[Senate Hearing 109-221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-221
SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE IN CROSS-BORDER TRAVEL: AN ANALYSIS OF THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE,
PEACE CORPS AND NARCOTICS AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-357 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
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 FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE, PEACE
CORPS AND NARCOTICS AFFAIRS
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota, Chairman
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Coleman, Hon. Norm, U.S. Senator from Minnesota, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Letter from Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America.................................................... 27
Prepared statement by Tammy L. Lee, vice president,
corporation affairs, the Mark Travel Corporation........... 28
Letter from Travel Industry Association of America........... 31
Dezenski, Hon. Elaine, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Planning, Border and Transportation Security Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut......... 17
Moss, Frank, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Pastor, Dr. Robert A., vice president of international affairs,
professor, and director of the Center for North American
Studies, American University, Washington, DC................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Ruden, Paul M., senior vice president of legal and industry
affairs, American Society of Travel Agencies, Inc., Alexandria,
VA............................................................. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
(iii)
SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE IN CROSS-
BORDER TRAVEL: AN ANALYSIS OF THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, the Hon. Norm
Coleman, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Coleman and Dodd.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MINNESOTA
Senator Coleman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign
Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and
Narcotics Affairs will come to order.
If you study the Constitution, you will not find a section
entitled the ``Law of Unintended Consequences,'' but it might
as well be there. For every action of the Federal Government,
there are major reactions we did not intend or perhaps even
imagine that require us to pay attention to the impact of our
actions and to address negative ramifications as soon as or
even before they appear.
The tragedy of September 11 showed the weakness in United
States border security. Since then, we have taken a host of
actions to bolster homeland security. We have aggressively
moved against terrorists at home and abroad, and have taken
many necessary steps to stop terrorists from entering our
country.
We have strengthened the rules that govern who may enter
the country. Sometimes, however, the very efforts we undertake
to make us safer and stronger can have unintended or even
counterproductive consequences. I have spoken at length about
the counterproductive effects of the new barriers to students
seeking to study in the United States.
At today's hearing, we will consider what I believe could
be the unintended consequences of another policy; one which
could make it far more difficult for Americans who travel
between the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
For decades, travel between the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean has been covered
under what is known as the Western Hemisphere exception. It
seems logical to have different rules to govern travel between
the United States and our closest neighbors. Americans have
been able to use drivers' licenses and birth certificates to
visit and return from these destinations. In turn, we have
worked with these countries to modernize the borders between us
and to strengthen North America's external border. I would
note, parenthetically, having just come back from Europe last
week, in Europe they are actually coming together and trying to
make it easier to travel between countries.
However, legislation passed last year, and the proposed
implementation of that legislation, threatens to fundamentally
change the way Americans travel in this part of the world.
Section 7209 of last year's National Intelligence Reform
Act stipulated that the Departments of Homeland Security and
State, and I quote, ``shall develop and implement a plan as
expeditiously as possible, to require a passport or other
document or combination of documents deemed by the Secretary of
Homeland Security to be sufficient to denote identity and
citizenship for all travel into the United States by United
States citizens and by categories of individuals for whom
documentation requirements have previously been waived.'' The
legislation goes on, ``This plan shall be implemented not later
than January 1, 2008, and shall seek to expedite the travel of