passengers on carriers' websites.
Our expectation is that these best practices should be maintained
for the benefit of security and efficiency, even after the summer
travel season is over. In addition to best practices, over the longer
term, there are three broad areas that we are pursuing to enhance the
security of and customer satisfaction with the civil aviation system:
(1) improvements in technology; (2) physical changes to airports; and
(3) better utilization of information to focus screening resources.
Improvements in technology play a critical role in making our
screening operations more effective, more efficient, less time
consuming, and less costly. Technology that is already deployed to
detect weapons, explosives, and other prohibited items at passenger
checkpoints include more than 1,700 Enhanced Walk Through Metal
Detectors (EWTMD), 1,219 Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) units, and
1,801 x-ray machines.
To make our civil aviation system more secure and less burdensome,
we are developing the ability to focus screening resources on those
passengers who actually constitute a higher risk, while at the same
time foregoing enhanced screening procedures on passengers who pose a
lower risk. TSA's work on the Registered Traveler (RT) Pilot Program
will use biometric technology, security assessments and adjustments to
screening procedures to determine whether customer service can be
improved without degrading security. TSA envisions that a fully
implemented RT program would be purely voluntary and would offer
qualified participants an expedited travel experience. Volunteer
participants in the RT Pilot Program will be requested to submit
personal data, such as biometrics (fingerprint and iris scan), that
will be used for identity verification. Participants in the program
will still be required to submit to a modified screening procedure for
weapons, explosives, and prohibited items at the checkpoint.
TSA has collaborated with key internal and external stakeholders
regarding the feasibility of such a program. On June 16, TSA Acting
Administrator Stone announced the launching of the first RT pilot at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with Northwest Airlines
later this month. In late July, TSA will implement the program in Los
Angeles International Airport in coordination with United Airlines. In
early August, TSA will begin operating in George Bush Intercontinental
Airport/Houston in coordination with Continental Airlines. By the end
of August, TSA intends to have the program also active in both Boston
Logan International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport both in coordination with American Airlines.
While TSA is not planning to charge a fee to passengers to
participate in the RT Pilot Program, TSA will await the results of the
Pilot Program to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of broader
implementation, including what costs, if any, would be incurred by
those passengers who wish to participate in a future phase of the
voluntary program. If implemented on an expanded basis, the RT program
would most likely be funded via a fee-for-service business arrangement.
Upon conclusion of the pilots, results will be analyzed to ascertain
security and customer service benefits and to determine the best
approach for proceeding.
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Committee, this
concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank you, and I will start the questioning.
We are here this morning in this subcommittee hearing, and we
are talking about perhaps one of the most important security
practices in the United States, how to protect the country from
people that come here by air, from outside the country.
You have talked about your pilot program in Minneapolis. I
myself have often thought we should have a trusted travelers'
program to allow a lot of people that come and go to either
Europe or Asia or within the United States the opportunity to
move more expeditiously.
I guess that is what this Registered Traveler pilot program
is. You say you are using biometrics to coordinate in this
program.
Mr. Verdery. That is right. The applicants will----
Mr. Stearns. Maybe explain a little bit about this pilot
program. You are hoping then this program could be used
throughout the United States ultimately?
Mr. Verdery. Let me describe it. The applicants at each of
these pilots will provide biometric finger scans and
biographical information that will be checked first on our
watch list and other criminal data bases to see if they are
appropriate applicants. So they will essentially go to the
airport, register, and the next time they come back, they will
be able to get their biometrically enhanced identity card that
can be used for----
Mr. Stearns. Does that card have their fingerprints on it?
Mr. Verdery. It will have it embedded, yes.
Mr. Stearns. Embedded? So they will just take this and scan
it through?
Mr. Verdery. To verify the cardholder is the same person
that is in front of the checkpoint.
Mr. Stearns. So they check their scan on their fingerprints
as well as the card or just the card?
Mr. Verdery. The card is verified to make sure it is the
same human being, that the person who went through the
background check and received the card is actually the person
standing in front of you.
Mr. Stearns. How do they test the person in front of you
that he or she is that--with that card?
Mr. Verdery. The readers can do a one-to-one match. Is the
biometric embedded in the card the same as the fingerprint
actually there in front of you. It is like we use in the US
VISIT program. So essentially, that will be the biometric check
that will determine is this person who enrolled and passed the
background check, thereby giving us the assurances that we can
use the expedited screening measures.
The trick, though, of course, is we are not going to turn
off the X-rays, of course. We have to maintain the high levels
of security, but there are things on the margin we can do to
speed things up at the checkpoint. We are looking at providing
dedicated lanes in most of these pilots to speed these people
through in these five pilot projects.
In terms of the deployment more broadly, we are going to
look at these pilots, see what happens. Are customers willing
to do this? We hope that they are. We think that they will, but
we need to understand the public reaction to this. We expect
that there wills be a fee down the road. There is not a fee for
the pilots.
Mr. Stearns. There will be a fee for registering.
Mr. Verdery. We believe that down the road, if this is
expanded, there will be a fee for registering, although there
is not a fee to participate in these pilots.
Mr. Stearns. You know, I think people would pay it if they
realize they could be expedited.
Mr. Verdery. We agree.
Mr. Stearns. Just like an upgraded American Express card,
you pay for a little bit of the facilitation.
Mr. Verdery. Exactly. That's right. In terms, though, of
the plans down the road, we are working with existing funds on
this right now. Lots of airports--we are beginning with five.
This is something that, if it works and passengers like it and
there is improved security, then the process can be rolled out.
As we move forward, I don't think we are going to see a
universal rollout. I can't give you a time certain. We have to
see what the results are before we promise any kind of
grandiose scheme, but we think this is something passengers are
going to want. The airlines have asked to work with us on it.
We appreciate the airports. We think it is a very promising
program.
Mr. Stearns. You say you have collected European passenger
name record data for over a year. Has this indicated--been
successful? In other words, has this data brought you enough
information to say that you actually stopped terrorists coming
into the United States? Give me the credibility of this
information and how is it going?
Mr. Verdery. Well, we use the PNR which I mentioned, which
essentially is the information that would be in your travel
record that you would give a travel agent or Expedia or another
online service, along with the APIS information, which is the
stuff that is embedded at the bottom of your passport that you
have scanned in when you arrive at the airport. Those two work
together to provide us information that is then screened
against watch list and the like.
They work together quite well, and we have found
terrorists, criminals, inadmissible aliens frequently, more on
the latter two, of course. But it is key for vetting these
flights before they take off, which is a huge security
advantage if we can scrub these flights, especially if there is
any kind of indicia of a threat, before they take off in a
European or other foreign city.
So access to this information is absolutely critical.
Mr. Stearns. Just a last question. The House passed
legislation extending the deadline by 1 year, which requires
countries under the Visa Waiver Program to include biometrics
passports. I guess, how have other countries--their
participation been, and what is the difference between that
program and the US VISIT program that you are using?
Mr. Verdery. Well, Congress has a law in place that
requires countries in the Visa Waiver Program to do two things.
One is to certify they have a program in place to develop the
biometric passports, to have the biometric data embedded in the
passport. We believe all those countries are going to meet
that. They have a program that is underway.
The second part, though, is that for each individual
traveler, beginning October 26, if they get a passport after
that day, the passport itself has to have the biometric
embedded in it. That is where the problem is.
These countries are not going to be able to meet this
deadline, because the technical standards set by international
organizations are just in the process of being finalized, and
the time between that date and when we actually produce
passports is a lot longer than between now and October.
So we have asked for a 2-year extension. The House has
passed 1 year. We are working with the Senate on how that would
play out over there. Again, as I mentioned, this is not a
question of will. The countries are proceeding to develop these
programs, as we are with our own biometric passport program,
but they are not going to be able to do it by this fall.
In terms of US VISIT, though, what we decided to do--We
initially had exempted Visa Waiver travelers from the rollout
of VISIT, which began in January, because we couldn't handle
the load of passengers right from the get-go. We decided to go
after the higher risk travelers. But starting the target,
September 30, the Visa Waiver travelers, which is quite a
number, as I mentioned, about 46 percent of travel, will begin
being enrolled in US VISIT.
So when they get to the port of entry, just like a visa
holder, they will be checked against watch lists. They will
provide their finger scans, the picture. That will be vetted
against all of our watch lists, criminal data bases, to see if
there is any kind of indicia of a match.
So that is a huge security enhancement. In many ways, it
replaces the benefit that the biometric passport was supposed
to provide. We think it is a better answer, but we do want to
have the biometric passport down the line when it is feasible
for those countries.
Mr. Stearns. Thanks. My time has expired. The ranking
member?
Ms. Schakowsky. I appreciate your telling me that some
policies are being reviewed and that the customer service
aspect is also being reviewed. We get a lot of complaints about
that as well, of people just being rudely treated, feel that
they have been mistreated. So I look forward--Actually, maybe
we could have a further conversation about that.
Mr. Verdery. Sure.
Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted to raise another issue, which is
very important to me. One of the witnesses on our second panel,
Ms. Friend who is President of the Association of Flight
Attendants, is going to speak to the need for additional
security training for flight attendants.
I have been reading some about that, and found that it
ranges from maybe 20 minutes to a video to more significant
training. But now that we have secured the pilot's doors, we
leave in most instances, because we don't have marshals on all
flights--I don't know what the percent is, but the first lien
of defense, the first responders, then are the flight
attendants, who feel themselves and, therefore, their
passengers to be quite vulnerable without adequate training.
I wondered if you have read the testimony, if you agree
that there is room to improve the level of security on
commercial aircraft, if you think providing additional training
to flight attendants should be part of those efforts, if you
are concerned about the inconsistent training, and what you
plan to do about it, what Congress should do about it, if
anything.
Mr. Verdery. Well, we agree with Ms. Friend. We do need to
do more in this area. We have gotten different sets of guidance
from the Congress over the several years since 9-11 on how that
program would look. Three different pieces of legislation have
affected how we would implement that. But now that we
understand where the rules of the road are, TSA, one of our
bureaus, is moving forward pretty quickly with that guidance on
what the training would look like.
I know this was a subject of a hearing yesterday over on
the Senate side. So we have a plan that is in the works to
provide that training to the flight attendants. We definitely
agree that they are a line of defense. They are part of this
layered system of security, along with everything else, the air
marshals, the doors, the screening, the passenger vetting and
everything else.
So it is an important element that we need to get right.
Ms. Schakowsky. And what is the timeline on that? It seems
such an obvious gap in our security protocols.
Mr. Verdery. I believe we are looking at unveiling a
guidance fairly soon. The trick then is to get people into
training, which takes time. We are talking many thousands of
individuals that we need to have the opportunity to be trained.
So I think you will be seeing some results fairly quickly.
Ms. Schakowsky. And is this going to be training that is
paid for by the airlines? How do you envision--Are the airlines
cooperating and moving forward on this plan?
Mr. Verdery. The airlines are cooperating with TSA on this.
In terms of who would pay, we are still working out the details
as to whether or not this would be an airline cost or a cost of
an individual person who desires to get the training or perhaps
it could be a shared responsibility.
Ms. Schakowsky. Excuse me. Did you say of the individual
who desires to get the training?
Mr. Verdery. That's right. Part of this would be a
voluntary program for attendants who wish to have the training.
Not everybody would--There is no requirement that every single
attendant receive this training. It is a voluntary basis.
Ms. Schakowsky. Quite frankly, I find that really shocking,
that we would say that flight attendants who feel like
understanding how to protect their passengers or themselves as
a--you know, well, maybe I will--This is not some sort of
career enhancement. We are talking about safety, that we would
even consider charging those individuals to have that training.
I just want to go on record--that is the first I heard of
that--that that would be, in my view, and I think in the view
of the traveling public, absolutely outrageous that this would
be viewed as some sort of voluntary, optional thing. So let me
just say that.
Mr. Verdery. I understand. There's two issues. There is the
issue of whether or not it is mandatory, and there is the issue
of the fees. They are separate, but I take your point.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Let me just quickly ask: What could
be the reason for a month's long and finally failed effort to
get a biophysicist, the head of the General Physics Lab in
Russia, to come to--Why are we having so much trouble getting
these widely internationally recognized people to be able to
come for a meeting?
Mr. Verdery. For scientists there is a particular program
that has led to delays that we are taking a close look at, and
I will just get into it here for a second. It is a program
called Visa MANTIS, which requires inter-agency reviews of
applicants with significant scientific background who might
have access to sensitive technology in this country that they
could not get in their home country.
So if they are coming in for a course of study or a
conference, if they are not a student, those require inter-
agency reviews in Washington, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security,
Department of State, other agencies. The speed of those depends
on the applicant. Sometimes they are fast. Occasionally, they
are slow.
So this is one of the key areas we are looking at in terms
of MANTIS. Are there ways that we can speed up these checks,
both with better data sharing or perhaps extending the time
period that the check would be good for? But you were right on.
We hear these complaints all the time of noted scientists or
students in a course of study that have trouble getting in for
conferences.
We are working extremely hard to try to fix this, but you
can also imagine the dilemma. The last thing you want is to
bring somebody into the country who is here to steal knowledge
to use against us. So it is a tricky balance, and we are
addressing it pretty fast.
Mr. Stearns. The lady's time has expired. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be pretty
brief. I have made two calls in my 8 years to embassies to try
to continue to find out these questions and try to make sure
there is a good review of a visa application. Both times they
did go and do an extra step. One was in the Philippines, and
most recently was 2 weeks ago in Russia. Both of them were
denied.
What I did ask them to do was an extra step in this
difficult process of making a decision of really, in essence, a
flight risk, someone who doesn't have the documents. But they
also then, especially in the most recent example--They gave me
examples of what that applicant can do in the next round, in
the next year, to make sure that they wouldn't be--in essence,
they would be here on a tourist visa, and they wouldn't be a
flight risk.
So it is frustrating when you have credible constituents
who you know they are upstanding members of the community,
maybe people that I have known for many, many years, 20 years,
full faith and credit in them. I am just throwing that out in
that they have--I have deferred to their judgment and haven't
pushed it any further, and hopefully, it will work out if this
individual does the steps that they say she should be able to
do to make her more applicable and able to get a tourist visa
next year.
It is hard, and I have worked through it, but the State
Department has been respectful. I think they have gone the
extra mile for me.
Mr. Verdery. Sir, if I could respond to that just very
quickly. One thing that I think is a misconception among some
is that the numbers of people who have been rejected for visas
has gone up sharply since 9-11 because of security checks and
the like. That is actually not the case.
The numbers overall of the percentage of people who are
denied remains about the same. Yes, it is. And again----
Mr. Shimkus. Yielding my time to my colleague.
Mr. Verdery. And the reason is because the overwhelming
majority of people who are denied has nothing to do with
scientists or terrorism or anything else. It is this intending
immigrant question: Do they intend to leave? The consular
official is required to make a determination that they are not
going to overstay, that they are not coming here to reside.
That is a statutory provision.
Now I will say, over the long haul, as we build out the US
VISIT system with an exit capability where we actually will
know when people are overstaying--right now the overstay rates
and tracking is not very good. That may give us the flexibility
to be more generous on the front end for people who don't have
demonstrable ties to their home country.
So the long term issue, I think, about something about the
exit will really help in this regard.
Mr. Shimkus. Can I get the Department to look at H.R. 3956,
which is my bill along with Congresswoman Nancy Johnson. It
addresses the Polish visa issue. Would you address, if you
could, what is perceived to be a difference in visa standards
to new NATO countries versus the old incumbent NATO countries
and a two-tiered different standard which now, since they are
all members of the Alliance, you would think there would be
similarities.
Mr. Verdery. Of course, we will be happy to take a look at
it. This issue has been raised directly by the Polish
government and other similarly situated governments. The key
thing to remember is that the Visa Waiver Program, which I have
mentioned in my remarks, is a Congressionally created program
that has very strict criteria on which countries are eligible,
based on overstay rates, denial rates for visas, and
cooperation with us on terrorism, reporting of lost and stolen
passports.
There is a whole slew of factors, and certain countries
just don't meet those criteria, even if--Well, they just don't
meet the criteria. We will willing to look at anything we want.
It helps us on the resources end if we can get people into the
program, but they have to meet the criteria.
I will say, we have established a Visa Waiver Program
Office within our directorate to handle both the country
reviews of the existing countries, as well as applications or
interest from other countries and to make those kinds of
assessments.
The EU has raised this issue with us, because they have a
legal issue. All the countries of the EU are supposed to be
treated the same on visa issues. So we understand there is a
big dilemma there that we are working with them on this. So we
will take a look at it, and I will be happy to get back to you.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and any suggestions you can make as far
as what we should do, how we should augment or even words back
to the countries themselves, and encouraging them to meet some
minimum standards, that would be helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Verdery, I
represent half of San Antonio. We are 150 miles from the
Mexican border, but the economic health of all those border
cities along there directly impact my district. So that is part
of my parochial interest.
I know there is a great interest, obviously, in combatting
terrorism, and we don't want to do anything to frustrate that
effort, but we also need to be realistic about it, and that is
why we are having this hearing today.
You have already indicated that the implementation of US
VISIT and such is delayed along the land borders for a year. Is
that correct?
Mr. Verdery. Well, the Congressional mandate is that we
deployed at the end of last year at airports and seaports and
at the large land ports of entry at the end of this year, and
the smaller ones next year. So it is not a delay. That is the
schedule we were given, and we are on track to meet that.
Mr. Gonzalez. Is there a request for a delay of the
implementation at these large border crossings?
Mr. Verdery. No. We are committed to meeting the
requirements of the statute, which essentially means having the
integrated data bases and systems at the ports of entry to
allow the biometric and biographic checks in secondary visa
applicants or other people that are referred to as secondary at
these large land ports of entry.
We do not envision any changes, significant changes, on
primary which is where most of the folks will be coming
through, especially on the Mexican border, and we have
committed that the border crossing card holders, which is the
majority of travel, will not be enrolled in VISIT until we can
do that in a way that expedites their travel and doesn't create
unacceptable wait times.
Mr. Gonzalez. What timeframe are you talking about?
Mr. Verdery. Well, we have just, as you know, ordered the
prime contract late last month for the system side of VISIT. So
we are working with the contractor now to ascertain the system
times, but we are looking at the full biometric rollout for the
land borders at the big ports of entry sometime in 2005.
We will have the systems integration in place at the end of
this year, which is the statutory requirement, but we will have
the biometric infrastructure in place throughout 2005.
Mr. Gonzalez. Is that realistic?
Mr. Verdery. We believe it is.
Mr. Gonzalez. We won't be here next year looking at
extensions and such?
Mr. Verdery. I don't believe so.
Mr. SGonzalez. All right. Can we start off with a basic
understanding or agreement. Let's see if you agree with me that
the economic impact of what may be happening at these airports
when individuals are coming into our country, though it could
be great and with some consequence, doesn't compare to what
would transpire in the consequences on the economies of these
border cities on individuals crossing the border.
I don't know if you have ever been to Laredo and
Brownsville and McAllen It is incredible. If we have a system
that impedes that, I can assure you of economic disaster for
all of south Texas. I am not even talking about the other
southwestern States. Of course, I don't represent them, but
obviously, we share a similar situation.
Would you agree with that assessment about economic impact
being totally different and has to be weighed when you
implement policy?
Mr. Verdery. Definitely. We would agree that increasing
wait times at ports of entry on the southern border, which
already are long in some cases, would be a problem on the
economic side, as well as the social side. So we are committed.
In fact, I think we are statutorily bound to implement
solutions that do not impede legitimate trade or travel. So
that is why we are building this out in increments, to make
sure that we don't.
We have a very good working relationship with the ports of
entry, with the communities along there, the Chambers of
Commerce, the Border Trade Alliance, with the Mexican
government, to try to find the solutions that will allow us to
do the check-in/check-out without impeding travel.
We are looking principally at using advanced technology so
people can get through without actually having to get out of
the cars, which we understand would create unacceptable wait
times. So this is something we need to work with the border
communities. We have port-by-port outreach plans. Each port is
different. So this is why it is going to be a staged process.
Mr. Gonzalez. As you make these statements, it is with the
full understanding that this does not impede or diminish your
efforts in combatting terrorism.
Mr. Verdery. That is right. And again, people have to
remember, the border crossing cardholders, which is the most
travel along the Mexican border. These are people who have gone
through a background check, have a biometrically enhanced
travel document. It is available to be reviewed in secondary,
if the inspector has any reason to send somebody to secondary.
So there is a check of sorts. It is not the same as the
full US VISIT capability that we would envision down the road,
but there is a significant anti-terrorism program in place on
the southern border.
Mr. Gonzalez. My fear, coming from Texas and the
southwestern border is, historically, the way we have been
portrayed as a source many times of illegal activities and
danger points, and now with the added burden and suspicion of
terrorists, it is just something that almost plays right into
the hands of those that have that type of view.
I know, when I served on Financial Services, it was always
the border banks who were looking at illegal activity and
deposits of ill gotten gain, money laundering, when the truth
is it was all happening out of New York most of the time.
I think we have the same situation here, and that is my
biggest fear, and I don't know what you do on a public
relations part of it, trying to dispel some of those fears that
individuals have where they say, you have so many people coming
across the border; wouldn't that be the most likely place for
the terrorists to blend in and make entry into the country?
That is a question, of course, that I think you would be
well prepared to respond to, and I would be more than happy to
assist you, as well as all of the members representing the
border states. But I do want to thank you. I am going to be
following up with written questions which have been submitted,
obviously, through my office by many of the business
individuals along the border. I may not represent them, but in
many ways my district's economic star is hitched to their
wagon, and I think that goes for many, many communities.
It has been my experience that the understanding of how we
operate along the southwestern border has an inverse proportion
as far as understanding. The more you move up northerly in the
United States, the less of an understanding. It is quite
legitimate. It is a way of life, and it just doesn't impact the
southwest border States. I think other Members of Congress need
to really look at what trade means along the borders for the
health of their own economies and that of our country.
With that, I will say thank you. I will submit questions to
you, if I can have one assurance from you. It has been my
experience that we submit questions. We don't get answers for
an awful long time. That was my experience on Financial
Services, and I don't mean just Alan Greenspan.
So if you will promise me a timely response, that way you
will save my staff a lot of grief, because I will be checking
with them and wondering why we didn't get a response.
Mr. Verdery. We endeavor to please on the questions, and I
will commit to try to get them back as soon as we can. You can
imagine how many questions do come in, but we will make sure we
make a special effort on this hearing.
In terms of the points you raised, if we have just a
minute, the US VISIT program team, I think, has a very good
understanding of the economy and the social fabric on the
southern border. The folks at Customs and Border Protection
have put onto the US VISIT team the program managers.
The directors are down there quite a bit, working with the
port directors, to understand how each port functions, because
that is the key thing. You can't put in an omnibus solution.
Each port has to have its own particularized solution that
recognizes the flows, whether it is all passengers. Are they
pedestrians? Are they cars or trucks, these kinds of things? So
we are working on a kind of port-by-port specific basis with a
good mindset toward facilitating that travel.
I would take just a few seconds on kind of the introduction
of your remarks. One of the reasons behind the President's
Temporary Worker's Initiative, which I know is not the point of
this hearing, is to steer that traffic through the ports of
entry.
We do have people crossing illegally. We have seen our
efforts on the Arizona border. There isn't a border initiative.
I have seen an increase in activity. The Temporary Worker
Initiative is designed to steer traffic through the ports of
entry where we can do these kind of terrorism checks on people
so that we can remove some of the hay off the haystack and
really focus in on those people who can't come through a port
of entry because they would be denied entry.
So I know it is not the point of this hearing, but it is
how we buildup the southern border.
Mr. Gonzalez. All right. Thank you. My time is up. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired. The chairman
of the full committee, Mr. Barton.
Chairman Barton. Well, thank you, chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing. I have one question kind of off the
subject and one question on the subject.
The off the subject question: DOT just announced their
pilot program for frequent flyers in certain airports. Do you
have anything to do with that?
Mr. Verdery. You are probably talking about the TSA
program, the registered traveler program. Yes, we oversee that.
Yes.
Chairman Barton. Well, I just want to encourage you to
expedite it. I, like most of my colleagues, fly thousands of
miles a week, and I am willing to be fingerprinted and eye-
printed and, you know, back searched and everything else, if it
helps get through the airports. So I have been fighting for 2
years to get that going.
Mr. Verdery. The first pilot starts in Minneapolis, I
believe, next week. As I mentioned earlier, there will be five
total. One of them is at Reagan.
Chairman Barton. When does that one start?
Mr. Verdery. I am not sure of the exact timeframe. It is
sometime in the next 6 to 8 weeks, and it will run for about 90
days. We are going to then sit down with the results to figure
out were there improvements in time, something the passengers--
is it worth it to them? We think it will be.
Chairman Barton. Members of Congress that want to
participate--what do we need to do? Honest, do we just--How do
we apply for it? Through the airlines that we use?
Mr. Verdery. Each pilot has an airport and airline partner,
and I forget exactly which. Reagan's, I think, is--I want to
say it is United.
Mr. Stearns. Will the gentleman yield? I think one of the
pilot programs is in Houston.
Mr. Verdery. That is right.
Chairman Barton. Well, it doesn't help me, if it is not in
Dallas.
Mr. Stearns. Oh, okay.
Chairman Barton. We want Dallas, and we want American
Airlines between Dallas and Washington.
Mr. Verdery. Any particular time of day? Seriously, this is
something, if it works as well as hope it will, will be rolled
out to other airports, but we have to understand the
improvements in screening that we can provide without degrading
security. As you know, being a frequent traveler, the process
from the time your car shows up at the airport to the time the
plane lifts off has so many different steps, how can we shorten
those?
Some of those are under TSA's control at the check point.
Some of them are not. Some of them are the parking or the
lounges or getting through your ticket check-in. All that plays
together. So this is something we need to work on and would
like to work on with you.
Chairman Barton. Okay. My on-the-subject question: What
special precautions, if any, have been taken for all the cruise
ships that we have out of the various ports, because you have
got 3,000 people in a--They are actually totally immobilized
when they are on that ship. Are there some special precautions
that are being taken for security purposes on those boats?
Mr. Verdery. We have actually done a number of things in
the cruise ship area, and I am not sure I will be able to get
them all to you right now. But among the ones that I am aware
of sitting here today: As I mentioned, US VISIT, we are
deploying that to major seaports. I believe 14.
So on the passenger and crew side, those folks are being
entered and exited to make sure that they are not hopping on
the ship at a port of call and then coming back in, avoiding
immigration. So there is that check, similar to the airports.
The pilot for the exit is down in Miami, but it is on the
entrance at 14 places.
The Coast Guard is doing a number of things on securing the
ports where these big cruise ships and other ships would be
coming in. There is a big initiative that comes into effect on
July 1 on port security that the Secretary had an event on
earlier this week in Los Angeles to try to make sure that the
ports themselves are secure.
There are other things that both Coast Guard and Customs
and Border Protection are doing in this area, which I would be
happy to get to you after the hearing.
Chairman Barton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Thank the chairman. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the chairman of the
full committee. I am glad Houston is on that list, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to put my full opening statement
in the record.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gene Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
I'd like to thank Chairman Stearns for holding this important
hearing as millions of families have already started traveling for
summer vacation. It is of the highest importance that the government
keep this travel season safe.
Intercontinental Airport is in my Congressional district, and it is
the eighth busiest airport in the United States. It serves over 15,000
passengers daily and over 34 million passengers go through it gates
each year, making it the 14th busiest airport in the world.
The people who work at Intercontinental Airport take pride in the
efficiency with which they process international passengers. Usually,
their commitment to safety and expediency keeps people moving which
keeps commerce moving throughout our city and our country. However,
inadequate numbers of inspectors at Intercontinental Airport has caused
great delays and great concern.
I have contacted DHS and when they existed, the INS, on this issue
no less than 5 separate times over the last two years.
Most recently, just one month ago, I joined Senators Hutchison and
Cornyn, and the rest of my Congressional Colleagues from Houston to
voice our concern regarding the number of inspectors at
Intercontinental Airport. Currently, there are 59 inspectors working
right now. However, 86 inspectors are authorized. As a result, people
traveling through Intercontinental Airport have a long wait.
Last summer, the normal waiting time to get processed for an
international flight was 90 minutes. Well over 11,000 passengers missed
their connecting flights. The wait is twice as long as the 45 minute
goal that has been set by Customs and Border Protection. There were
occasions when passengers had to wait as long as four hours. This is
unacceptable.
These wait times result in some travelers missing connecting
flights. Many airlines are then forced to expend resources on providing
hotel rooms for people, rebooking flights, and boosting customer
service staff because security wait times are too long.
In January of 2005, a new terminal will open at Intercontinental
with 24 gates and 80 primary inspection booths. As this committee
examines how we can ensure the safety of our passengers efficiently and
effectively, I ask that we examine the impact of inadequate staffing
levels at our nation's high-volume airports.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Green. Mr. Secretary, I represent a district in
Houston, and I am fortunate. We have actually two ports of
entry. Intercontinental Airport is a port of entry, and we also
have the Houston ship channel in the Port of Houston.
Since 9-11 with the heightened awareness not only for the
airlines but also for my port and the largest foreign tonnage,
the petrochemical complex, one of the frustrations I have seen
is that--and these are both constituents, and they are job
centers for my area, Intercontinental Airport because of the
cargo and the passengers and, of course, the Port of Houston--
and the frustration, not so much for the port, although we need
to do better and we know that and we will get there, but with
the wait time at Intercontinental Airport, particularly for
international processing.
I know my office has talked to you about that. I know
meeting with the HS staff over the last number of years and on
a bipartisan basis from the Houston area delegation, the
average wait time for international passengers should be 45
minutes, and last summer in Houston it was 90 minutes.
What we were seeing is that--and we found out that
Intercontinental Airport has only 69 percent of the inspectors
that were authorized by the agency, 59 currently at
Intercontinental Airport where we have 86 authorized. Past data
from the last year show that Houston is receiving lower levels
of staffing as a percentage of authorized full time positions
than any other airport of a comparable size.
So I have a line of questioning. One: Is a 45 minute wait
time--is that the goal of the DHS for international passengers?
Mr. Verdery. There is not a specific time goal, because it,
obviously, depends on the passenger flows and the time of day
and the like, as well as special security events, like we saw
an increase in backlogs at Dulles over the last few weeks with
the Reagan events. But an hour is considered unacceptable under
normal circumstances, and at that point we begin to take
corrective action.
So it depends, but 45 minutes is not out of the realm of a
normal situation.
Mr. Green. Again, the past data shows that we have a
smaller number of staff, and meeting with both DHS folks here
and also in Houston at the airport and looking at other ports
of entry, whether it be Miami, Atlanta, DFW or Chicago, we did
see there was significant disparity between the positions
authorized and filled at different ports of entry, and Houston
was one of the lowest.
From a personal experience last August when some of my
colleagues were coming back, I am glad some of those folks
weren't my constituents, because I represent the folks who live
around the airport, but the number of people who were delayed
and missed their connecting flights. What is frustrating is
that they will not come through Houston again, because if I was
in Baltimore or New York or anywhere else, if I miss my
connecting flight coming through Houston, why I would look to
Atlanta or Miami or Dallas or anywhere else.
So I would hope that the competition with our airlines
would not be based on a government function, which is to clear
those passengers through the screening.
Again, I know the folks very well. Like Congressman Barton,
I go home every weekend and represent the airport, whether it
is the city officials or Continental Airlines, which is our
biggest partner, or the DHS, and they are doing everything they
can. But again, at one time they had allowed overtime. We lost
that. So we would see that backlog pick up.
Since we have had our meetings, and I know the airport and
major airlines estimate that we will need as many as 125 full
time inspectors from our current authorized of 86. The reason
for that is we are getting ready to open a new international
terminal, and part of it is already open, but we will see, I
think, 24 new gates that are international, and again it was
designed from DHS in mind to be able to speed the passengers
through.
I know you may not be able to give me answers today, but
are we going to be able to see an increase in authorization,
but not just authorization but also see an increase in the
number of positions that are filled for Houston
Intercontinental Airport?
Mr. Verdery. Well, Customs and Border Protection has to
frequently reevaluate the kind of distribution of personnel,
because as you mentioned, airports are going through expansions
or new terminals or airlines have new service. We just saw that
a new airline servicing Dulles has started this week or last
week.
So they are constantly kind of reshuffling the figures to
meet the traffic flows. I am hoping that, since the figures
that you cited--I am hoping that the situation has improved
since you had those figures, but I need to go back and check
and figure out exactly what the CBP plan is to meet the demand
you mentioned with the new gates.
Mr. Green. January 2005 in typically the spring travel
season, the summer travel season. I was just fortunate, and the
three Members of Congress with me. We were coming back from
International, and we used our international passports to get
through, but I don't do that on a regular basis, simply because
some of those folks in line are my constituents, and I learned
a long time ago, I don't cut in front of my constituents,
whether at the food line or the airline.
I would appreciate, you know, if you could get with me. I
know Houston is one of the 25 focus airports for the aviation
partnership support, and again there is a great working
relationship between DHS and our local city of Houston and
Aviation Department and our major carrier is Continental.
I continue to work with you and see how we can do it to
make sure we have those positions not only authorized but
filled.
Mr. Verdery. That is right. It is a continual issue of
making sure that positions that are authorized are filled. We
have, obviously, these large numbers, you know, tens of
thousands of employees. You do have turnover, and you have to
replace people appropriately.
We have the same issue on the screener front with TSA.
People do leave, and we have to replace them with full time or
part-time people and make sure we are up to our statutory
position numbers. One thing I might point out is that again we
have not seen that delays are being caused by the new biometric
systems being put in place via US VISIT. It is a staffing issue
or configuration issues. It is not the biometric part of the
system.
Mr. Green. That is correct. I have seen that. I, like a lot
of members, would encourage as much of that as we can with
biometric, and I will go get my eyes examined or whatever I
need to do to be able to go through, and I think most frequent
travelers would do that.
Mr. Verdery. I mentioned in response to Mr. Barton's
question about the Reagan. It is actually American Airlines
that is the partner at Reagan. I just wanted to correct the
record on that.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Bass.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
coming, Secretary Verdery. I appreciate your testimony. I have
a single question for you that isn't exactly along the lines of
the questions you have heard so far today.
As you know, the H2B visa program has been a crucial
resource to fill jobs in tourism and other seasonal industries
throughout the Nation, and I would only say that it looks as if
INS is doing a pretty good job administering it, because they
apparently reached the $66,000 cap in early March. This has
created quite a problem for the tourism industry in my neck of
the woods, in the northeast, because there are--we are
approximately 600-700 jobs short now for summer help in our
tourism industry in New Hampshire, and I would assume it is the
same in other states.
I am wondering if you have any perspective on this issue or
any recommendations as to what we might do in order to balance
the admission process perhaps or increase the numbers or do
something so that we don't have, in a growing economy, real
difficulty in meeting the obligations to provide good services
in the tourist area.
Mr. Verdery. Congressman, I have heard this issue raised in
a number of circumstances by a wide range of industries
affected by this cap, but just for clarification: Within our
department, when INS was dissolved by the Congress, it was
essentially divided into three parts.
The enforcement at the ports of entry went to Customs and
Border Protection. The investigative side went to Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, which are both in our BTS Directorate
where I work. The services side went to the new Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services or CIS, which is not in
BTS.
The enforcement of this $65,000 cap for H2B, as you
mentioned, is under their authority. As I understand it, this
is a Congressional statutory number. So that it is not in our
discretion or in CIS's discretion to waive it or ignore it.
They have tried to be as flexible as they can within the bounds
of the law to make sure that all the applications are being
handled and----
Mr. Bass. Is it within their discretion to balance the--or
to spread out the application process over the year a little
better, or not?
Mr. Verdery. I don't know. I would imagine that they have a
first come, first serve requirement. Again, I know they hit the
cap far in advance of the end of the fiscal year. But I know
they are working the problem, but I don't think I can give you
any specific recommendations to fix it.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want
to briefly share with you an experience I had which, I think,
is constructive and has a good ending.
It was brought to my attention in my home in the Tampa Bay
area that a gentleman on a flight--I think it was from New
Zealand to Los Angeles--had a video tape of people sauntering
in and out of the cockpit, enjoying the view and visiting with
the very friendly pilots. This was aired on television and
produced, as you can imagine, a pretty staunch outrage from
Democrats and Republicans about why was this happening.
The real outrage was the fact that this retired--I think he
was a locomotive engineer--was calling the FAA, the TSA, and
Homeland Security and was getting the run-around. Nobody knew
who was in charge. It was government at its worst.
I picked up the phone and called Asa Hutchinson, for whom I
have high regard, and you may have already heard about this,
and Asa, to his credit and who is very busy, looked at it, and
the result was an emergency amendment to guidelines resulting
in a rule or proposed rule that perhaps is in--hopefully, is in
effect now that says any carrier flying over our air space has
to have standards compatible to ours.
So I guess I just want to underscore two things to you. I
think it is incumbent on all of us that we have a system that
empowers the public and does not shut them out. Ultimately, if
it had not been for this retired locomotive engineer, this
policy probably would not be in effect.
Second, that we all resist the temptation to commit the
unpardonable sin, which is to be defensively reactionary when
people point out that we make mistakes every day, and there is
always a way to do it better.
So it is a positive experience I have. I think it is
instructive for all of us, and I just wanted to share it with
you.
Mr. Verdery. Well, I appreciate that. As you know, I work
for Under Secretary Hutchinson, who I know you served with up
here, and I think he is very responsive to these types of
things. I remember you raised this with him, and there was
action taken to make sure the same standards apply for over-
flight carriers as carriers operating in the country.
We have seen a number of incidents where we have had to
do--fill in the gaps, so to speak, and this was one of them.
But there's others where problems are brought to our attention,
and TSA has stepped up to the plate to issue emergency
amendments or other directives to fill those gaps.
Again, I think it is a credit to the Under Secretary who
took this one, and we appreciate you bringing it to our
attention.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague, and I think we have no
more questions for the first panel. I just would reiterate that
Jacksonville is having the Superbowl next year, and we hope
perhaps that Jacksonville might be one of the demonstration
projects where we would have the expediting of travelers,
trusted travelers, so to speak.
Mr. Verdery. Late January, is it?
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Verdery. I'll take a look at it, sir.
Mr. Stearns. All right. Have a look at it.
We will have the second panel come up. Thank you for your
attendance. Mr. Fred Lounsberry, who is Senior Vice President,
Universal Studios Recreational Group; Mr. Eric Pearson, Senior
Vice President, E-Commerce, Intercontinental Hotels Group; Mr.
Mark Brown, Executive Vice President, Association and Club
Services, AA; Mr. Barry Allred who is Chairman of the
Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce, Jacksonville,
Florida; and Ms. Patricia Friend, International President,
Association of Flight Attendants--CWA.
We want to welcome the second panel, and we would like to
have each of your opening statement. Mr. Lounsberry, we will
start with you, if that is possible. We will go from my left to
my right.
Welcome. Thank all of you for taking time from your
important schedule to come here to testify.
STATEMENTS OF FRED J. LOUNSBERRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF
SALES, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS RECREATION GROUP; ERIC PEARSON, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT, E-COMMERCE, INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP; MARK
H. BROWN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION AND CLUB
SERVICES, AAA; BARRY ALLRED, CHAIRMAN, JACKSONVILLE REGIONAL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND PATRICIA A. FRIEND, INTERNATIONAL
PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS--CWA
Mr. Lounsberry. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Schakowsky of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to present testimony this morning.
I appear here today as the Senior Vice President of Sales
for Universal Parks and Resorts and the past Chairman of the
Travel Industry Association of America or TIA. Immediately
after the horrible events of 9-11, I had the unique challenge
and the honor to chair both TIA and Visit Florida, the
partnership effort to market the chairman's great State to the
world.
What I experienced in those roles was a dedication by the
travel industry and our government partners to ensure our
industry kept reaching out to our international friends, while
spreading the message that the welcome mat was still out, all
of this in the context of the obvious need for heightened
security in our country.
I appear before you today to first thank and congratulate
the House and Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner on the handling
of one issue and urge your consideration in the near future on
three others. House passage of a 1-year extension of the
biometric passport requirements for Visa Waiver countries will
ensure that visitors from 27 of our strongest allies will be
able to enter this country in a way that enhances U.S. security
and, at the same time, does not jeopardize the $80 billion in
expenditures the international traveler is expected to bring to
our shores in 2004, plus the millions of U.S. jobs this
spending supports.
One area that has unintentionally suffered during the
country's need for increased homeland border security is the
border crossing of school groups and educational scientific
exchanges. Specifically, I would like to address the situation
of Mexican grade and middle school aged children who, in a pre-
9-11 world were allowed to enter the United States under
humanitarian waivers.
I applaud Congressman Filner who has picked up the case of
these children and filed H.R. 2525, the Visitors Interested in
Strengthening America Act. All of us can remember taking school
sponsored trips when we were younger. Imagine adding an
additional $100 visa requirement, including the time and effort
needed to obtain the document, to the cost of that trip. Now
imagine this increased cost in areas where parents can't afford
to take a day from work to obtain and prepare this
nonrefundable application, not to mention the substantial
additional expense.
The United States, through the mandatory visa requirements,
has literally stopped these exchanges with Mexican school
districts. The school trips were multiple purposes. To the
school children they represent the ability to better understand
and respect the cultural differences and similarities with
their neighbors to the north, while enjoying facilities that
are not present in their own country.
These experiences should be allowed to continue
unencumbered. They will not only lead to stronger ties between
our countries for generations to come, but in addition,
destinations are able to make 1-day trips affordable for the
children, while filling a much needed revenue gap during slow
times that protects jobs as well.
This was a perfect win/win scenario, mixing public policy
and commerce prior to 9-11. We must once again work to allow
these school children to visit the United States and not force
them to become unintended victims of our necessary and well
intentioned efforts to tighten border security.
Our industry urges Congress to consider allowing these
children to once again enter under humanitarian waivers or
broaden existing classifications such as the F-1 or F-3. As
with so many other matters, a judicial solution is possible if
Congress and the Department of Homeland Security work together
to jointly solve this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I raise another issue critical to your own
backyard of Orlando and many others around the country.
Universal is concerned that Custom and Border protection
inspector cutbacks have occurred since the three legacy
agencies, Immigration, INS, Customs and Agriculture, have
merged.
I would submit in your record a correspondence describing
the issue and reflecting Universal's point of view from Bob
Gault, President of Universal Orlando, dated June 9, 2004, to
the Honorable Robert C. Bonner, Commissioner of Customs and
Border Protection at DHS.
It is our understanding that, because legacy INS inspectors
are automatically paid overtime for any Sundays or holidays
they work, many districts have had to reduce staffing on other
peak international rival days to meet their budget
requirements. While the Department may be successfully meeting
budget, we are leaving the valuable international visitors
waiting in their planes until inspectors finally become
available.
The time to process these valued visitors can be as high as
1\1/2\ hours, which does not include the time needed to clear
additional screens by Customs and Agriculture.
If this is a new budgeting reality in a post-9-11 DHS
system, then Congress must allocate enough resources to
appropriately staff to the need, and serve these important and
valued visitors in a more efficient, timely manner, lest other
competing world destinations will gain a competitive tourism
advantage over the USA.
Finally, the United States needs not only to be as traveler
friendly as possible. It must aggressively market to the world
that it is open for business. The message has been received
loud and clear that our borders have become more secure. We now
need to tell the legitimate business and leisure traveler that
security has been achieved but not at the cost of their
travels.
Congress attempted to send this message through a $50
million appropriation to market the country's heritage and
splendor to the world and showcase American values, freedom and
way of life to visitors from around the world. Unfortunately,
that money was rescinded in the waning hours of last year's
session before anyone could react.
TIA and others must again work with you to once again
reestablish this appropriation, so that we remain the leader in
global tourism, drawing international visitors to our shores
and protecting American jobs. The successful marketing efforts
of Visit Florida, the public/private tourism marketing effort
in my home state, can be looked to as a model for such a
program.
In closing, I am proud to report, our industry is in a
recovery mode from the effects of 9-11, but we continue to face
many challenges. Working together with your good offices, we
can continue to grow our industry and take advantage of
international opportunities that exist, all within the
critically important context of enhanced security.
Our joint success will keep our country safer, keep
hundreds of thousands of Americans employed for decades to
come, and permit us to continue to showcase America's way of
life to visitors from around the world. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Fred J. Lounsberry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fred J. Lounsberry, Senior Vice President of
Sales, Universal Parks and Resorts
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony this morning concerning the
relationship between international commerce/tourism and homeland
security. The balancing of these two issues by Congress and the tourism
community at large has, and will continue to, play a pivotal role in
the re-emergence of our national economy in a post 9-11 world.
I appear here today as the Senior Vice President of Sales for
Universal Studios Parks and Resorts. Immediately after the horrible
events of 9-11, I had the unique challenge and the honor to chair both
the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) and Visit Florida--
Florida's public/private partnership effort to market the Chairman's
great State to the world. What I witnessed in those roles was a
dedication by the travel industry, and our government partners, to
ensure our industry kept reaching out to our international friends
while spreading the message that the welcome mat was still out. Members
of Congress and representatives of the tourism community jointly
informed the international traveler that America was still a welcoming
harbor to cultures from all around the world . . . all of this in the
context of the obvious need for heightened security in our county.
We must not rest on our laurels after having weathered the initial
storm. Instead we must look forward to strengthening our international
opportunities while continuing to work toward an even safer America. To
that end, I appear before you today to congratulate the House on its
handling of one issue and urge your consideration in the near future on
three others.
The House of Representatives last week passed a one-year extension
to the biometric passport requirements for Visa Waiver Country
travelers. Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, after conducting hearings
on April 21st, wisely understood that while increased requirements to
enhance border security are important, they must be implemented in a
way that is technologically sound, administratively efficient and
practical. The judicious compromise worked out by the Administration
and this House, when passed by the Senate, will ensure that visitors
from twenty-seven of our strongest allies will be able to enter this
Country in a way that enhances U.S. security while remaining sensitive,
inoffensive and respectful to the cultures from where they come.
Placing these visitors into the U.S. Visit Program during the interim
implementation of the biometric identifiers allows us the comfort of
knowing the U.S. enjoys a more secure entry system than before. At the
same time it does not jeopardize the $80 Billion in expenditures the
International traveler is expected to bring to our shores in 2004 or
the one million U.S. jobs this spending supports.
One area that has unintentionally suffered under the country's need
for increased homeland security is border crossings of school groups
and educational/scientific exchanges. While I understand the University
systems around the nation are focusing on the latter, it is my intent
to discuss the issue of school children. Specifically the situation of
Mexican grade and middle school age children who in a pre 9/11 world
were allowed to enter the United States under humanitarian waivers. I
applaud Congressman Bob Filner who has picked up the case of these
children and filed H.R. 2525--The Visitors Interested in Strengthening
America Act--2004 (VISA)
All of us can remember taking school sponsored trips when we were
younger. Those trips usually entailed going to local places of historic
significance. Not surprisingly, many of those very trips were planned
for right here in Washington, D.C. Imagine adding an additional $100
visa requirement including the time and effort needed to obtain the
document. Now imagine this increased cost in areas where the parents
can't afford to take a day away from work to obtain and prepare this
non-refundable application, not to mention the substantial additional
expense. This new cost would have played an important part in the
decision making of many school trips those of us in the room today were
able to enjoy. This is exactly what we have now done to Mexican school
children, who simply want to come across the border with their
schoolmates to learn about our culture and people. These children, many
from families barely making a minimum wage, save all year to join their
classes on these annual trips. The United States, through the mandatory
Visa requirements, has literally stopped these exchanges with the
Mexican school districts.
The school trips serve multiple purposes. To the Mexican school
children, they represent the ability to better understand and respect
the cultural differences and similarities with their neighbors to the
North while enjoying facilities that are not present in their own
country. These experiences should be allowed to continue unencumbered.
They will only lead to stronger ties between our countries for
generations to come. Another side of this issue relates to the zoos,
museums and attractions, where these visiting children mean much-needed
visitation during off peak attendance seasons. Through discounting
programs, the destinations are able to make one-day trips affordable
for the children while filling a much needed revenue gap during slow
times that protects jobs as well.
This was a perfect win-win scenario mixing public policy and
commerce prior to 9/11. We must once again allow these school children
to visit the United States and not force them to become unintended
victims in our necessary and well intentioned efforts to tighten border
security. We more than sympathize with INS and State who understand the
dilemma Southern California, Texas and Arizona are experiencing, but do
not have statutory authority to change or resolve. Our industry urges
Congress to consider allowing these children to once again enter under
Humanitarian waivers or broaden existing classifications such as the F-
1 (Canadian Part Time Students) or F-3 (Significant Public Interest).
As with so many other matters, a judicious solution is possible if
Congress and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) work together to
jointly solve this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I raise up another issue critical to your own
backyard of Orlando and many others around the country. Universal is
concerned that Custom and Border Protection (CBP) inspector cutbacks
have occurred since the three legacy agencies--Immigration (INS),
Customs and Agriculture have merged. I submit for your record a
correspondence describing the issue and reflecting Universal's point of
view from Bob Gault--President of Universal Orlando dated June 9th,
2004 to the Honorable Robert C. Bonner--Commissioner of Customs and
Border Protection at DHS.
It is our understanding that because Legacy INS inspectors are
automatically paid overtime for any Sunday or holidays they work, many
districts have had to reduce staffing on other peak international
arrival days to meet their budget requirements. While the department
may be successfully meeting budget, we are leaving the valuable
international visitors waiting in their planes until inspectors finally
become available. The time to process these valued visitors can be as
high as one and a half hours, which does not include the time needed to
clear additional screens by customs and agriculture. If this is a new
budgeting reality in a post 9/11 DHS system, then Congress must
allocate enough resources to appropriately staff to the need and serve
these important and valued visitors in a more efficient , timely manner
lest, other competing world destinations gain a competitive tourism
advantage over the USA.
Also, the United States needs not only to be as ``traveler
friendly'' as possible but must aggressively market to the world of
travelers that it is open for business. The message to the world has
been received loud and clear that our borders have become more secure.
We now need to tell the legitimate business and leisure traveler that
security has been achieved, but not at the cost of their travels.
Congress attempted to send this message through a $50 million
appropriation forming a public/private partnership on the Federal level
to market the Country's heritage and splendor to the world.
Unfortunately that money was rescinded in the waning hours of last
year's session before anyone could react. The Travel Industry
Association, Travel Business Roundtable and others must work with you
to once again re-establish this appropriation, so we remain the leader
in global tourism drawing international visitors to our shores and
protecting American jobs. The successful marketing efforts of Visit
Florida, the public/private tourism marketing effort in my home state
can be looked to as a model for this much needed US federal tourism
marketing initiative.
In closing, I am proud to report our industry is in a recovery mode
from the effects of 9/11 but, we continue to face many challenges.
Working together with your good offices, we can continue to grow our
industry and take advantage of international opportunities that exist .
. . all within the critically important context on enhanced security.
Our joint success will keep our country safer, keep hundreds of
thousands of Americans employed for decades to come and permit us to
continue to showcase America's freedom and democracy to visitors from
around the world.
Mr. Stearns. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Pearson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ERIC PEARSON
Mr. Pearson. Good morning, Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. I am Eric Pearson,
and Senior Vice President of E-Commerce for Intercontinental
Hotels Group, which is the world's largest and most global
hotel company, doing business in nearly 100 countries.
I first want to thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to present a hotel industry perspective on tourism in the
United States post-9-11. In addition to representing
Intercontinental Hotels Group, I am also a frequent business
traveler. I have spent a significant amount of time traveling,
especially overseas, being part of a global hotel company.
Now notwithstanding time away from family, it has been a
rewarding experience to travel around the world conducting
business while learning different cultures. It does, however,
come with increased concerns about the safety of our borders,
our airways, and ports of entry, which appears to be never
ending for terrorists.
It should come as no surprise that the United States
receives tremendous economic benefit from travel and tourism
and, according to a report by the World Travel and Tourism
Council, this year the industry, both directly and indirectly,
will account for nearly 17 million jobs and $1.2 trillion in
gross domestic product.
International travel alone is one of the largest exports of
the United States and the largest services sector export
category. These international travelers spend more and stay
longer than our domestic travelers, and generated over $13
billion in tax revenue last year.
Unfortunately, these travelers are declining and, for every
1 percent drop in international arrivals, we lose 173,000 jobs
and $1.2 billion in tax revenue. Over the pat years, we have
seen the results of tax revenue losses, which negatively impact
our schools, our police and fire departments and, yes,
ultimately apply pressure to raise other taxes to offset budget
deficits across the Nation.
These tax shortfalls are further impacted by the
promulgation of new business practices employed by travel
websites putting additional pressure on the various tax
authorities.
At IHG our current trading and business is steadily
improving, and we are experiencing an encouraging recovery in
North America and abroad. This is driven by strong leisure
demand, which has outpaced the recovery of business travel
which derives a higher rate of business.
D.K. Shifflet & Associates, the leading travel research
firm, suggests that business traveler recovery should begin
late in 2004. All of this recovery, all of it, requires and
assumes no negative impact, should airport delays increase or,
worse, new terrorist activities occur, creating greater fear
and uncertainty amongst our travelers.
Clearly, we all share a common goal of keeping our citizens
and visitors safe as they travel around the country. In the
wake of 9-11 we have been challenged to device innovative ways
to address the Nation's security concerns without compromising
the ability of legitimate foreign travelers to enter and exit
our borders, described recently in May by Secretary of State
Colin Powell as the secure borders' open doors policy.
Now keeping our borders secure while at the same time
keeping our doors open to foreign visitors can certainly be
viewed as conflicting goals. Nonetheless, both are fundamental
to preserving the freedom and strength that defines America.
I would like to take a few moments this morning to examine
how various U.S. policies, initiatives are affecting this
delicate balance between security and openness. In terms of the
Visa Waiver Program, IHG is concerned about the impending
October 26, 2004, deadline for travelers from Visa Waiver
Program countries to present passports containing biometric
identifiers in order to gain entry into the United States.
We believe incorporating biometric technologies into
passports is an effective and efficient way to strengthen
security at our Nation's borders without impacting travelers.
However, these nations must be given sufficient time to develop
and implement these new technologies.
We commend the U.S. House of Representatives for
recognizing this necessity in passing H.R. 4417, which provides
a 1-year extension. We do urge Congress to act quickly and send
legislation to the President that will give these countries
sufficient time to comply with passport requirements. of
course, failure to do so will create uncertainty, backlogs and
delays that will have the effect of driving legitimate foreign
visitors away.
The US VISIT provides the ability to screen travelers in
order to assure dangerous criminals and suspected criminals do
not illegally enter the United States, which is a key component
in keeping our country safe from terrorists.
The program, which requires international visitors to
provide digital photographs and finger scans upon entry into
the United States, appears to be achieving its purpose without
significant delays in the entry process. We know, however, that
the enrollment of an estimate 13 million additional travelers
this fall, when the Visa Waiver Program travelers are added to
the program, could provide a challenge to the ability of the
system to function efficiently and accurately.
A further challenge looms on December 31, 2004, the
deadline to integrate US VISIT procedures at the 50 busiest
land ports of entry. We encourage the Congress and the
administration to take all steps necessary to ensure that our
land borders are adequately staffed and have the tools needed
to accurately screen foreign visitors in a timely fashion.
As I am sure this committee is aware, hotels are
particularly vulnerable to terrorist threats. The ability to
ensure against those risks are key to the economic viability of
our industry. We, therefore, were extremely pleased to learn
last week that the Treasury Department has extended a provision
of the Terrorism Risk Assurance Act requiring commercial
property and casualty insurers to offer terrorism coverage.
The provision extends for an additional year through 2005 a
requirement that insurers offer terrorism coverage on
commercial policies. Treasury Secretary Snow's decision to act
now rather than wait until the September 1, 2004, statutory
deadline provides greater certainty and less market disruption
in the terrorism insurer's market. However, it is equally
important that Congress take action to reauthorize and extend
this initiative beyond 2005.
The proposed Registered Traveler pilot program is really a
good example of deploying innovative products and services to
ensure new policies designed to protect the public don't
negatively impact domestic travelers. As a Nation, we are
accustomed to programs that offer convenience and time savings,
even at additional cost.
As such, the program will be welcomed by travelers who want
hassle free travel and, hopefully, promote future business with
them. We support this initiative and its expedited screening
process and reduce the wait time for travelers without
compromising security.
In closing, as multiple committees of Congress and Federal
departments and agencies work to enact policies and procedures
designed to protect the United States from future terrorism
threats, harmonization of what can often be perceived as
duplicative or conflicting requirements imposed upon the
tourist industry and the traveling public must continue to be a
priority.
We commend the subcommittee and the Congress for its
efforts to date, and we look forward to continuing to work with
you to identify ways to protect our country from further
terrorist attacks while keeping our doors open to foreign
visitors and their significant contribution to our economy.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, traveling has been a
rewarding experience. Let us ensure that we don't discourage
legitimate travelers, both domestic and international, from
experiencing this great country. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Eric Pearson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Pearson, Senior Vice President, E-Commerce,
InterContinental Hotels Group
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Eric Pearson, Senior Vice President, E-Commerce, for
InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), the world's largest and most
global hotel company doing business in nearly 100 countries. As you may
already know, we are actively involved in several industry
organizations focused on advancing travel and tourism including the
Travel Business Roundtable and the World Travel & Tourism Council.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to provide a hotel-
industry perspective on tourism in the United States in a post 9/11
world. In addition to representing InterContinental Hotels Group, I'm
also here as a frequent traveler who spends a significant amount of
time traveling, especially overseas, being part of a global company.
Notwithstanding time away from family, it has been a rewarding
experience to travel around the world conducting business while
learning different cultures. It does, however, come with increased
concerns about the safety of our borders, airways, and ports of entry
which continue to be targeted as entry points for potential terrorists.
Travel & Tourism Economic Impact
It should come as no surprise that the United States receives
tremendous economic benefit from travel & tourism. According to a
report by the World Travel & Tourism Council, this year the industry
both directly and indirectly will account for nearly 17 million jobs,
roughly 12% of total employment, and $1.2 trillion in Gross Domestic
Product, roughly 11% of total GDP. International travel alone is one of
the largest ``exports'' for the U.S. and the largest services sector
export category favorably impacting our balance of trade. These
travelers spend more and stay longer than our domestic travelers and
generated over $13 billion in tax revenues last year. Unfortunately,
these travelers are declining as a direct result of post 9-11 concerns
coupled with confusion about our security policies going forward. For
every 1 percent drop in international arrivals, we lose 173,000 jobs
and $1.2 billion in tax revenue.
Over the past few years, we've also seen the results of lost local
and state tax revenue which negatively impacts our schools, police and
fire departments, and ultimately applies pressure to raise other taxes
to offset budget deficits across the nation. These tax shortfalls are
further impacted by the promulgation of new business practices
aggressively employed by travel websites in the wake of 9-11 putting
additional pressure on the various tax authorities. Efforts by state
officials in Massachusetts, Florida and prospectively by others to
collect their proper share of taxes adds more confusion to the mix.
Current Trading
At IHG, our business has been steadily improving in the past year
and we are experiencing an encouraging recovery in both North America
and the UK. We are also seeing tentative signs of the beginning of a
recovery in Europe and trading in Asia Pacific has returned to pre-SARS
levels. Growth remains occupancy driven in all regions with early
evidence of potential rate recovery in some US markets and London. This
is driven by strong leisure demand which has outpaced the recovery of
business travel. As we know, it is the business traveler that drives
higher rated business. D.K. Shifflet & Associates, a leading travel
research firm, suggests that business travel recovery should begin late
in 2004. This is good news for the hotel industry given the 80+ million
room night shortfall last year over 2001. All of this recovery, of
course, assumes no negative changes in travel behaviors resulting from
increased delays at airports, or worse, new terrorist activities,
creating greater fear and uncertainty among consumers and businesses.
Clearly, we all share a common goal of keeping our citizens and
visitors safe as they travel about the country. In the wake of the
September 11, 2001, we have been challenged to devise innovative ways
to address the nation's security concerns without compromising the
ability of legitimate foreign travelers to enter and exit our borders.
It is what Secretary of State Colin Powell described in a May 12th
address to the U.S. Chamber/Travel Business Roundtable Travel and
Tourism Summit as the Department's ``Secure Borders/Open Doors''
policy.
Keeping our borders secure while at the same time keeping our doors
open to foreign visitors might be viewed by some as conflicting goals.
Nonetheless, both are fundamental to preserving the freedom and
strength that defines America. I would like to take a few moments this
morning to examine how various U.S. policies and initiatives are
affecting this delicate balance between security and openness.
Visa Waiver Program
IHG is concerned about the impending October 26, 2004, deadline for
travelers from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries to present passports
containing biometric identifiers in order to gain entry to the United
States. We believe incorporating biometric technologies into passports
can be an effective and efficient way to strengthen security at our
nations' borders without impacting travelers. However, VWP nations must
be given sufficient time to develop and implement these new
technologies. IHG commends the U.S. House of Representatives for
recognizing this necessity in passing H.R. 4417, which provides a one-
year extension of the deadline to October 26, 2005. We understand that
the Senate is considering similar legislation to extend the deadline.
We urge Congress to act quickly to send legislation to the President
that will give VWP countries sufficient time to comply with the
biometric passport requirements. Failure to do so will create
uncertainty, backlogs and delays that will have the effect of driving
legitimate foreign visitors away.
US-VISIT
The ability to screen travelers in order to assure that dangerous
entities or suspected criminals do not illegally enter the United
States is a key component in keeping our country safe from terrorists.
Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security reports that the US-VISIT
program has stopped almost 200 criminals or suspected criminals from
entering the United States since the initial phase was implemented in
January at 115 airports and 14 seaports. The program, which requires
international visitors to provide digital photographs and finger scans
upon entry to the United States, appears to be achieving its purpose
without significant delays in the entry process. We note, however, that
the enrollment of an estimated 13 million additional travelers this
fall when VWP travelers are added to the program could provide a
challenge to the ability of the system to function efficiently and
accurately. A further challenge looms in the December 31, 2004,
deadline to integrate US-VISIT procedures at the 50 busiest land ports
of entry. We encourage the Congress and the Administration to takes all
steps necessary to assure that our land borders are adequately staffed
and have the tools needed to accurately screen foreign visitors in a
timely fashion. Finally, we note that the exit component of US-VISIT is
still a work-in-progress. Our industry looks forward to working with
the Subcommittee and DHS to assure that US-VISIT exit procedures are
both efficient and effective.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA)
As I'm sure this Subcommittee is aware, hotels are particularly
vulnerable to terrorist threats. The ability to insure against those
risks is key to the economic viability of our industry. We therefore
were extremely pleased to learn last week that the Treasury Department
has extended a provision of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act requiring
commercial property and casualty insurers to offer terrorism coverage.
The provision extends for an additional year, through 2005, a
requirement that insurers offer terrorism coverage on commercial
policies. Treasury Secretary Snow's decision to act now, rather than
waiting until the September 1, 2004 statutory deadline, provides
greater certainty and less market disruption in the terrorism insurance
market.
However, it is also important for Congress to take action to
reauthorize and extend this initiative. It is my understanding that
today, Congressman Richard Baker (R-LA) and others will introduce a
bill to do just that. We encourage you and your colleagues to promptly
engage in the review necessary to consider and approve such an
initiative.
Registered Traveler
The proposed Registered Traveler pilot program is a good example of
deploying innovative products and services to ensure new policies
designed to protect the public don't negatively impact the domestic
travelers. As a nation, we are accustomed to programs that offer
convenience and time savings even with an additional cost. These
include toll roads and electronic passes, convenient stores, and even
express passes at theme parks to reduce waiting in lines. As such, this
program will be welcomed by travelers who want hassle free travel and
hopefully promote future business with them. IHG supports this
initiative as it expedites the screening process and reduces the wait
times for travelers without compromising security.
Other Issues
These and other issues are addressed at length in written testimony
presented to this Subcommittee by the Travel Business Roundtable. IHG
is an active member of the TBR, serves on its Executive Committee and
supports its views on Homeland Security issues. We recommend TBR's
testimony to the Subcommittee, and encourage you to tap TBR's
significant source of knowledge and information on travel and tourism
issues if they can be of service in any way.
Conclusion
As multiple committees of Congress and federal departments and
agencies work to enact policies and procedures designed to protect the
United States from future terrorist threats, harmonization of what can
often be duplicative or conflicting requirements imposed upon the
tourism industry and the traveling public must continue to be a
priority. We commend this Subcommittee and the Congress for its efforts
to-date, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to identify
ways to protect our country from further terrorist attacks while
keeping our doors open to foreign visitors and their significant
contributions to our economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these remarks. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Brown, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARK H. BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
On behalf of AAA, we appreciate the opportunity to testify
today. I am Mark Brown. I am Executive Vice President of AAA. I
am based down in Florida. We work throughout the United States
and also work very closely with the AIT and FIA, foreign
motoring organizations.
AAA Travel is one of the largest leisure travel agency
organizations in the United States, with over 1,000 locations,
and we do about $3 billion in leisure sales. We believe AAA
provides a unique perspective on the impact of security
procedures and what they have had on both travel and tourism.
We are, first and foremost, of course, a membership
organization representing and serving over 47 million members
throughout North America. Over the years, we like to think that
we have been a leader, an advocate for safety, security and
mobility of travelers.
Mr. Chairman, Americans today continually reassess how,
when and where they travel. The good news is that Americans are
traveling again in record numbers. In the first 4 months of the
year alone, AAA sales, as you already noted, are up about 25
percent. TIA's and AAA's projections for July 4 holiday travel
support that. Nearly 40 million people are expected to take a
trip more than 50 miles away from home.
AAA recently surveyed a random sample of U.S. adults. We
asked their opinions about how recent safety and security
measures have affected their travel habits. We found that
security concerns and safety measures have not caused most
people to change their patterns.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said that they have made
no changes due to security concerns, and only--only 8 percent
said that they would specifically avoid air travel.
Interestingly, when we asked more about air travel security, we
found that 80 percent of the travelers were confident about
today's airport and in-flight security systems, while about 11
percent were not entirely confident.
Overall confidence in security measures related to all
forms of travel, be it car, train, automobile, to places like
amusement parks, taking cruises, etcetera, was even higher,
with 91 percent of those surveyed confident in today's current
security measures.
We have about 36,000 employees with AAA, many of whom are
travel counselors and travel agents, and they have the front
line impact with customers. They tell us that security related
questions really take five forms from the customers. Customers
want to know how much time they should allow for check-in,
which we talked about this morning, and it varies a great deal;
what items can and cannot be packed in a carry-on bag--there
seems to be discrepancies in that area; how can we keep bags
secure without locks--that is a tough one to answer; what are
the requirements for personal identification--each airline site
and the State Department have different things written up; and
finally, what destinations should be avoided due to security
concerns.
There does not appear to be a great deal of anxiety over
the cruise industry travel, because, frankly, the cruise
industry has done a pretty good job of putting safety
procedures in place and have been following them for a number
of years.
When it comes to overall security, our agents tell us
generally that travelers do not question the need for strong
security measures, and travelers will endure a certain level of
hassle. The traveling public is paying more than ever for
security through fees on airline tickets and through use of
their tax dollars.
As a result, the travelers really deserve a system that not
only provides the security they want but also a high level of
service as well, and these things, Mr. Chair and committee
members, should not be mutually exclusive.
In a competitive service environment, if we don't meet the
customer expectations, as we all know, they go elsewhere. Well,
in the travel industry there is another kind of competitor, and
that competitor is called not traveling at all. That could mean
billions of tourism dollars, both from inbound tourists and
also for domestic tourists.
We recognize and applaud the extraordinary efforts that
have really taken place since 9-11 and where we are at today.
However, AAA suggests the following improvements that would
ease traveler anxiety and increase the efficiency of providing
safe and secure travel.
First, more should be done to resolve the numerous
complaints about inconsistencies and unpredictability
experienced at various airports around the country. Second,
when security procedures bog down, TSA officials must exercise
more flexibility to act quickly and open new lines and move
passengers around airports and have personnel available to
inform the customer what is going on.
Third, TSA should have the ability to move resources, maybe
nose counts, from less congested airports to airports
experiencing higher than normal congestion. This can vary by
season.
Finally, the Department of Homeland Security should have a
process in place to continually monitor consumer attitudes
about the effectiveness and the efficiency of safety measures.
All of us travel extensively. How many of us have been actually
asked about our experiences as we go through security?
Mr. Chairman, there is a--and committee members, there is
an inherent tension between, on the one hand, fail safe
security and, on the other hand, this thing we call freedom of
mobility. Security experts continually look at and reevaluate
the threats that we have for security, and they adjust
accordingly. So, too, we shouldn't forget about the customer
satisfaction in the desire to provide the very best security
that we can provide. We think that, with communication,
consistency, and basic care for the customer, this could
certainly be accomplished.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[The prepared statement of Mark H. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark H. Brown, Executive Vice President,
Association & Club Services, AAA
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of AAA, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Mark Brown, and I am AAA's Executive Vice President for
Association and Club Services. In that capacity, I oversee travel
operations at AAA's National Office in Orlando and am responsible for
implementing the overall strategic direction for AAA's travel agency
operations.
AAA provides a unique perspective on the impact security procedures
have on travel and tourism. We are--first and foremost--a membership
organization and we strive to represent the best interests of our
members, who are the traveling public. We also are a major provider of
travel services.
By way of background, AAA is a not-for-profit, fully tax-paying
federation of 76 clubs across the United States and Canada.
Collectively, AAA Travel is one of the largest leisure travel agencies
in the United States with more than 1,000 travel agency locations and
annual sales of over $3 billion. As North America's largest leisure
travel organization, AAA and our counterpart in Canada (CAA) provide
travel, insurance, financial and automotive-related services to over 47
million members. Since its founding in 1902, AAA also has been a leader
and advocate for the safety, security and mobility of all travelers.
CURRENT STATE OF TRAVEL/TOURISM
The travel and tourism landscape has changed dramatically since the
tragic events of September 11, 2001. The specter of terrorism worldwide
has forced many Americans to reassess how, where and when they travel.
The good news is Americans are traveling again, and in record numbers.
In the first four months of this year alone, AAA Travel sales have
jumped 23 percent over last year, and we are closing in on pre-9/11
sales volumes. Our projections for the July 4th holiday support that
trend, with nearly 40 million Americans expected to travel 50 miles or
more from home for the holiday--a record number, up 3.4 percent from
last year.
People are certainly hitting the road in record numbers. Overall,
the number of TripTiks AAA provided to members increased 6.7 percent
from 2002 to 2003. First quarter 2004 numbers compared to first quarter
2003 are up 20 percent.
There are a number of factors that impact travel and tourism.
Safety and security issues are among them. To determine just how
significantly those factors affect travel, and to gauge consumer
confidence in the nation's travel security systems, AAA recently
surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. adults, soliciting their opinions on how
recent safety and security measures have affected their travel habits.
We found that security concerns and safety measures have not caused
most people to change their travel habits. Sixty-four percent of
respondents said they have made no changes due to security. Only eight
percent said they avoid air travel, while five percent said they travel
less often, and a small percentage of others said they plan more
driving trips and stay closer to home.
We asked specifically about airport security and found that 40
percent of respondents were either extremely confident or very
confident in today's airport and in-flight security systems. Another 40
percent were somewhat confident. On the broader question of overall
confidence in security measures relating to all forms of travel--by
car, train and plane to resorts, cruises, amusement parks, and so
forth--confidence was even higher. Fifty-five percent were very or
extremely confident, and another 36 percent somewhat confident.Travel
Agent Perspective
As I said earlier, AAA clubs have more than 1,000 travel agency
offices throughout the U.S. and Canada. Our agents routinely field
questions and concerns from customers as they book their travel
reservations and plan drive trips.
Travelers' security-related questions most often relate to air
travel, although we also receive questions and complaints about border
crossing delays and security requirements. Mainly, travelers want to
know how much time to allow for check-in procedures at airports, what
items can and cannot be packed in carry-on luggage, how to keep bags
secure without locks, and what are the requirements for personal
identification.
Our agents tell us that travelers want thorough security and, in
general, will endure a certain level of security ``hassle'' in the
interest of safety. Most travelers understand the need for increased
security and are becoming accustomed to the new procedures. However,
our agents receive frequent complaints about long lines and the
unpredictability of wait times at airports. Consumers complain about
lack of privacy and are concerned that items in unlocked bags could be
lost or stolen. They also are frustrated with the inconsistencies in
security procedures from one airport to the next.
There does not appear to be anxiety over cruise travel because the
cruise industry has done a good job of promoting the safety of
cruising. Cruise clients are used to the normal strict identification
procedures for entering and exiting a ship prior to sailing or during
ports of call. The additional screening procedures implemented by the
cruise industry do not seem to have caused passengers undue
inconvenience. And, there's also the presence of the Coast Guard to
help passengers feel secure.
Members also ask our travel agents about the overall security of
specific destinations, and ask what destinations to avoid due to
security concerns. AAA travel agents provide a wide variety of
information to our members and customers to address these questions and
concerns. Agents provide access to State Department travel warnings,
Consular Information Sheets, FAA information, handouts from the
Transportation Security Administration and information from airlines,
tour companies and cruise lines. Most AAA club web sites link to these
resources as well. Some clubs also host security seminars that include
security information handouts or presentations by TSA representatives,
airport managers, FBI officials and local police.
In addition to agent interaction, AAA issues local and national
press releases and other public advisories with tips for safe and
hassle-free travel. Many clubs include security-related articles in
their member publications, which collectively have a circulation of
about 30 million households.
Travelers generally do not question the need for current security
measures, but many do question the lack of consistency and efficiency.
Early TSA goals of ``world-class security and world-class customer
service'' have not yet been achieved. The traveling public is paying
more than ever for security through their security fees on airline
tickets and their tax dollars. They also pay through time spent waiting
in lines at airports, at border crossings with Canada and Mexico, at
parks, at museums, and other places with security check points.
When the TSA was being formed, some stars of the service economy
loaned senior managers to the government to help rapidly build this
sprawling, customer-intimate organization. This customer focus must
remain and spread across other government security contacts with
travelers, with processes continually being evaluated and improved for
the average traveler.
Travelers deserve an efficient system that not only provides
security, but a high level of customer service. World-class customer
service and security must go hand-in-hand. They are not mutually
exclusive objectives.
Customer service is about more than just polite, well-dressed
employees. World class customer service is about designing systems
where customers' high expectations are met. Sufficient staffing is
certainly a part of this--ensuring that there are enough employees to
handle the volume of customers at peak times.
At AAA, we ``mystery shop'' our travel agents. This is common
across the service business. The GAO does some of this within the
federal government, but it's with the intention of trying to
``penetrate'' security. What about checking the experience of the
overwhelming majority of travelers who simply pass through security
because they want to look at the Liberty Bell, tour the Smithsonian,
meet their Congressman, or fly to see their grandchildren?
Customers are inseparable from the service experience. Fortunately,
customers can be taught to contribute to making that experience better.
Providing clear signage and instructive announcements about security
procedures to customers before they reach security checkpoints can
prepare customers to help make the process smoother for everyone.
In a competitive service environment, if we don't meet customers'
expectations, they go elsewhere--other hotels, other travel agents,
other banks, other auto mechanics. In the travel industry, there is
another kind of competitor--not traveling. For international travelers,
that means not coming to the United States to spend billions of dollars
annually. For domestic travelers, that means not going to parks, not
flying, not staying in hotels--again, with billions of dollars in
economic impact. Fortunately, we're not at that point. People are still
traveling. It is important that we meet their expectations of safety
and security with minimal hassle.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on input from our members and travel agency personnel, AAA
suggests the following improvements that would ease traveler anxiety
and increase the efficiency of providing a safe and secure travel
environment.
1. More can and should be done to make security procedures seamless
and predictable. When the legislation creating the Transportation
Security Administration was debated three years ago, AAA stressed the
importance of consistency and uniformity. We understood that the task
would not be completed overnight. We recognize the Herculean efforts
that have been made to get us where we are today. However, we hear more
complaints about inconsistency and unpredictability than most anything
else.
2. On-site information and better communication can go a long way
toward alleviating customers' concerns. When security procedures bog
down, TSA officials must exercise flexibility to act quickly to open
new security lines, move passengers to other less congested security
points in the airport, and, above all, have personnel available to
inform passengers what to expect.
3. Hand in hand with the above, TSA should have the ability to move
its own personnel from less congested airports and areas of the country
to airports experiencing higher than normal congestion at peak periods.
There should be checks and balances in place to ensure that enough of
the right personnel are at the right place at the right time. That
includes personnel trained to anticipate any emergency.
4. The Department of Homeland Security should have processes in
place to continually monitor consumer attitudes about the effectiveness
and efficiency of security measures. This applies to all places that
security touches travelers--airports, ports, border crossings, national
parks, museums, etc.
CONCLUSION
In summary, AAA's message to you today is that the American
traveling public is resilient. They love to travel and will adapt to
reasonable measures that enhance their safety. There's an inherent
tension between failsafe security and free mobility. Security experts
continually reevaluate threats and adjust security measures
accordingly. So, too, must they evaluate the customer side of the
security process. Travelers deserve the most efficient, thorough system
possible to ensure safety. With communication, consistency and caring
for the customer, this can be accomplished.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Welcome, Mr. Allred.
STATEMENT OF BARRY ALLRED
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for those
kind introductory remarks you gave me in your opening
statement, and you will hear in my testimony today an
affirmation of some of your comments about Jacksonville.
Members of the committee, my name is Barry Allred, and I am
currently the volunteer Chair of the Jacksonville Regional
Chamber of Commerce. I am very pleased to have the opportunity
today to share our views with you concerning where we have
been, where we are, and where we are going with a particular
focus on the area of northeast Florida, including Jacksonville,
and to some degree, a reflection of the State of Florida as a
whole and the Nation.
The Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce has over
4,000 member companies, representing a variety of businesses,
of which 90 percent are small businesses. Our community is not
overly skewed toward tourism and, because of that, we may
represent a more balanced view of the overall economy today.
Jacksonville is located in northeast Florida, touching the
Atlantic Ocean on the east, with a downtown area 15 miles along
the St. John's River. We are blessed with many natural assets,
including the Intercoastal Waterway, beautiful marshlands, and
large forested areas unlike anything you might expect elsewhere
in Florida.
Jacksonville is, first and foremost, a business city that
has been named the hottest market in the United States for
expansion and location of businesses by Expansion Management
Magazine three of the last 6 years. Our strategic location
provides great accessibility for tourist opportunities in the
southeastern United States, and at the same time provides an
outstanding business location for the development and
distribution of products and services.
The attacks of 9-11 jolted the Jacksonville area very much
like every other part of the United States. Our companies were
looking for answers and trying to decide whether to pull back
or accelerate in the aftermath of this terrible event.
Tourism was, in fact, the first and most severe industry
impacted, as people were traumatized by the events and
uncertain about flying or travel after the attacks. Our Chamber
of Commerce held a series of meetings to discuss the issues of
operating a company in an uncertain environment and managing
risk while moving forward with your business.
The response was very strong and very positive, and our
small business on the whole chose to take a more aggressive
position rather than retrench in the face of great uncertainty,
if not danger.
On the tourism side, the most immediate impact was the
reduction of air travel to various destinations. Our approach,
through our Convention and Visitors Bureau, was to analyze our
market opportunities and begin to encourage a larger ``drive
market'' for people in the southeastern United States to
vacation closer to home and without air travel.
Following a difficult fourth quarter in 2001, the new
strategy began to work, and business has been rebounding for
the past 2 years. Although we are not yet ahead of previous
levels from the year 2000, we expect to be at or above those
levels by the fourth quarter of this year.
Air service and corresponding tourism travel have also
returned to normal levels of activity. We do believe people
still have concerns about flying. However, most of those
concerns have been allayed.
We believe that Jacksonville is fairly representative of
those markets that were able to utilize a ``drive market''
strategy to recovery more quickly, and it seems most locations
in Florida as a whole, and in the United States, have had a
relatively strong rebound and are nearing more normal levels on
the tourism front.
A week ago, I completed the development mission in four
European countries and met with about 25 companies. The only
negative issue encountered concerning the United States was the
great difficulty with passport and visa issuance under a post-
9-11 system. We were told that it was discouraging both
business and pleasure visits to the United States.
I am no expert in this process, but I would hope security
needs of the United States and the need to expedite document
processing can both be addressed. It will make our friends more
comfortable and interested in travel in the United States.
I also believe that Congress should consider financing
support to marketing efforts, especially in Europe, which
encourages U.S. travel along with developing smooth document
processing approach and a user friendly explanation of that
process. This could greatly increase the flow of money to the
United States and help our economy. I realize that this is a
delicate balance between security and access, but it is a very
important one.
Another piece of evidence of our recovery is Jacksonville's
new cruise ship business. Prior to 9-11, no cruise ship served
north of Cape Canaveral in Florida. After 9-11 Jacksonville
became an attractive market and is now served by two cruise
ship lines, because people prefer to drive to a cruise rather
than to fly. Our new cruise service has been very successful.
What has changed for Jacksonville and any location hosting
major events is the substantially increased cost of dealing
with security. Next February, as the chairman mentioned
earlier, Jacksonville will host the Superbowl, and in doing so
we will bring over 100,000 people to our city during the week
of the game.
The process of hosting large numbers of people carries with
it a very large price tag, one that goes beyond the capability
of the community or even the State to be able to handle. These
security issues are not related to any specific community or to
any State, but instead they are national issues associated with
our democracy and our international relations.
That being said, I encourage you to consider greater
support at the Federal level for communities dealing with
security for major national events.
A strategic issue that you as the Congress must wrestle
with is the balance between security and reasonable comfort for
travelers. As a Nation, we have agreed that we will not allow
terrorism to disrupt our lives, and we will move forward,
despite efforts to keep us from doing so.
This means that we must be ever mindful of security
requirements to make air and other forms of travel as safe as
is reasonably possible. At the same time, we have to balance
those needs for security with a level of reason that encourages
people to be willing to utilize the efficient forms of mass
transportation.
Striking that balance between reasonable, effective
security and effective and efficient operations is an important
and difficult responsibility for you, as you establish
regulations through the governmental process. We urge you to
listen to the experts from both sides, those advocating the
best and most efficient security and those representing the
travel and tourism industry, making the clearest judgments
possible on the tolerance levels of our traveling public.
In the broader economy of Jacksonville and Florida, we have
had significant success in our overall growth and development.
Florida has managed to add jobs every month since 9-11, in
spite of the concerns for the economy and international
terrorism.
Our companies recognize that the markets for their products
and services are worldwide, not just in Florida or the
southeast or the U.S. as a whole. We develop our strategies on
taxation, business environment and economic development with a
broad view of the need for our companies to compete on a global
scale. The results of single events and even the national
economy should not be determining factors for success or
opportunities for growth.
The result is that on a national, State and local level, we
must be diligent to fairly tax our producers of products and
services, to allow them to be competitive at each level and,
most importantly, at the international level where we compete
with the entire world.
Companies in this country need a competitive environment,
beginning with a balanced taxation and regulation environment
that allows for the greatest efficiencies. We believe in what
we are doing in Jacksonville and in the State of Florida, and
we urge Congress to evaluate and enact legislation and taxation
policies that accommodate the requirements for competitiveness
that makes our Nation's companies so strong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Barry Allred follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry Allred, Chairman, Jacksonville Regional
Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Barry Allred
and I am serving this year as the chairman of the Jacksonville Regional
Chamber of Commerce. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to share
our views with you today concerning where we have been, where we are
and where we are going with a particular focus on the area of Northeast
Florida including Jacksonville, and to some degree a reflection of the
state of Florida as a whole and the Nation.
The Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce has over 4,000 member
companies representing a variety of businesses of which over 90% are
small businesses. Our community is not overly tilted toward tourism and
because of that, may be a more balanced view of the economy today.
Jacksonville is located in Northeast Florida touching the Atlantic
Ocean on the East with a downtown area 15 miles inland on the St. Johns
River. We are blessed with many natural assets including the
intracoastal waterway, beautiful marshlands and large forested areas
unlike anything you would expect in Florida. Jacksonville is first and
foremost a business city that has been named the ``hottest market in
the United States for the expansion and location of business'' three of
the last six years. Our strategic location provides great accessibility
for tourist opportunities in the Southeastern United States and at the
same time provides an outstanding business location for the development
and distribution of products and services.
The attacks of 9/11 jolted the Jacksonville area much like every
part of the United States. Our companies were looking for answers and
trying to decide whether to pull back or accelerate in the aftermath of
this terrible event. Tourism was, in fact, the first and most severe
industry impacted as people were traumatized by the events and
uncertain about flying or travel after the attacks.
Our Chamber held a series of meetings to discuss the issues of
operating a company in an uncertain environment and managing risk while
moving forward with your business. The response was strong and very
positive and our small businesses, on the whole, chose to take a more
aggressive position rather than re-trench in the face of great
uncertainty, if not danger.
On the Tourism side, the most immediate impact was the reduction of
air travel to various destinations. Our approach through our Convention
and Visitor's Bureau was to analyze our market opportunities and begin
to encourage a larger ``drive market'' for people in the Southeastern
United States to vacation closer to home and without air travel.
Following a very difficult 4th quarter in 2001, the new strategy began
to work and business has been rebounding for the past 2 years. Although
we are not yet ahead of the previous levels from the year 2000, we
expect to be at or above those levels by the last quarter of this year.
Air service and corresponding tourism travel also have returned to
near normal levels of activity. We do believe people still have
concerns about flying; however, most of those concerns have been
overridden. We believe that Jacksonville is fairly representative of
those markets that were able to utilize a driving market to recover
more quickly, but it seems most locations in Florida as a whole and the
United States have had a relatively strong rebound and are nearing more
normal levels on the tourism front.
A week ago I completed a business development mission to four
European countries and met with about 25 companies. The only negative
issue encountered concerning the United States was the great difficulty
with passport and visa issuance under the new system. We were told it
was discouraging both business and pleasure visits to the United
States. I am no expert on the process but I hope security needs of the
United States and the need to expedite the processing can be addressed,
which will make our friends more comfortable and interested in travel
to the Untied States. I also believe that Congress should consider
providing financial support to marketing efforts especially in Europe,
which encourages U.S. travel along with developing a smooth processing
approach and an explanation of that process. This could greatly
increase the flow of money into the Untied States and help our economy.
I realize this is a delicate balance but a very important one.
Another piece of evidence is Jacksonville's new cruise ship
business. Prior to 9/11 no cruise ships served north of Cape Canaveral
in Florida. After 9/11, Jacksonville became an attractive market and
now is served by 2 cruise ship lines because more people want to drive
to a cruise than fly. Our new cruise service has been very successful.
For Jacksonville and any location hosting major events, what has
changed is the substantially increased cost of dealing with security.
Next February, Jacksonville will be the host of the Super Bowl and in
doing so will bring over 100,000 people to our city during the week of
the game. The process of hosting large numbers of people now has a very
large price tag associated with it--one that goes beyond the scope of a
community or even a state to be able to handle. The reasons for these
concerns are not related to any community or to any state but instead
to the national issues associated with our democracy and our
international relations. That being said, another issue I would like
you to consider is greater support at the Federal level when dealing
with security for major national events.
A strategic issue that you as a Congress must wrestle with is the
balance between security and reasonable comfort for travelers. As a
nation, we have agreed that we will not allow terrorism to disrupt our
lives and will move forward in spite of efforts to keep us from doing
so. This means that we must be ever mindful of security requirements to
make air and other forms of travel as safe as is reasonable.
At the same time, we have to balance those needs for security with
a level of reason that encourages people to be willing to utilize
efficient forms of mass transportation. Striking that balance between
reasonable and effective security, and effective and efficient
operations is an important and difficult responsibility as you
establish regulations through the governmental process. We urge you to
listen to experts on both sides of the fence--those providing the best
and most efficient security and those representing the travel and
tourism industry making the clearest judgment on the tolerance levels
of our traveling public.
In the broader economy of Jacksonville and Florida, we have had
significant success in our overall growth and development. Florida has
managed to add jobs every month since 9/11 in spite of concerns for the
economy and international terrorism. Our companies recognize that the
market for their products and services are worldwide not just in
Florida or the Southeast or the U.S. as a whole. We develop our
strategies on taxation, business environment and economic development
with a broad view of the need for our companies to compete on a global
scale. The results of single events and even the national economy
should not be the determining factor of success and opportunities for
growth.
The result is that on a national, state and local level, we must be
diligent to fairly tax our producers of products and services to allow
them to be competitive at each level and most importantly at the
international level where we compete with the world. Companies in this
country need a competitive environment beginning with balanced taxation
and regulations that allow for the greatest efficiencies. We believe we
are doing that in Jacksonville and in the state of Florida and urge
Congress to evaluate and enact legislation and taxation that
understands the product competitiveness requirement that makes our
nation's companies strong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. I thank you.
Ms. Friend. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA A. FRIEND
Ms. Friend. Chairman Stearns, Representative Schakowsky,
and members of the committee, my name is Pat Friend. I am a
flight attendant, and I am the International President of the
Association of Flight Attendants--CWA. AFA is the
representative of 45,000 flight attendants at 26 carriers.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on the
crucial matter of flight attendant security training, and why
it is important to travel and tourism in the airline industry.
The job of a flight attendant is, first, to protect the
flying public. It is a job that we love, and it is one that we
do with pride and care. We are trained to evacuate an aircraft
in case of an accident, to fight fires in the air, to manage
abusive passengers, to administer first aid, and to give
comfort. But unbelievably, we still have not been trained to
appropriately handle a security crisis on board our airplanes.
On three separate occasions, Congress has specifically
acknowledged the need for this vital training. The Air
Transportation Security Act, the Homeland Security bill, and
most recently, the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill all recognize
that flight attendant security training is part of a
comprehensive strategy to combat terror in the skies.
While the TSA does appear to be moving forward on
developing an advanced voluntary training program, they have
skipped over the basic mandatory training that is called for in
the Vision 100 FAA reauthorization. That is the training that
we need.
One of the arguments we have heard against this is cost.
Imagine, Mr. Chairman, what the price in human suffering will
be if passenger aircraft are again used as weapons, and what
will be the cost to our aviation industry and to our economy?
How many pleasure travelers will aviation lose? After all,
these are people for whom travel is discretionary. They can
choose whether or not they want to explore someplace new or
simply spend their leisure time at home.
This quote from the 9-11 Commission reiterates what AFA has
been saying since September 11: ``We also learned how hijackers
beat the last line of defense on the four flights, because the
professionals had been trained to cooperate with hijackers, not
fight them.'' Unfortunately, very little has changed since that
horrible day.
Many of our flight attendants, even those at major
airlines, are still being trained to cooperate with aggressors
and to try to appease them. Do you believe that asking a
terrorist the equivalent of, are you having a bad day?, is an
effective way to protect our skies. I apologize if I am
sounding flip, but that is truly the reality of the state of
flight attendant security training today.
Watching a 13-minute video is not effective security
training, nor is taking a written test for which you have been
thoroughly prompted with all of the answers. Absent a mandated
program from the TSA for basic, mandatory training, airline
security training programs for flight attendants will continue
to be diluted over time, as it becomes a race to the bottom to
see which airline can get away with the cheapest and the
shortest training program.
Cockpit doors are now reinforced. Some pilots carry guns.
Federal air marshals are on selected flights, and vigorous
airport security protocols have been established. There are new
procedures in place for almost every aspect of aviation
security. The public is well aware of these changes that have
been made to help ensure their safety. However, there is still
one crucial link missing.
Flight attendants are the real first responders to an on-
board incident. Yet we remain frustrated and troubled that our
role in aviation security continues to be ignored and denied.
Not every commercial flight has a pilot with a gun in the
cockpit, nor does it have a Federal air marshal. But with very
few exceptions with the very smallest of our aircraft, every
commercial flight in this country has at least one flight
attendant on board. It is that flight attendant who, if
properly trained, can be our best security asset and a last
line of defense against another terrorist attack.
We have been advised that trainees in the Federal flight
deck program and the Federal air marshal programs are often
told, if it becomes necessary, just shoot through the flight
attendant. What would the response be from travelers if they
were aware of this? Wouldn't they fear for their own safety
even more, and doesn't it make more sense to train the flight
attendant to assist in a crisis rather than to just be the
human shield?
In fact, both the FFDOs and the air marshals have stated
that it is their preference to have the flight attendant as a
trained ally, one with the skills, the knowledge, and the
ability to help foil a terrorist.
Flight attendants are the front line safety personnel on
the aircraft and the first responders to in-flight safety and
security incidents. Yet efforts by AFA and many in the Congress
to provide them with meaningful security training have been
unsuccessful.
I know that the members of this committee and indeed a
majority of Congress realize that we need updated, meaningful
security training, and it is only with your insistence that we
will get the tools we need and that we want in order to fulfill
our job to protect our passengers. Please help us in our quest
for a minimum, clear, consistent, industrywide, standardized
security training, training that will truly close the aviation
security gap.
On September 11, 2001, 25 heroic flight attendants lost
their lives trying to protect their passengers and the security
of the cockpit. Their wrists were bound. Their throats were
slashed, and they died, helpless to help those whom they were
entrusted to protect. Please help me to ensure that that never
happens again. Mandate appropriate security training for flight
attendants. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Patricia A. Friend follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patricia A. Friend, International President,
Association of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO
Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Pat
Friend and I am a flight attendant and the International President of
the Association of Flight Attendants--CWA. AFA is the representative of
45,000 flight attendants at 26 carriers. Thank you for this opportunity
to present this testimony on the crucial matter of flight attendant
security training.
The job of a flight attendant is first to protect the flying
public. It is a job that we love and one that we do with pride and
care. We are trained to fight fires in the air, to administer first
aid, to evacuate an aircraft in case of an accident, deal with abusive
passengers and to give comfort. We receive comprehensive training in
how to handle all these situations onboard the aircraft and are now
officially recognized for these roles through FAA certification.
Unbelievably, almost three years after the horrific events of September
11th, 2001 we still have not been trained to appropriately handle a
security crisis onboard on our airplanes.
On September 11, 25 heroic flight attendants lost their lives
trying to protect their passengers and the security of the flight deck.
Their wrists were bound, their throats slashed, and they died with the
knowledge they would no longer be there to help those whom they were
entrusted to protect. We must not forget the heroic flight attendants
we lost that tragic day. We all learned from the September 11th
Commission report in January and heard first hand the phone call placed
by flight attendant Betty Ong on American Airlines flight 11. Her calm
demeanor and professionalism in the face of this attack was a true
testament to her, and all flight attendants,, ability to put their
training to good use. As one television commentator stated after
hearing the presentation of her taped phone conversation, ``She carried
out her job professionally and reacted well to her training.
Unfortunately, she had received the wrong kind of training.'' I could
not agree more and clearly the 9-11 Commission felt the same.
Following is a quote from the 9-11 Commission after the January
27th hearing which reiterates what we have been saying since September
11th: ``We also learned how hijackers beat the last line of defense on
the four flights, because the professionals had been trained to
cooperate with hijackers, not fight them.'' I agree completely with
this statement and applaud the 9-11 Commission for highlighting this
tragic oversight in our security training as it existed prior to
September 11th. Unfortunately, I am here to report to you that nothing
has changed since that horrible day. We are no better prepared today to
handle a situation like that which occurred on September 11th and our
training is still woefully inadequate.
Congress has taken many actions to improve the overall safety of
the aviation system. Screeners have been federalized and are receiving
updated training. Screening procedures have been tightened. Flight deck
doors are now reinforced, many pilots carry guns, and armed federal air
marshals are on select flights. There are new procedures in place for
many aspects of aviation security. We have supported these efforts and
will continue to support all efforts that make our aviation system, and
our workplace, more secure. However there is still one crucial link
missing. We remain frustrated and troubled that the needs of flight
attendants in order to adequately perform their roles in making the
aviation system more secure have been delayed, denied and ignored. Our
skies are not safe and they will not be safe until flight attendants
receive the training necessary to protect our passengers from another
September 11.
Many steps can be taken to improve aviation security, but
regardless of how many steps are taken, one must view the entire
aviation system as a whole and make sure that each and every loophole
has been closed. As you well know, loopholes remain and the most
glaring is the continued delay in implementing industry-wide,
comprehensive flight attendant security training. We know that
potential weapons are still making it onboard the aircraft, as the GAO
has reported, even though screening procedures have been improved. Not
every commercial flight has a pilot with a gun, nor does it have a
federal air marshal. But, with a few exceptions for very small
aircraft, every commercial flight in this country has at least one
flight attendant on board, in the cabin. It is that flight attendant,
who properly trained, can be our best security asset to help protect
against those weapons that are still clearly making it onboard.
Besides learning how to protect ourselves and to defend the
passengers in the cabin, it has become clear that with the introduction
of guns onboard the aircraft, another reason to be trained has made
itself abundantly clear. We are told that trainees in the FFDO and the
federal air marshal programs are sometimes told, if necessary, to shoot
through a flight attendant. The Washington Post reported in December of
2002 that air marshals still shoot the flight attendant mock-up in
their training simulations and are still graduating from the program.
Doesn't it make more sense to train that flight attendant to assist in
a crisis rather than to be a human shield? In fact, both FFDO's and air
marshals have stated it would be their preference to have the flight
attendant as a trained ally--one with the skills, the knowledge and the
ability to foil a terrorist.
Flight attendants are the front line safety personnel on the
aircraft, as recognized by the 9-11 Commission. We are truly the first
and last line of defense in the aircraft cabin. We recognized the
problems with our security training immediately following September
11th and have been trying diligently since then to get the federal
government to realize this fact and take the appropriate action to
guarantee that we receive adequate and necessary security training.
I know that the members of this Committee and a majority of
Congress realize that flight attendants need updated and meaningful
flight attendant security training. On three separate occasions
Congress has specifically acknowledged the need for this training; the
Air Transportation Security Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the
2003 FAA reauthorization bill. Yet, these many attempts to provide
flight attendants with meaningful security training have not been
successful.
The legislative history and struggles to enact security training
are well known to the members of this Committee, but for the sake of
the record, I would like to reiterate them. Immediately following the
attacks of September 11th, AFA began to call on Congress to direct the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to update flight attendant
security training. As the 9-11 Commission made clear, the anti-
hijacking training provided to flight attendants prior to the September
11th attacks did not reflect the reality of the new threats posed to
the domestic aviation system. Terrorists were no longer looking for
hostages to trade for political demands. Instead, terrorists now have
an evil goal to use our workplace, the aircraft, as a weapon of mass
destruction. It was only logical and clear to the flight attendants of
this country that our training needed to be updated in order for us to
effectively fulfill our role to protect the safety and security of
passengers.
That is why AFA worked closely with Members of Congress to update
and expand required flight attendant security training through the Air
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in the fall of 2001. The final
legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by the President
included a number of provisions in section 44918 that required the FAA
to update and improve currently existing flight attendant security
training requirements. These provisions called on the FAA to require
that carrier flight attendant security training programs be updated and
changed to reflect the current security and threats that flight
attendants may face onboard the aircraft. It was the intention of AFA
that with the FAA approving these updated programs, all carriers across
the industry would implement similar if not identical training
programs.
However, in the immediate months after passage of ATSA it became
abundantly clear that the security training programs being implemented
by the carriers and approved by the FAA were not adequate or
consistent. There was a wide variance in the type of training and the
hours spent on the training. Some carriers were showing flight
attendants a twenty-minute video, while others were conducting two full
days of voluntary, hands-on training. Even more amazing was the fact
that all of these programs received approval from their FAA Principle
Security Inspectors (PSIs). Actions such as these only highlighted to
us the fact that the FAA was not adequately prepared to handle
supervision of the security training programs.
Security training discrepancies in the aviation system led to many
flight attendants unprepared for any future terrorist attack onboard an
aircraft. We at AFA strongly stated repeatedly that all flight
attendants, regardless of the carrier employing them, must receive the
same level of adequate security training. The system would not be
effective if it was simply a patchwork quilt of programs that varied
significantly from carrier to carrier.
It was at this time that AFA began to lobby Congress to implement
requirements for flight attendant security training that included a set
number of hours for the training programs. These mandates would have to
be enforced so that all carriers were providing the same basic level of
security training for all flight attendants in the US aviation system.
During the spring of 2002, as legislation began moving in the House
and Senate that would allow pilots to carry firearms, AFA again lobbied
Congress to mandate 28 hours of detailed flight attendant security
training at all carriers, with the training program to be develop by
the security experts at the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). AFA
arrived at this proposal after consulting with numerous security and
training experts and after experts completed 5 months of instructional
system design work with various groups of flight attendants and pilots.
This ideal legislative language was approved in an amendment to the
Homeland Security Bill by an overwhelming, bi-partisan vote in the
Senate of 87-6 on September 5th, 2002.
In our opinion, the final language that emerged from the conference
committee working out the differences between the House and Senate
versions of the legislation eventually took a step back from the
original Senate language in that it did not mandate a specific number
of hours for training. It did however call on the TSA to issue a rule
mandating a set number of hours for extensively detailed flight
attendant security training that would be implemented by all carriers
and mandatory for all flight attendants.
I must admit that this was not our ideal language, for we have
learned that if Congress is not specific in spelling out details, the
FAA and now the TSA have been susceptible to pressure from the airline
industry in weakening meaningful and comprehensive requirements.
However, we began to cooperate with TSA under the framework of the
legislation and with those tasked by TSA to develop this rule in order
to guarantee that the training requirements and the final rule issued
by the TSA would be as effective and comprehensive as possible. We were
also pleased to read on November 19th, a letter from TSA Under
Secretary Admiral James Loy in response to an October 10th letter from
Representative Peter DeFazio asking him about the position of having 28
hours of training, which stated ``We (TSA) generally agree that, as an
additional ring of security, flight attendants, well trained in first
line defense techniques, will enhance the overall security of the
aircraft while in flight. Additionally, we believe that the proposed 28
hours of security training time is reasonable to ensure basic skills
are learned and adequately maintained over time.''
We were optimistic that the TSA working groups designed to develop
the security training would do the right thing. However, we
underestimated the opposition by our employers, the nation's air
carriers to implementing comprehensive security training. They made
repeated back door legislative efforts to gut the requirements in the
Homeland Security Act that would have required them to abide by any
industry wide training standards. It appears to have been their goal,
through these repeated legislative efforts, to make security training
for flight attendants voluntary, make the flight attendants pay for the
training themselves and prevent any industry wide standards for such
security training.
As Congress began work on the FAA Reauthorization legislation, the
air carriers continued their efforts to eliminate meaningful flight
attendant security training. Finally, AFA and other flight attendant
labor unions met with airline representatives to see if it was possible
to reach some common ground on flight attendant security training
requirements. In the end, the language included in the final House
version of the FAA Reauthorization split flight attendant security
training into two parts. A basic, mandatory level of security training
that included a number of provisions such as crew communication and
coordination, psychology of a terrorist and basic moves to defend
oneself. The second tier of training was a more comprehensive,
voluntary level of training which would include more aggressive methods
of self-defense and be more physical. We believed that the intention of
this second tier would be the flight attendant equivalent of the
voluntary FFDO program. Yet I will remind the Committee that it is not
voluntary that we are on the other side of the locked flight deck door.
This language was not ideal for AFA, but it did at least create a
basic, mandatory level of security training with the requirement that
TSA must develop regulations and guidelines for that training. We felt
strongly that this basic, mandatory level would be industry wide, and
that TSA would issue those guidelines and regulations. All interested
parties had agreed that the TSA ``shall'' issue those regulations, and
the original legislative language reflected that intention.
It was reported to AFA, and subsequently confirmed by numerous
sources, that at this point Continental Airlines, through last minute,
back-room legislative machinations was successful in changing the
language regarding basic, mandatory flight attendant security training
from ``TSA shall issue guidelines'' to ``TSA may issue guidelines.'' By
changing this one word, the ability to force TSA to issue these
industry-wide guidelines was removed. By changing the mandate, TSA,
which has proven to be under the pressure of the carriers, would now
not be required or mandated to issue those regulations for the crucial,
mandatory flight attendant security training.
Since passage of the FAA Reauthorization, it has become clear to
AFA and other interested parties, that the TSA has stopped working on
developing those guidelines for basic, mandatory flight attendant
security training. In fact, some of the individuals that were tasked at
TSA with developing the program as called for under the Homeland
Security Act have had their positions eliminated and work on developing
these regulations and guidelines has been shelved. Without a mandate
from Congress directing that TSA shall issue those guidelines, it is my
belief that TSA will continue to remain under the pressure of the
airlines to not issue those guidelines.
At this time the security training programs at each airline have
only become worse. The programs have been simply watered down more and
more over time as it becomes a race to the bottom to see which airlines
can get away with the cheapest and easiest program. Flight attendants
and the safety and security of the flying public are the ones suffering
the most from this race to the bottom.
I continue to be baffled by the obstinate opposition by some air
carriers to comprehensive, mandatory flight attendant security training
programs. We also have never received a clear answer from them on why
they have fought every attempt to make our aviation system the most
secure in the world. The only arguments we have heard are that it is
too costly for them to train their flight attendants and that security
training goes against their corporate culture. Let me say that I and my
members would be the first to wish that our world hadn't changed so
dramatically on September 11th. But unfortunately that is the reality
of the situation today and like it or not, corporate culture must also
change. Like it or not, flight attendants are the eyes, ears and first
line defenders in the cabin of the aircraft. We did not wish for this
position, it's the reality of our world today. To continue to ignore
and fight that reality only puts many more lives in jeopardy.
It also has been said that flight attendants do not need extensive
security training as the passengers will come to their aid. While that
may seem to be the case, it may not always prove to be reality. It is a
false hope that we cannot rely on. Recently, a flight attendant for a
major airline was attacked by an abusive passenger. The passenger
lunged at the flight attendant. He was attempting to grab her. Not one
passenger came to her assistance. It was only because of the fact that
she had taken basic self-defense classes in college, and remembered
that training, was she able to break free from the attacking passenger.
The other argument we have heard against this is cost. However, if
through this training only one life is saved, there is no price that
can be put on it that is not worth paying. We have also attempted to
work with the carriers in order to try and find a way that the federal
government may step in to assist in paying for this added cost
associated with protecting our countries aircraft. We have been
rebuffed every time.
Where does that leave flight attendants today in their ability to
respond to another terrorist attack onboard aircraft? Well, as I
pointed out earlier, we are no better prepared than we were on
September 11th. Security training at the airlines, where it even
exists, is meaningless. Why do I say, ``where it even exists''? Because
I can report from one of our members at one major airline who recently
completed his recurrent training, which should have included a review
of his initial security training, that no time was spent on security
training. The carrier did spend over an hour however on a program
entitled ``corporate ethics'' where the flight attendants were trained
on important topics like how taking an opened, half bottle of water,
was considered theft of company property. When the flight attendant
asked the company why there was no time devoted to the important topic
of security training, he was told that ``there wasn't enough time''.
We've received reports from another major carrier, that they have
included security training in their recurrent training. However, for
all intents and purposes, their security training has been given only
as an afterthought. This carrier showed a six-minute video followed by
a few minutes of questions and discussion. Another major carrier
devotes approximately one hour, which includes watching a fifteen
minute video. The class does however spend an hour devoted to a course
entitled ``Equal Treatment of Customers.''
It appears that the carriers are getting around the requirements
for security training by including important security procedures in
home study packets. Flight attendants are given the information in
booklets, which they are supposed to read on their own time at home. As
we've learned from the examples I have outlined, there is clearly no
further discussion of the security principles. We remain concerned that
important security training procedures could potentially be circulated
to the general public and any potential hijackers in training via these
home study packets.
What recourse do we have to address these problems? Unfortunately,
we do not have many tools available to correct these deficiencies in
training. However, section 603 (6) of the Vision 100--Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act as passed last year provides that TSA
shall monitor air carrier training programs. It states: ``In
determining when an air carrier's training program should be reviewed .
. . the Under Secretary shall consider complaints from crew members.''
AFA has received thousands of letters from our members directed to TSA
urging the agency to conduct an audit of their carrier's training
programs due to the fact that they feel the programs are insufficient.
I urge the Members of this Committee to take the actions necessary to
make sure that the TSA lives up to the requirements of this section and
conducts thorough and meaningful audits of the carrier training
programs to ensure that they are meeting the requirements outlined in
the law.
Recently, the TSA stated in a letter to the Chairman of this
committee that they have been making progress on developing the
guidelines for the advanced, voluntary security training outlined in
the Vision 100 Act. Is it logical that TSA would develop an advanced
security training program, when they have yet to develop even the
basic, mandatory level of training called for in the Act?
It is clear that the airlines will continue to provide inadequate
and weak training programs until the TSA does its job and issues
regulations that require a standardized, industry-wide, meaningful
security -training program. These regulations should guarantee that
airline training programs incorporate topics such as, but not limited
to, psychology of a terrorist, verbal commands, items readily available
onboard to assist in self-defense, physical means to defend oneself and
more importantly crew communication and coordination. This last part is
vitally important if all three parts of the onboard aviation security
team; the pilots, air marshals, if present, and flight attendants all
know how the other groups have been trained to react. Our members need
to know how to slow down the hijackers long enough for those with
deadly weapons to stop the terrorist or for a pilot to land the
aircraft.
I, and my members need your help. We refuse to shirk our
responsibility to the flying public but we have been trying for almost
three years to get our employers to give us what we need. It is evident
that is not going to happen without your diligent oversight of TSA and
directing them to stop the delays. It may be necessary for this
Congress to once again pass legislation that makes the federal
government do what it should have done immediately after September
11th.
It is only with your insistence that we will get the tools we need
and want to fulfill our job to protect our passengers. Please help us
in our quest for a minimum, clear, consistent, industry-wide
standardized security training developed by TSA--one that will truly
close the ``aviation security gap.''
In closing, I would like to leave you with one thought: The only
people who were successful in saving lives on September 11 were those
flight attendants who actually abandoned their training. With the help
of their passengers they prevented Flight 93 from being used as a
missile. Despite their training to acquiesce, they fought back. Yes,
they still lost their lives, but they lost them saving the lives of
countless others--most likely the lives of those of you sitting here in
this Committee room. Do not allow the lesson they taught us be in vain.
Mandate appropriate, industry-wide security training for flight
attendants.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. Friend, thank you. I think I will start
with you, just because you had quite a, I think, emotionally
strong argument here, because so many did die and were helpless
in the process.
As I understand, what you want is Congress to mandate and,
I guess, to obviously fund support for the training of the
flight attendants?
Ms. Friend. The short answer to both those questions is
yes. The FAA reauthorization bill breaks the security training
down into two parts, basic training and then a more advanced
training. Unfortunately, the language in the legislation was
changed at the last moment to say that the TSA may develop
guidelines for these trainings. It was changed from ``shall
develop'' to ``may develop.'' Of course, the moment that
happened, the TSA put any work they were doing on that basic
training on the shelf.
Mr. Stearns. Put it on the back burner.
Ms. Friend. Yes. So we would absolutely like for the
Congress to tell the TSA that they must develop these
guidelines, so that we have consistent training. We believe
that the cost of providing aviation security is a shared cost.
It is a shared cost by the people who use the transportation
system. It is shared by the people who provide the
transportation system, but we believe it is also a shared
responsibility of our government to provide safe and secure
transportation.
Mr. Stearns. Is the European Community or the countries in
the Pacific Rim--do they provide a training for their flight
attendants?
Ms. Friend. They all provide different levels of training.
Mr. Stearns. I mean more than we do in the United States,
or not?
Ms. Friend. In some instances, yes, I would say. I couldn't
make a blanket statement.
Mr. Stearns. Could we say that the European Union is a
paradigm, a pattern for us to follow?
Ms. Friend. No, I would not. We are trying to set the
standard.
Mr. Stearns. Set the standard. Okay. I would say to Mr.
Allred, after listening to the fellow from Homeland Security,
he mentioned Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Houston, Boston, and
Washington, D.C. I am going to write him a letter and ask him
to consider Jacksonville, particularly in light of the
Superbowl.
So I will ask for your input to see if we can get a
demonstration project for sort of a trusted traveler, so that,
if nothing else, to try and make him aware how important it is
to expedite travel into Jacksonville because our airport is not
a large airport, but we are going to have a lot of demand. So
probably he should be more aware of that. So I intend to write
that letter.
Mr. Brown, I guess, a question perhaps not so much on the
subject, but a number of your 43 million people that
participate, it doesn't appear that the high price of gasoline
is affecting the traveling at all. Is that correct? Do I hear
you say that?
Mr. Brown. Well, you know, that is a tough question to
answer, only because it affects lower income people and people
on fixed incomes much harder than it does people perhaps taking
a vacation. An 800 mile trip with 20 miles to the gallon--at
the current gas prices, it costs about $20 more this year.
I think, if oil prices went up to $50 a barrel with gas
prices in the ballpark of $3.00, we will see some very----
Mr. Stearns. A 20 percent increase?
Mr. Brown. Yes, very big changes in behavior at that point.
Mr. Stearns. So that would affect it then?
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Pearson, you are actually saying, contrary
to what I hear maybe from Mr. Allred or others, that the
international traveler coming into the United States is down.
It has not reached pre-9-11 levels?
Mr. Pearson. International travel specifically is down. It
is still down from even last year. The surplus that Ranking
Member Schakowsky mentioned, about $4 billion surplus, actually
was at a peak at $26 billion in 1996. So significantly, over
the last 8 years, and post-9-11 we have seen that decline.
It was out of a Department of Commerce study that
highlighted that specifically about that, but it is declined.
So the testimony is around ensuring we don't further--We
encourage that growth, encourage that international travel
coming inside the country by having programs in place that
encourage that.
I think the key point about the harmonization, chairman, is
there are lots of programs out there that are all for the right
purposes. It is finding a way to effectively create an umbrella
communication and marketing program which clearly articulates
the benefits and the policies and procedures for travelers
coming abroad. I think that is a big challenge of all these
programs and policies being implemented.
Mr. Stearns. But, Mr. Allred, you are saying that the
travel and tourist activity in Jacksonville area is recovered
to pre-9-11, in your opinion?
Mr. Allred. My statement was that we anticipate that it
will by the fourth quarter of this year.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. Mr. Pearson, you are an international
organization. So you have lots of hotels in Europe. How has the
business in Europe--has that been affected by 9-11?
Mr. Pearson. Oh, absolutely. I mean----
Mr. Stearns. So if I go to Belgium or to Paris or to London
or to Germany, I am going to find those hotels are not at the
pre-9-11 occupancy, too?
Mr. Pearson. That is correct. I mean, it was definitely a
world impacting travel impact.
Mr. Stearns. Do you think it is because of the hassle of
the airports more than anything or is it just fear?
Mr. Pearson. I think the broader issue is the fear. I think
the broader issue is the economic recovery globally, but I do
think that it is a global issue. It is not just a U.S. issue in
terms of supporting these travelers.
Mr. Stearns. You know, when you look at the passenger
screening procedures, the cargo screening, flight marshals on
some of them, and Ms. Friend mentioned they are not on all of
them but they are on some of them, obviously the reinforced
cabins--I mean, it seems like with all that, and if all the
passengers knew it, they would not be concerned anymore about
the takeover of a plane.
It just seems to me then, it comes down to, when I go down
to Orlando or I go to Jacksonville--not so much Jacksonville,
but Orlando, sometimes you have to wait a very long time just
to get through the screening process. I would think, if I was
trying to make a decision on traveling, if I could go by car, I
might consider it.
Mr. Pearson. Interesting point, Mr. Chairman. There is some
research by D.K. Shifflet as well about people's tolerance for
driving versus flying, and pre-9-11, if it was less than 4
hours, business travelers or travelers abroad would say, you
know, it is only 4 hours, I will just jump in the car and go.
Now post-9-11, it is moved to 6 hours, because inherently it
included some time associated with airport delays and so forth.
So another point is there is some other research about--
There is, I wouldn't say increased hassle, but still a concern
about hassle for traveling.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Lounsberry, I think all of us were a
little curious and not aware of how much your business is
impacted by these children that come over from other countries
or, I guess, what you are saying is this sort of border patrol
cutback has hurt your school trips.
Mr. Lounsberry. Right, particularly in southern California.
Mr. Stearns. Coming in through San Diego?
Mr. Lounsberry. Through San Diego and our Universal Studios
Hollywood, yes. And I would assume that you could go across the
southeast border, and you would have similar situations in
Texas, that kind of thing, coming across for field trips, but
southern California, particularly.
Mr. Stearns. Well, that was a new point, I think. I was
talking to my committee staff on this. How would you like us in
Congress to help? Just by increasing border control?
Mr. Lounsberry. Well, I think it is taking a lot, and I
think, as we have heard today, a lot of pilot projects now as
kind of the base security seems to be moving along, and going
into place. Now is the time to take a look at some of these
situations that are huge economic issues for certain areas, but
probably not enough in what's been having to be done in the
last 3 years to make the list, move into the top 5 or 10 list
of projects, to take a look at now some of these regulations
that have just kind of left situations like this in the dust,
to come back and look. What can be done? How can it be
accommodated, all within the context of maintaining security?
We know it is not a factor that impacts the entire country,
but it is certainly important to certain economic regions, and
we would hope that we can now look at some of these particular
situations and, given the technology and the new processes that
have been laid out and going into place, is there a way to fit
them into this somehow while still maintaining everything we
have to do.
Certainly, the border situation in the southwest presents a
whole other set of circumstances, but we think we need to start
coming back to some of these ``one of,'' so to speak. But I am
sure there are others, not just in the southwest but elsewhere,
that should be addressed, because they are important.
Mr. Stearns. True from Canada, too.
Mr. Lounsberry. Canada. I would assume the norther border
is the same situation. So perhaps looking at some--This is a
pilot project, so to speak, to see if certain economic areas
that are impacted by these kind of programs can be addressed
and fit into one of these programs to bring this business back
to the U.S. and our southern neighbor, something that has been
very important and has been lost in this process.
Mr. Stearns. My time has expired. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Ms. Friend, you heard the
testimony in response to my questions in the first panel from
Department of Homeland Security. I wondered what your reaction
was, and if you were aware that there was even under
consideration a plan that would actually charge flight
attendants for training, clearly indicating its optional
nature, but also putting up barriers, I would think, to people
accepting that kind of training. Tell me your reaction.
Ms. Friend. The previous witness was referring to the
advanced portion which, according to the FAA reauthorization of
2003, is intended to be voluntary. But it is intended to--It
was intended to build on a mandatory basic training module that
deals with all kinds of issues like the psychology of a
terrorist and crew coordination and very basic self-defense.
Then there was a secondary piece that went on that would
offer on a voluntary basis perhaps at the individual's expense
more extensive personal defense training. That is what he was
referring to, that they are working on guidelines for the
advanced portion which they will then, for some mechanism, and
there has been some discussions about how they would do that,
they would offer and make available in locations across the
country. But it is pointless, because it doesn't build on
anything, because there hasn't been the basic training.
I would expect that it would be a miserable failure, and
they would not have anyone sign up for the advanced training.
Simplistically, it is sort of like signing up for a third year
language course when you haven't had the first and the second
year.
Ms. Schakowsky. So what is needed to get the basic training
done? Does Congress need to act? Does the administration have
the authority right now, and have you done estimates of what
the cost would be to properly train flight attendants?
Let me just say this about the so called advanced training.
I mean, I think everyone knows that there are not the marshals
on every single flight, and we know that the cockpit doors are
now sealed. I am just wondering.
It would seem to me that the kind of so called advanced
training that you are talking about, that at least someone on
every flight, I would think, ought to have that. Otherwise, it
seems that in a crunch we would be relying on passengers. We
may anyway be relying on passengers. I don't think that is a
horrible thing. I think passengers have a new psychology, too,
about how to respond.
This basic training--are there cost estimates? Go ahead.
Ms. Friend. Well, let me just comment on a couple of
things. Yes, the cockpit door is secured--is reinforced. But
that is only secure as long as it is closed, and it is opened
periodically throughout the flight and those of you that fly
often have seen the flight attendant standing practically in
front of the cockpit door or basically the front of the cabin
when it is opened.
Again, I am not quite sure what the reaction is supposed to
be when someone comes charging down the aisle when that door is
open.
Ms. Schakowsky. But let me stop you there. Who makes the
decision? Are there no rules about that door being closed, and
then is it a pilot that decides that?
Ms. Friend. It is the pilot that decides, and I believe
there--I know there are FARs that speak to the door is only
supposed to be opened in the case of physical necessity, which
means handing in food or when the pilot comes out for physical
reasons. It is supposed to remain closed at all other times,
and it does.
There is a greater consciousness and a greater awareness,
but to your basic question about cost: The cost is in time, is
in lost time, if you will, the time that the individual flight
attendant would not be in service or working while they were
getting the training.
That again is going to depend on, of course, what is the
person's rate of pay. But it is a cost of doing business, of
providing a secure environment. I mean, we are selling safe
travel, and we have not closed the loop to provide all of the
reassurance that we need to.
As far as what needs to be done, the language says that the
TSA may develop these training guidelines, including all of
these various components. They have the authority to do so, but
they don't have a mandate to do so, and they are responding to
pressure from the industry, and they have chosen not to do so.
Part of the reauthorization language said that one of the
other responsibilities and authority of TSA is that they should
audit the training programs that are being offered, at the
request--and they would act on the request of a flight
attendant who said I don't think I am getting adequate security
training; would you look at my company's training.
We know that they have received hundreds of requests for an
audit, which they have not acted on at this point. So urging
them to, at the very least----
Ms. Schakowsky. Have there been any audits done?
Ms. Friend. There have been no audits done. There have been
no audits. It is an issue that I intend to take up. I have
finally obtained a meeting with Admiral Stone for next month
where I intend to take that up with him, whether or not he
intends to act on the requested audits, as he is required to in
the FAA reauthorization.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I would like to have my office, I
personally, to work with you on that, to try and get those
audits completed.
My time is up, but I really want to thank each and every
one of the panelists for your very thoughtful testimony. We do
need to--It is a fine balance that we are trying to achieve,
and I appreciate all the really thoughtful input that you had
to our committee. So I thank you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentle lady. Before we go, I had a
few more questions.
Mr. Allred, what is Jacksonville doing in terms of security
for the Superbowl. I guess the question would be how are you
interacting with Federal, State authorities to prepare for such
a large event, and is there anything we in Congress could do to
help cities like yourself, either with Homeland Security or
with the State government?
Mr. Allred. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. I
can tell you that the city as a whole, and in particular the
Superbowl host committee, has been very diligent over the last
20 months in planning and preparing for the Superbowl,
including sending delegates from our fire protection agency and
our sheriff's office to Houston last year to study the issues
involved with security.
We have some unique characteristics to our Superbowl
hosting opportunity this year in that, because we have the
beautiful St. Johns River that flows right through the heart of
Jacksonville, and because we needed additional room capacity,
we have engaged cruise ships as a part of our accommodation
plan for the Superbowl.
There will be three large cruise ships in Jacksonville
during the time of the Superbowl. As has already been pointed
out here this morning, that introduces some additional unique
security requirements.
We are currently short some $7.5 million in necessary
funding to address the issues related to strictly security with
the Superbowl, and that pertains to primarily the additional
labor element that is required. There is some equipment
required, but it is primarily a labor element that is required
for the additional time to provide the security, both landside
and seaside, for the Superbowl this year.
That is why I made the comment as a part of my remarks,
that because this is a national event and because the security
issues are driven by national concerns, we would ask the
Congress to consider an appropriation to address at least a
portion, if not all, of the cost of these security issues.
Mr. Stearns. Do you deal with--what was it, New Orleans
last year? The Superbowl?
Mr. Allred. It was Houston last year.
Mr. Stearns. Houston. Do you coordinate with them and say,
you know, what did you do, and try to replicate everything they
did?
Mr. Allred. Absolutely. We started with Tampa a few years
ago, San Diego, and then Houston. So our learning curve has
been strong now for a number of years, and we certainly expect
to leverage off of what others have done, what they have
learned, as well as to ratchet up a notch or two based on the
downside of some of their experiences.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Lounsberry, you heard Mr. Pearson say
their international travel is down. Has Universal's share of
international visitors increased or decreased?
Mr. Lounsberry. We have had an amazing recovery in the past
couple of years. We are still not--2000 was a record year.
Mr. Stearns. So you are not to that level?
Mr. Lounsberry. So we are getting close. You know, we have
still got the real key summer and fall periods where we are
anticipating we are going to get pretty close to the pre-9-11.
2000 was a record year, and we are not going to probably get to
that level.
One thing I would like to add to that is, you know, the
U.S. share of international travel has been dropping for the
last 10 years, and it really goes back----
Mr. Stearns. Forgetting 9-11?
Mr. Lounsberry. Yes. Set that aside. That just compounded
the issue. So we remain uncompetitive in the world as far as
market----
Mr. Stearns. Even with the drop in the dollar?
Mr. Lounsberry. It has helped, but still we are losing
share. We continue to use share, and to regain the share will
take a Herculean effort. A lot of these security issues--In
fact, the biometric deadline that, hopefully, now will pass the
Senate and we will get that under control----
You know, those kind of issues--The absence of a marketing
effort on behalf of the United States leaves us without a real
mechanism to communicate the positive messages.
What is played in the tabloids in the U.K. is, you know,
you are going to have to wait 5 hours to get into the United
States, and that is why this timing is so critical, so that all
the U.K. business to the U.S. coming in the fall, really
August-September, doesn't get stymied as we approach that
period.
So it is really back to, I believe, an issue--I have sat
before your subcommittee in the past--about really the U.S.
marketing effort internationally, and the fact that we are
rebounding now, we should not lose the fact that we are still
behind the curve, and with the added security awareness that
the world has of the United States, it even gives us more the
reason to get a positive message about not only the American
way of life but what the real story is on coming to the U.S.,
because U.S. visit is not onerous.
I have had a number of demonstrations, but I am sure there
is going to be a fear factor out there starting October 27,
visitors coming from the U.K., that they are going to be
waiting in line to get into the United States. It is really the
ability to balance that message.
So we desperately need a way to get a positive marketing
message out.
Mr. Stearns. And I think you or Mr. Pearson mentioned the
idea of having some kind of advertising program, much like we
do for McDonald's or other corporate--IBM. We have the
government subsidized program for advertising, and I think what
you are suggesting is something along that line to help. It
might be difficult.
We have deficits. But you know, Americans should realize
that we are getting a trade surplus off this, and when we see
all the trade deficits in the news--I mean your industry plus
medical devices plus intellectual property rights and motion
pictures, we have trade surpluses. In the areas where we can
compete, we should continue to expand and not just bemoan the
areas that we have trade deficits but accentuate the positive.
So your industry is the area that we can do it, and we have
so much to show. I spent the weekend in Idaho, in northern
Idaho, and I was just so surprised to see how beautiful it is.
It is about a half-hour east of Spokane and all the lakes up
there, and it was just unbelievably beautiful, and there is so
much that you almost would say to Europeans or to the Pacific
Rim, you know, the United States is not just one area. There's
just tons of beautiful areas to see.
Is there anything that you heard from the Assistant
Secretary of Border and Transportation Security on policy and
planning, anything that you heard him say that you would like
to comment on? I thought he was very articulate and seemed
willing to answer any questions.
If you have any questions you would like me to ask on your
behalf, I would be glad to submit them. We are trying to,
obviously, expedite the time delays at the airport,
particularly this registered traveler pilot program that he is
doing, and see if we can get that more implemented, and also
point out to him the need to accentuate the positive in this
Homeland Security, but tourism and trade, like that, is a
surplus that we would like to accentuate. But is there anything
you would like to say about his testimony? Yes, Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chair, I just have one comment. I think that
what was lost a little bit in his presentation was that, yes,
we are doing a lot of the right things, but we are not asking
the people that use the products and services, you know, what
are the shortfalls.
I came back from Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam last week to
Newark, and the security clearance was duplicated probably by
U.S. security people, I imagine, at the gate in Schiphol. But
you know, as you go through the plane and ask people, they
said, we would do it again.
I think that the tragedy is that there were flaws in that
whole security process, and there are in this country, and
there's inconsistencies. There are some things that work well
in some areas, and others----
Mr. Stearns. So we should do a customer comment?
Mr. Brown. Well, yes, and we don't need to spend a lot of
money doing it, a lot of government money. We need to put--In
my view, we need to put our security--The perception of our
travelers is that we need to protect the perimeters.
Ms. Friend makes some good points about airlines should
train flight attendants, but it is absolutely required that we
protect the perimeters and that we actually ask the customers
what they see. They help us with this. That would be the only
thing I would add to his presentation.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you. Well, I am ready to close the
subcommittee. I thank all of you for coming and giving your
opening statements and answering the questions. I think it has
been very helpful.
There will be a written report on this. We have a
stenographer. So if there's anything you want to add, by
unanimous consent, we can add later. So again, we will
continue. We might have another hearing on this matter, and we
will also look into some of the things, Ms. Friend, that you
brought up, and I think I will talk to the ranking member,
because she seemed very interested in following up on your
comments, particularly making that word from ``may'' to
``shall'' and see what we can do, because we are most
appreciative for the flight attendants.
I see them all day long, and their work is constant, and I
don't think they are appreciated as much as they should be, and
to think that they are sort of the unsung heroes in this whole
thing and were pretty much just left to defend themselves
without any training, I think, is unfortunate. I think your
statement is eloquent and important, and it is good that we
have it for the record.
With that, the subcommittee will adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas B. Baker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Service Industries, Tourism and Finance
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, I would like to thank
you for your leadership and the leadership of Chairman Barton. I also
thank you for asking me to testify before you today on a very important
topic. Your hearing ``Travel, Tourism, and Homeland Security: Improving
Both Without Sacrificing Either,'' was called just a few weeks after
the Department of Commerce hosted its own conference.
On June 10, the Department hosted a conference entitled
``International Travel to the U.S.: Dialogue on the Current State of
Play.'' We had hundreds of private sector attendees; three panels
addressed the issues surrounding temporary entry to the United States
and took questions from attendees. Several U.S. Government officials
addressed the audience, including Under Secretary of Commerce for
International Trade Grant Aldonas, Assistant Secretary of State for
Educational and Cultural Affairs Patricia S. Harrison, Staff Director
for the House Committee on the Judiciary Steve Pinkos, and Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security
Stewart Verdery.
We organized this conference because we saw that many industries
were struggling to understand new security measures and were also
impacted by a perception that they will be unable to get foreign
visitors into the United States for temporary visits. We taped the
proceedings. Presentations, transcripts, and supporting documents from
the conference will be compiled on CD/ROMS for use by the Commercial
Service and made available to the public, and we will submit copies to
this subcommittee. Additionally, over the next month, we will review
the findings and issues from the conference and will post a report on
our website.
SECURITY NEEDS
The need for border security is a huge geographic challenge to our
country. We share a 5200 mile border with Canada and a 1900 mile border
with Mexico. We have more than 300 international land-based ports of
entry. We also have a maritime system that includes 95,000 miles of
coastline and navigable waterways that connect us to a global
transportation network B with over 300 seaports, 429 commercial
airports, and several hundred thousand miles of highways and railroads.
The security enhancements have the potential for affecting the movement
of goods and services.
Last year, more than 40 million international travelers visited the
Unites States. They generated over $80 billion in revenue for this
country through their expenditures. International travel represents the
U.S.'s top services sector export and has produced a travel trade
surplus since 1989. However, this trade surplus has decreased from a
high of $26 billion in 1996 to $4 billion in 2003.
Overall, based on Department of Commerce data, travel and tourism
represented $741 billion in direct and indirect sales, the
international portion totaling over 80 billion in 2003.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, brought the economic
contribution of this industry and border security into sharp focus. Our
goals since then have been to ensure the security of U.S. citizens and
international visitors and to facilitate legitimate travel and trade B
all while safeguarding the privacy of visitors to the United States and
of U.S. citizens and residents.
Everyone agrees that border security is key to this effort to save
lives, protect property, and utilize limited government resources
wisely. We have made great strides in developing the technologies and
processes to enable this security, to identify those who would do harm
by employing the best technologies to ensure we are secure, yet still
able to enter and leave the country easily and safely.
The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
program, US VISIT, and the development and implementation of biometric
technologies for visas and passports have all become key steps in
heightening our security.
These security measures have made our nation safer, but that is
only part of the equation. We must also work to facilitate legitimate
travel. Facilitating legitimate travel to our country is an important
goal. Foreign travel to the United States provides significant benefits
to the culture and economy of our nation and promotes freedom and
democracy across the globe. The Department of Commerce continues to
work to make the United States a welcoming nation.
COMMERCE ROLE IN ENSURING ECONOMIC SECURITY WITH BORDER SECURITY
The Department of Commerce served on the Data Management
Improvement Task Force formed prior to 9/11, which was predicated upon
industry and government coordination and made recommendations for the
improvement of entry and exit systems for this country.
Since 9/11, the Department of Commerce has been proactive and
engaged in industry outreach. Secretary Donald L. Evans convened a
meeting of the leaders of the travel and tourism industry sectors
within a week of the attacks. Since that time, he has engaged in
roundtable discussions across the country with a variety of service and
manufacturing sectors and brought the concerns and issues home to
interagency efforts.
The Department of Commerce chairs the Tourism Policy Council (TPC),
an interagency group composed of 15 government offices and agencies
dedicated to coordinating policy considerations affecting travel and
tourism. This Council, and its Working Group, has served as a platform
for mutual deliberations, industry input and the dispersing of
information concerning efforts for visa and entry/exit policy changes.
TPC News Alerts have been issued to Commercial Service officers in
American embassies to communicate changes and rulings related to
traveler requirements and documentation to the local population for
visiting the United States.
The Department of Commerce's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service
works to ensure clear communication from the business community and
travel and tourism industry on visa and entry and exit policies and
implementation.
The Department of Commerce works with the Homeland Security Council
to ensure that commerce and economic security concerns are duly
considered during policy deliberations. In this capacity, the
Department of Commerce also serves on the Welcome to the USA
International Travel Perceptions Interagency Working Group to
effectively develop a unified, interagency, strategic communications
plan that addresses and attracts international visitors to the U.S. for
education, business, and other commercial or leisure purposes. The goal
includes: identifying real concerns among potential travelers,
providing them current facts and figures, educating them about the
entry and exit processes and above all, assuring these travelers that
they are indeed wanted and welcomed in the United States.
One of the most important accomplishments of the interagency
process was the G-8's accepting and subsequently adopting a 28-point
action plan for enhancing and coordinating security measures that
facilitate travel. The Secure and Facilitated International Travel
Initiative was adopted by the G-8 at the recent meeting at Sea Island,
Georgia and it will ensure that improvements we make today will be
adopted by our trading partners tomorrow.
HOW TO SECURE OUR BORDERS, BUT KEEP OPEN DOORS
What we need to do is consider the best ways to ensure that we keep
out the dangerous few, while those with legitimate interests are
allowed to enter on reasonable terms. The failure to strike this
balance could result in a situation where the borders are physically
secure, but at a cost of closing off many critical contacts with the
rest of the world. Alternatively, no one wishes for our borders to so
open as to allow those who would do us harm into the country.
This broader conception of security, includes the critical matter
of America's global image, and maintaining its strong position as the
leader in key intellectual and commercial endeavors.
Our attracting the finest minds from around the world fuels the
dynamism of the United States and our economy. Indeed, America's
position in the arts, sciences, and the economy depends on contact with
foreign students and professors, patients and doctors, businessmen and
clients, and many innovative others.
If the best minds can no longer practice science in the United
States or study in the top universities, or people find it hard to
practice or receive the best medical treatment, over the longer term we
lose something important B our position as leaders in our respective
fields, as the standard for higher education, as pioneers in the
sciences and technology on which the next economic breakthroughs will
depend.
If people cannot visit America and be exposed to the best we have
to offer, they will go elsewhere, and America's influence will diminish
over time. The economic impact would also be profound.
In today's global economy, even those who do not engage in
international trade are subject to what happens in the international
markets. Our commercial strength lies in leading and adapting to the
great changes in business that have produced the global market place.
If business people cannot visit for training, to close deals, to
participate in new ventures enabled by trade liberalization, or visit
to take delivery of major purchases--this hurts the U.S. economy and
slows the international trends that have contributed to our economic
growth.
If our entry policies make it more difficult for suppliers to
operate, our private sector entities suffer. On the demand side, if our
policies prevent customers from reaching us, it's the same result.
STAKES FOR THE U.S. ECONOMY
Services exports exceed $270 billion each year, and our perennial
trade surplus in services was approximately $65 billion last year. Many
of those services depend on temporary contacts and visits from foreign
nationals; these visits contribute to human development, culture, and
mutual understanding. If this inbound channel of contacts becomes too
difficult, we may lose out to services firms located abroad and find
ourselves facing something of a brain drain. If the top technical
people cannot come here, they will go elsewhere. And we'll be the worse
for it.
Consider education: International students attending universities
and training entities were largely responsible for $13.7 billion in
exports in 2003. A March 2004 Council of Graduate Schools survey
indicated that the total number of international applications to the
113 responding graduate schools dropped 32 percent for fall 2004 from
fall 2003, across all major countries of origin and for all major
fields. Survey respondents included 60 percent of the top 50
universities. These 113 schools enroll nearly half of all international
graduate students in the United States. Among other factors, potential
student visitors frequently point to new, more stringent visa standards
as an obstacle to studying in the U.S.
Losing foreign students means a lost opportunity to expose more
people to American democracy and culture, which can serve as soft
diplomacy for peaceful progress.
In medicine, American hospitals and clinics have long been the
chosen destination for foreign patients' needing advanced treatment and
surgery. Hospital revenue from such patients is typically double that
of foreigners' share of patient volume. So, if 5 percent of a
hospital's patients are foreign nationals, they typically account for
10 percent of that hospital's total revenue. This substantial revenue
stream often finances vital hospital or clinical functions, such as
care of inner-city patients and medical personnel training.
Travel and tourism industries contribute an average of 3.5 percent
to our GDP annually. International travel is the largest services
export category. In 2003, travel and tourism contributed approximately
$80 billion in exports, which resulted in a travel trade surplus of
approximately $4 billion.
Visa limitations impact a range of services industries, from
training corporate staff of U.S. firms operating abroad to hosting
visitors. Temporary entry rules affect how efficiently those activities
happen, and in turn affect services and manufacturing industries across
the national economy.
The tide is turning. In the first quarter of 2004, the U.S.
welcomed 8 million international visitors. This was an increase of 12
percent over the same period of 2003. Nineteen of the top 20 visitor
markets registered gains for the quarter. This follows the 3 percent
increase from fourth quarter 2003. We must continue to fine-tune our
entry/exit policies.
LINKAGE TO TRADE POLICY
Visa policies are directly linked to trade liberalization and our
belief that free trade is beneficial, spreading economic prosperity and
peaceful governance. Trade negotiations are inseparably linked to these
issues as well. Great progress has been made in liberalizing trade in
goods over the years. Today, we aim to increase trade in services, the
next great threshold for trade liberalization.
Services represent close to 75 percent of U.S. GDP, but only about
25 percent of U.S. international trade. Clearly there is room to grow
this sector, especially in light of the great competitiveness of U.S.
services providers. Much of the most interesting work in trade policy
today concerns the development of new trade disciplines that deal with
services, investment, and the associated intellectual property rights.
These disciplines are inherently more complex than those related to
manufactured goods, yet all are taking place against a backdrop of
falling telecommunications costs and the availability of computers and
advanced IT equipment and software worldwide.
All of these developments support openness in international travel
to match the new openness of international markets. If we develop a
border security regime that does not permit the necessary contacts and
visits to deal with trade in complex services, we lose something
valuable. As Under Secretary Aldonas stated at the Department of
Commerce conference on June 10th, security must be understood
comprehensively, so as to preserve our national interests, and
specifically, our objectives in trade and trade policy.
CONCLUSIONS
Our security needs today are greater than ever before, and they
must be developed in a comprehensive manner. It is not enough to simply
secure the borders B we need a comprehensive system that will provide
unrivaled border security with full provision to allow foreign visitors
to come to the United States for the many legitimate purposes they
have.
The economic stakes are great for many leading edge sectors of the
American economy, in both services and manufacturing.
We have all accepted a bit of inconvenience to ensure our safety.
That is an acceptable trade off. However, we must also work to ensure
that additional security precautions have a minimal effect on trade and
economic growth.
Perhaps even more important over the long term, our position at the
leading edge of science, technology, education, and the global economy
as a whole, could be at risk if we close our doors to the many
legitimate visitors who are exposed to some of the finest
characteristics of American life and values. This is why we work hard
to ensure legitimate travelers are welcomed to the United States.
My office at the Department of Commerce will continue to work
collaboratively with our colleagues at the Homeland Security Council
and the Departments of Homeland Security, State, Justice, and
Transportation. We will continue to be vigilant and ensure that we keep
our nation safe while welcoming visitors to our country who are such an
asset to our nation and our economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the Travel Business Roundtable
INTRODUCTION
The Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) would like to thank Chairman
Stearns and Ranking Member Schakowsky for holding this important
hearing on the ways in which homeland security regulations are
affecting the travel and tourism industry, the nation's economy as a
whole and the image of the U.S. abroad.
TBR is the pre-eminent umbrella organization for the travel and
tourism industry. A CEO-based organization, TBR represents the
industry's broad diversity, with more than 85 member corporations,
associations and labor groups. The travel and tourism industry is a
consistent engine for economic development and job creation, employing
some 17 million Americans with an annual payroll of $157 billion.
Travel and tourism is the first, second or third largest industry in 29
states and the District of Columbia. In the last decade, travel and
tourism has emerged as America's largest services sector export and the
third largest retail sales industry. The industry is in 50 states, 435
Congressional districts and every city in the United States.
No other industry is more affected by the implementation of
stringent security measures than travel and tourism, and no other
industry has more to lose should another terrorist attack occur on
American soil. That being said, TBR vigorously supports the efforts of
Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and
the Bush Administration to establish and implement laws and regulations
that will protect our borders, our citizens and our visitors. However,
it is vital that the government entities that are implementing these
programs consider their collective impact on the traveling public.
Being ever mindful of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's
admonition about the need to create the proper balance between
protecting our homeland and promoting free and open commerce, TBR's
goal is to ensure that the paramount objective of protecting our
nation's security is pursued in a manner that is effective, coherent
and does not unnecessarily compromise our nation's economic vitality.
IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL
International travel is one of the largest exports for the U.S.,
ranking ahead of agricultural goods and motor vehicles, and it is the
largest services sector export category. It continues to be an engine
for economic development, directly generating payroll revenues of more
than $23 billion and tax revenues of more than $13 billion in 2003.
International visitors spend more and stay four times longer than their
domestic counterparts. However, according to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, the number of international travelers to the U.S. dropped
from 41.9 million in 2002 to 40.4 million in 2003. This is a sharp
decline from 2000, when a record 50.9 million international visitors
traveled to the U.S. At the same time, our travel trade surplus, which
peaked at $26.3 billion in 1996, has plummeted to $4 billion in 2003.
With every 1 percent drop in international arrivals to the U.S.,
172,000 jobs are lost and $1.2 billion in tax revenue is left
unrealized. These numbers simply cannot be permitted to continue to
decline.
TBR commends the efforts of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge,
Special Assistant for the Private Sector Alfonso Martinez-Fonts and
others at the Department of Homeland Security for their cooperative
efforts with our industry to achieve a balance between our national
security and the free flow of commerce. They have taken on the
difficult task of protecting our nation while simultaneously serving as
passionate proponents for vibrant domestic and international travel
growth, among both business and leisure travelers.
Among the many concerns TBR has with respect to balancing security
and travel, an immediate one is the impending biometrics deadline for
Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries. Currently, the 27 nations in the
program--many of whom are our closest allies--are uncertain if they
will soon be required to obtain visas to travel to the U.S. On June 14,
legislation that would delay the deadline until 2005 was passed on the
House floor. TBR supports this effort as a good first step but believes
that time is running out. While the U.S. government debates whether a
one- or two-year extension is more appropriate, our international
competitors are using this uncertainty to challenge our portion of the
international market share. Likewise, these countries are spending
millions of dollars to attract those same travelers that might
otherwise come to the U.S. For instance, the Australian government just
announced a new global marketing campaign to increase travel to and
within Australia, committing more than $600 million (AUS) over the next
four years to tourism promotion. If it hopes to retain--let alone
grow--market share, the U.S. will have to put forth a greater effort
and make a financial investment to attract international travelers. The
messages of confusing and cumbersome entry requirements are having just
the opposite effect, and once patterns of travel have changed, it will
be extremely difficult and expensive to bring international visitors
back.
BIOMETRIC PASSPORTS
The rapidly approaching October 26, 2004 deadline requiring
travelers from VWP countries to present passports containing biometric
identifiers was established in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Entry Reform Act of 2002, and as a statutory requirement, can only be
modified by congressional action. While TBR strongly supports efforts
by Congress and the Administration to implement this program as an
additional means of strengthening security at our nation's borders, we
are concerned that doing so without the necessary technological
resources could compromise that security and cause harm to the travel
and tourism industry, our bilateral relationships and the nation's
image around the world.
VWP countries are among our closest allies and largest trading
partners, representing 68 percent of all overseas visitors to the U.S.
in 2002 and spending approximately $38 billion in our country. Without
a delay in the passport deadline, VWP travelers will be required to
apply for visas to travel to the U.S., thus increasing FY05 visa
applications to almost double the FY03 demand. As a consequence, and in
addition to a $100 visa fee, these visitors will most likely be
subjected to the additional scrutiny and hassle of the visa process,
which has already experienced heavy backlogs and turned away legitimate
travelers. The State Department has testified on numerous occasions
that it would not have the resources to process this additional
workload.
On January 28, 2004, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular
Affairs Maura Harty testified before the House Select Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security that VWP countries
were given only 17 months' notice to comply with the biometrics
requirement--a process that normally takes years for a nation to
research, develop and implement. Reports from the United Kingdom and
Japan, among many other affected countries, show that they will be
unable to technologically comply with this requirement until late 2005
at the earliest. Moreover, the few manufacturers that produce the
technology these countries need to fulfill the biometrics requirement
have indicated that they cannot meet the demand in such a short
timeframe, and given the time constraints, would be unable to vouch for
the security of the biometric information contained in the passports.
For these reasons, the travel and tourism industry feels a great sense
of urgency to delay the deadline. It is noteworthy that even the United
States, which is not required to comply with this requirement, will not
be prepared to issue biometric passports until 2005. This suggests that
we are asking our allies to conform to deadlines that we ourselves
cannot meet.
TBR is heartened that Administration officials understand the
importance of addressing this issue. In a March 17th letter that
Secretary Ridge and Secretary of State Colin Powell sent to House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, they requested a two-
year extension of the biometrics deadline for VWP citizens. Secretaries
Ridge and Powell voiced their own fears that if the deadline is not
extended, ``travelers will vote with their feet and go elsewhere.''
The introduction of S. 2324 by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Saxby
Chambliss (R-GA) and Ranking Member Edward Kennedy (D-MA), among
others, requesting a two-year extension, and H.R. 4417 by Chairman
Sensenbrenner and others, requesting a one-year extension, are both
evidence that those with jurisdiction over this issue are taking it
very seriously. TBR is deeply grateful to these Members of Congress and
the other co-sponsors. On behalf of the international traveling public,
TBR urges Congress to take quick action to reach a consensus that will
establish a workable deadline for VWP countries. It is crucial that
Congress enact legislation extending this deadline in an expeditious
manner to ensure that the affected countries can plan accordingly and
so that potential travelers from those countries, who are deciding now
where to travel in the fall, have sufficient notice of what will be
required of them. The absence of certainty about security measures is
hurting the U.S. in the international marketplace, and our competitors
abroad are using this uncertainty against us. We are concerned that
potential international travelers to the U.S. will decide to travel
elsewhere if the deadline is not soon delayed.
TBR believes that the VWP is a valuable component of our
relationship with participating countries. Moreover, many believe that
abandoning the VWP would significantly impair our nation's economic
activity. The VWP facilitates tourism and trade with our allies around
the world. Members of the program undergo biennial reviews by DHS, with
help from the State Department. Such reviews are currently being
conducted and will be completed by July 15, 2004.
The Department of Homeland Security announced recently that it
would further secure the VWP by enrolling all visitors from
participating nations in the US-VISIT program upon their entry to the
U.S. by September 30, 2004. To date, our friends who participate in the
VWP have been agreeable to the changes in the their travel procedures,
and we must continue to nurture these relationships. It is imperative
that Congress grant VWP countries sufficient time to comply with the
deadline for biometric passports. In working cooperatively with these
countries, we can simultaneously guard our borders and our economy.
US-VISIT
The US-VISIT program was implemented at 115 airports and 14
seaports in January and requires international visitors holding visas
issued by U.S. consulates overseas to submit digital finger scans and a
digital photograph upon entry into the United States. These biometric
readings are then matched against the existing visa files and national
and international watch lists. TBR is pleased to learn from DHS that
US-VISIT has matched more than 500 travelers attempting to enter this
country against criminal databases and has stopped approximately 200
criminals or suspected criminals from crossing our borders. TBR is also
pleased that no significant delays in the process have been reported to
date.
While TBR supports the enrollment of VWP travelers in the US-VISIT
program as an additional security measure, we are concerned about how
efficiently the system will function when these estimated 13 million
travelers are added this fall. DHS Undersecretary for Border and
Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on June 15 that the infrastructure in place will
continue to function efficiently and accurately through the expansion.
However, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported that
inadequate testing had been done on the system prior to implementation
in January. TBR hopes that these problems have been rectified and that
the system is prepared to efficiently accommodate such a large volume
increase.
We are encouraged by the effectiveness of the entry portion of US-
VISIT to date. However, the deadline to integrate US-VISIT procedures
at the 50 busiest land border ports of entry (POEs) is December 31,
2004. While DHS officials have said that they are on track to meet this
deadline, it is essential that our land borders be adequately staffed
and technologically capable to accurately screen those entering without
creating gridlock at our borders.
The exit component of US-VISIT has been in place at one airport and
one seaport since January. However, this test phase has not proven to
be as successful as the implementation of the entry portion. Additional
testing of the exit component is necessary in order for DHS to create a
process that is user-friendly and accurate. While it is important that
the government know when a visitor has overstayed his or her allotted
time frame, it is also important that we not confuse travelers with a
complex procedure or burden airline employees to assist in performing
this task. US-VISIT, while successful thus far in implementation, has
many more hurdles to overcome, and the travel and tourism industry is
ready and willing to assist DHS in any way possible.
As the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors administering
the US-VISIT system--and all of our immigration and customs inspection
processes--are some of the first faces international visitors see as
they step foot on American soil, it is imperative that they maximize
the opportunity to create a positive first impression with these
travelers. Just because the focus is on security, that does not
preclude common hospitality. To these visitors, who have likely heard
negative stories about entry into the U.S., a friendly welcome and a
smile could be enough to turn a trip into a successful, enjoyable and
repeatable travel experience.
VISA PROCESSING
Released earlier this month, a survey conducted on behalf of eight
U.S. international business groups, including the Association of for
Manufacturing and Technology (AMT), the National Foreign Trade Council
(NFTC) and the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC), estimated that U.S.
exporters have lost more than $30 billion in revenue and indirect costs
over the past two years due to delays in visa processing for foreign
business travelers. Of over 700 companies surveyed, 60 percent said
that business travel visa delays had hurt their companies through lost
sales and increased costs. In May, at the second annual Travel and
Tourism Summit co-sponsored by TBR and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that more still needs to
be done to welcome travelers to the U.S. ``Openness is fundamental to
our success as a nation, economically, culturally and politically. Our
economy will sputter unless America remains the magnet for
entrepreneurs from across the world,'' he said in an April 21st
editorial in The Wall Street Journal. Legitimate business travelers,
and leisure travelers as well, must not be locked out of our country by
an understaffed or arbitrary visa process, and that process must not
continue to deter U.S. economic growth.
TBR was heartened to hear State Department reports that staffing at
overseas consular posts has increased, and we hope that this will help
meet visa demand in a manner that is timely and systematic. Over the
past three years, the visa process, which requires in-person
interviews, a $100 fee and travel to sometimes-distant consular
offices, has become burdensome to international travelers. The expense
and uncertainty is creating a negative image abroad and is causing the
U.S. to lose these travelers to other countries as well as lose out on
important business opportunities. TBR encourages the State Department
to increase its outreach to U.S. embassies abroad and to continually
update its website to give clear, factual and timely information about
the requirements involved in traveling to the U.S. so that potential
visitors know what to expect, can plan accordingly and feel welcomed as
they travel to the U.S. Communication is the key to opening our doors
to our friends abroad.
DESTINATION MARKETING FUNDING
As a direct result of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted
Stevens' (R-AK) leadership, the FY03 Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution funded a $50 million destination marketing campaign whose
goal it was to increase inbound international arrivals from five of our
largest international markets--Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany and the
United Kingdom. Two unfortunate rescissions in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of FY04 reduced the available pool of dollars to $6
million and a focus on only one country, the UK. Continued
international uncertainty about visa obligations, coupled with an
anemic federal destination marketing effort, conspires to continue to
disadvantage us amongst the lucrative and bourgeoning international
travel market. Confusion among international travelers about the ease
of travel to the U.S. is dissuading many from making the trip. To these
travelers, perception is reality, which is in turn reflected in real
consequences for our economy.
H-2B VISAS
The issuance of H-2B visas, which facilitate the travel of seasonal
non-agricultural workers to the U.S. to fill temporary unskilled
positions that employers are largely unable to fill with American
workers, ended when its cap of 66,000 was reached in March. The travel
and tourism industry urged Congress to increase the cap because many
seasonal employers had not yet staffed their businesses for the coming
summer travel season. Although legislative solutions were sought, an
agreement has not yet been reached; attempts to save the summer of 2004
for these businesses have been futile. Non-immigrant workers, many of
whom rely on U.S. employment summer after summer, could not be granted
visas because of the cap. TBR anticipates that many small businesses
will be left inoperable or operating at less than full capacity during
the busy summer months. A legislative remedy must be reached before
these businesses are forced to suffer harsh economic losses for another
summer.
REGISTERED TRAVELER
Homeland security policy not only affects international travel to
the U.S., but also can serve to delay and frustrate domestic travelers.
Passenger screening lines at some of the nation's busiest airports have
taken hours to go through. One proposed remedy is the Registered
Traveler program, whose pilot phase was announced on June 16 by the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Slated to begin on a
voluntary basis later this month in Minneapolis, the program will ask
participating travelers for personal information, have their names
matched against existing government databases, have their fingerprints
taken and irises scanned. The same basic screening procedures will
apply to these passengers, but they will be exempt from checks in
secondary screening. TBR supports the development of this program, as
it expedites the screening process for patrons of the airline industry
without compromising airline security.
CAPPS II
The Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System (CAPPS II)
initiative has undergone serious scrutiny recently. As a fully
functioning system, CAPPS II would require airlines to provide personal
information to the government on all passengers traveling through the
U.S. Risk assessment technology would then rank passengers according to
their possible threat to security and assign them to one of three risk
categories--acceptable, unknown or unacceptable. According to homeland
security appropriations legislation that is currently pending in the
House and Senate, CAPPS II will not receive further federal funding
until certain privacy requirements set by DHS and the General
Accounting Office (GAO) have been met. TBR is supportive of efforts by
congressional appropriators to ensure that TSA is held to the highest
standards of transparency and conducts thorough due diligence as it
seeks to develop and implement an effective program. It is imperative
that the U.S. refrain from putting in place any security measures that
have not been adequately tested.
AIRPORT STANDARD PROCEDURES
TBR is fully aware that TSA is working diligently to provide the
tightest security possible at our nation's airports. We recognize that
the task before them is a daunting one and applaud their efforts to
date. However, the lack of standardization of screening procedures
among the nation's airports confuses and frustrates travelers. From the
screening of checked baggage to the submission of identification cards
at check-in and at the gate, the experience is always different from
airport to airport. TBR believes that informing passengers of what to
expect at each airport and ultimately establishing consistency among
the airports will make the process go more smoothly for both passengers
and screeners.
RAIL SECURITY
Last month, DHS issued a directive outlining minimum federal
security standards for the nation's passenger rail systems and other
mass transit systems. TBR commends DHS for recognizing the need to
implement security measures for our nation's rail systems. A passenger
and baggage screening pilot program was tested in New Carrollton,
Maryland in May, and here at Washington's Union Station, screening of
baggage is now underway. We encourage Congress to work with DHS to
ensure that America's railways are safe from terrorist threats and are
able to financially provide that security to its passengers. We further
urge Congress and the Administration to remove all funding barriers and
make intercity passenger rail eligible for the grants funds available
to assist commuter properties in enhancing their security.
INFORMATION SHARING
Recent events have unfortunately placed one segment of the travel
and tourism sector, the shopping center industry, in the spotlight as a
target for a terrorist attack. In April there was a phone threat of an
alleged terrorist bomb at a Los Angeles mall. Two weeks later WNBC-TV
in New York ran a news story that local shopping malls in the Tri-State
area were on high alert for terrorist activity following the reported
release of DHS bulletins and classified documents warning of such
events. Last week Attorney General Ashcroft gave a press conference
about a Somali immigrant who had been trained in terrorist camps and
had hatched a plan to attack a Columbus, Ohio mall. Thankfully, none of
the alleged attacks or incidents became reality. Yet sadly, stories
like these will continue to make the news. While we respect the
public's right to know and the valid concerns about security, we would
strongly encourage DHS to become more pro-active and sensitive to the
public relations aspect of its terror alerts and to carry over that
sensitivity to those conducting press briefings. Clearly this is an
area where DHS must direct more resources. We would recommend that DHS
extend its communications outreach with the shopping center industry
and other relevant business sectors when situations occur.
When the incidents mentioned above unfolded, DHS's interaction with
the shopping center industry was inadequate. For example, the day after
the WNBC-TV news story aired, the trade association for shopping
centers contacted the Private Sector office at DHS. Neither that office
nor the Public Affairs office knew of the news report and to date has
not provided a written explanation of the information contained in it.
The experiences with the Department can be best described as a series
of disconnects. TBR believes that information sharing between the
government and the private sector is a critical component in
safeguarding our nation against terrorist threats but one that demands
improvement and better coordination.
TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE
The provision of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) of 2002
requiring insurance companies to make terrorism insurance available on
the same terms and conditions as property and casualty insurance was
set to expire at the end of 2004. Treasury Department Secretary John
Snow's recent announcement of the extension of the ``make available''
provisions of TRIA through the end of 2005 was most welcome.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, insurance coverage
for terrorist acts was largely unavailable, thus affecting billions of
dollars of commercial real estate and threatening the potential
economic activity that would come with creating new shopping malls,
hotels, sports stadiums and other public spaces. The ``make available''
provision created by TRIA stabilized the insurance market and would
have been devastating to the economy should it have expired. Further,
TBR encourages Congress and the Administration to work together to
extend TRIA beyond 2005 so that the marketplace for terrorism risk
insurance and the economic stability it provides can be sustained.
CONCLUSION
Clearly, there are myriad homeland security policy measures that,
while aiming to protect our homeland, are simultaneously having a
negative impact on our country's image, industries and economy.
International travelers and domestic travelers alike are confused about
what will be required of them to visit America. Uncertainty about
airport screening procedures and visa and passport requirements,
combined with a lack of communication and a large-scale marketing
campaign, are discouraging travelers from making the effort to come to
the U.S. It is incumbent upon Congress, the Administration and the U.S.
travel and tourism industry to work together to show potential
international visitors that travel to this country is both achievable
and desirable. Through careful implementation of policy procedures,
effective communication and hospitable execution of those procedures,
we can revitalize the travel and tourism industry while safeguarding
our nation's borders. In doing so, we can reshape our nation's image,
bolster its economy and workforce, and attract travelers back to the
safe and welcoming United States. TBR appreciates the efforts to date
of this Subcommittee, as well as other congressional stakeholders and
Administration officials, and we pledge to work with all interested
parties to make this goal a reality.
MEMBERSHIP
Jonathan M. Tisch, Chairman, Travel Business Roundtable, Chairman &
CEO, Loews Hotels; Affinia Hospitality; Air Transport Association;
American Airlines; American Express Company; American Gaming
Association; American Hotel & Lodging Association; American Resort
Development Association; American Society of Association Executives;
Amtrak; Asian American Hotel Owners Association; ASSA ABLOY
Hospitality; Association of Corporate Travel Executives; Business
Travel News; Capital Management Enterprises; Carey International;
Carlson Hospitality Worldwide; Cendant Corporation; Choice Hotels
International; The Coca-Cola Company; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
Delaware North Companies Inc.; Detroit Metro Convention and Visitors
Bureau; Diners Club International; Fairmont Hotels & Resorts; FelCor
Lodging Trust; Four Seasons Regent Hotels & Resorts; Greater Boston
Convention & Visitors Bureau; Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention &
Visitors Bureau; Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau; Gucci; The
Hertz Corporation; Hilton Hotels Corporation; Hotel Employees and
Restaurant Employees International Union; HRW Holdings, LLC; Hyatt
Hotels Corporation; Inc Magazine; InterActiveCorp; InterContinental
Hotels Group; International Association of Convention and Visitors
Bureaus; International Council of Shopping Centers; International
Franchise Association; Interstate Hotels & Resorts; Interval
International; JetBlue Airways Corporation; Las Vegas Convention &
Visitors Authority; Loews Hotels; LA INC, The Convention and Visitors
Bureau; Lufthansa Systems North America; Mandalay Resort Group;
Marriott International Inc.; Maryland Office of Tourism Development;
McDermott, Will & Emery; The Mills Corporation; Nashville Convention
and Visitors Bureau; National Basketball Association; National Business
Travel Association; National Football League; National Hockey League;
National Restaurant Association; Nederlander Producing Company of
America; New York University; Northstar Travel Media, LLC; NYC &
Company; Omega World Travel; Pegasus Solutions, Inc.; Philadelphia
Convention and Visitors Bureau; PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP; Smith
Travel Research; Starwood Hotels & Resorts; Strategic Hotel Capital
Inc.; Taubman Centers, Inc.; Tishman Construction Co.; United Airlines;
Universal Parks & Resorts; United States Chamber of Commerce; United
States Conference of Mayors; USA Today; Vail Resorts, Inc.; Virginia
Tourism Corporation; Walt Disney Parks and Resorts; Washington D.C.
Convention and Tourism Corporation; Waterford Group, LLC; WH Smith USA;
World Travel and Tourism Council; Wyndham International; and Zagat
Survey, LLC.
______
Prepared Statement of The Travel Industry Association of America
The Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) submits the
following comments for the record, and commends the Subcommittee for
holding a hearing on a topic of considerable importance to the U.S.
travel and tourism industry.
TIA is the national, non-profit organization representing all
components of the $585 billion U.S. travel and tourism industry. TIA's
mission is to represent the whole of the travel industry to promote and
facilitate increased travel to and within the United States. Our more
than 2,000 member organizations represent every segment of the industry
throughout the country.
International business and leisure travel to the U.S. is a vital
component of our national economy. In 2002, over 42 million
international visitors generated $83.5 billion in expenditures, $12
billion in federal, state and local tax revenue, and accounted for one
million jobs nationwide. International travel and tourism to the U.S.
is a service export, and in 2002, generated a positive balance of trade
of $5.5 billion.
International visitation has continually declined over the past
three years. Overseas travel to the U.S. was down 31.8% in 2003
compared to 2000 levels. This decline has drastically reduced the flow
of tax revenue to all levels of government and reduced our
international balance of trade. Since 2000, the loss of international
travel to the U.S. has cost our economy $15.3 billion in expenditures.
The decline in travel is due to a variety of reasons, including
fear of travel because of terrorism, a downturn in the global economy
and confusion over new U.S. visa and border security procedures. While
some of the causes are beyond the reach of an individual country,
actions by the U.S. government can either enhance or harm our nation's
ability to attract increased international travel to the U.S. and
create more jobs and economic opportunities for states and cities
across the country. For this reason, it is imperative that the federal
government continue to move in the direction of advancing homeland
security in a manner that does not deter legitimate international
visitors from entering the U.S. for business or pleasure.
There is no industry more interested in working to prevent a repeat
of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The U.S. travel industry
lost valued employees that day, and saw tens of billions of dollars of
spending vanish overnight. Some businesses went bankrupt and 350,000
tourism-related jobs were lost in the aftermath of those horrible
actions.
Protecting the homeland from further attacks remains one of the
government's most important functions, and TIA and the U.S. travel
industry continue to cooperate with all branches of government to do
our part in this effort. Homeland security is, indeed, everyone's
business.
Yet, there must be way to protect this nation while continuing to
welcome all international visitors. We are heartened by the
Administration's recent pronouncements that they now realize there must
be some ``adjustment to the adjustments'' concerning border security
and new requirements that only serve as a disincentive for
international visitors.
Any movement in the direction of further closing our borders and
isolating the U.S. from the rest of world would create greater risk and
not maker our nation safer. This would only serve to transform the
perception of ``Fortress America'' into reality. Such a restrictive
security atmosphere would jeopardize our ties with key nations and
create severe economic hardships for thousands of American workers. For
these reasons, we must continue to seek greater homeland security and
improved economic security, all the while continuing to engage in the
world marketplace of commerce, ideas and cultural exchange.
While the outlook for international travel to the U.S. for 2004 is
quite positive, TIA remains concerned about a number of issues related
to homeland security.
US-VISIT
The first of these involves the US-VISIT (U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) program, which TIA and the U.S.
travel industry strongly support. The program at airports and seaports
has proven to be quite successful in providing another layer of border
security, while continuing to process travelers in an efficient manner.
There still remain some concerns regarding US-VISIT, such as the
slowness in deploying ``exit'' control at more airports and seaports,
and the potential for delays involving arriving visitors where there is
insufficient staffing to allow for processing in less than an hour's
time. We also have some concerns about implementation of US-VISIT along
the U.S. land borders with Canada and Mexico. However, we have great
confidence in the US-VISIT leadership team, and believe they will
continue to operate the program in a business-like manner, continuing
to seek input from the travel and business community and other affected
stakeholders.
Visa Waiver Program--Biometric Passport Extension
TIA continues to believe the Visa Waiver Program must be continued
and utilized to its maximum potential in order to continue facilitating
travel from most of our largest markets. To that end, the extension of
the biometric passport requirement deadline for the 27 Visa Waiver
Program countries is one of the top legislative priorities for the U.S.
travel industry in 2004. We are pleased with the leadership shown by
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member
Conyers, and also appreciate the good work of Senators Chambliss,
Kennedy and others in the Senate to move legislation forward to extend
this deadline. We remain confident this will occur, avoiding any
disruption in the more than 13 million international travelers who
enter the U.S. annually through this vital program.
Visa Waiver Program--Machine-Readable Passport Requirement
Another important requirement has already been extended for one
year through the good work of the Administration. This is the
requirement that all Visa Waiver Program travelers possess a machine-
readable passport (MRP) to enter the U.S. after October 26, 2004. The
original deadline was October 1, 2003, but Congress wisely permitted
the Administration to exercise some administrative flexibility with
this provision.
While the MRP requirement helps to enhance border security as Visa
Waiver travelers enter the U.S., the remaining problem is that in some
of the VWP countries a substantial portion of the population does not
yet have a newer, machine-readable passport. TIA is currently exploring
ways to work with the Departments of Homeland Security and State to
raise awareness of this approaching requirement. More aggressive and
pro-active outreach and communication by both the public and private
sector concerning these new rules and requirements is necessary in
order to raise awareness, improve understanding, and increase
acceptance by prospective international visitors.
Inspector Staffing Levels and Customer Service Training
Earlier in this testimony we briefly refer to concern over
insufficient numbers of front-line (Customs and Border Protection, or
CBP) inspectors and the impact this can have on wait times for inbound
international travelers. A combination of a weakened U.S. dollar and
renewed confidence in international travel to the U.S. has resulted in
higher levels of inbound travel into the U.S. in 2004. The travel
industry remains concerned that the Department of Homeland Security
does not have sufficient inspection staff to avoid long delays at peak
arrival times. This could result in international visitors missing
connecting flights or beginning their itineraries behind schedule. A
one or two hour wait upon arrival in the U.S. is not an appropriate
beginning for international visitors who plan to remain in the U.S. and
spend several thousand dollars supporting the U.S. economy and
employing American workers.
In addition to the matter of sufficient staffing levels, there
remains concern about customer service training for CBP inspectors.
These inspectors are there to enforce immigration laws and determine
the admissibility of foreign nationals seeking entry to the U.S. But,
they also serve as front-line ambassadors for the United States. Their
level of courtesy and professionalism can either benefit or harm the
U.S. image and possibly determine if that visitor will return to the
U.S. for subsequent trips. It is critical that all inspectors at
airports, seaports and land border crossings conduct themselves with
the greatest level of professionalism at all times. This happens
through improved and more frequent training in customer service
strategies. The U.S. travel industry has many of the leading companies
in the U.S. whose personnel are out on the front lines dealing directly
with customers, and many of these companies are willing to assist the
U.S. government in learning how to teach these ``hospitality''
techniques and strategies to inspectors.
Visa Issuance Process--Delays and Costs
While at most visa-issuing posts abroad (consulates and embassies)
there are not significant delays in issuing non-immigrant visitor visas
(B-1/B-2), there are still nearly twenty or so posts where the wait
time to secure a personal appearance interview exceeds 30 days. While
we are pleased this is not the norm at most consulates and embassies,
wait times--and the perception of long wait times--can still serve as a
disincentive for some travelers to come to the United States.
TIA is working directly with the Department of State to address
some of these ``perception'' issues and help make the case worldwide
that wait times for typical non-immigrant visitor visas are minimal.
While the private sector can do its part to help dispel myths and
rumors, it is up to the federal government to address actual wait time
problems, customer service, and training issues for consular officers.
Additionally, mandatory in-person interviews are having a negative
impact. Now prospective travelers must invest greater time and expense
in taking a trip to a U.S. consulate or embassy for the purpose of
securing a visa to take the ``ultimate trip'' to the U.S. While we
acknowledge this is a difficult balancing act, the in-person interview
and now collection of biometric identifiers from applicants is a burden
on those seeking to travel to the U.S. for business or pleasure. The
federal government must think creatively about ways it can achieve both
enhanced security and ease of use in the area of visa issuance.
In closing, TIA believes there are any numbers of ways the private
sector and government can work together to continually improve homeland
security while at the same time making sure the welcome mat is out for
international visitors. This is oftentimes referred to as a matter of
balancing homeland security with economic development. It is has also
been suggested as less a balancing act and more a matter of committing
to achieve both goals simultaneously.
TIA and its more than 2,000 member organizations are committed to
doing all it can to help make this nation, its citizens and its
international guests as safe and secure as possible. We call on the
federal government to continue a commitment to homeland security in a
way that also facilitates legitimate international travel in order to
provide for economic growth and jobs, cultural enrichment and an
improved image of the U.S. abroad. This is the proverbial ``win-win''
which we all seek and which our country must have during these new and
challenging times.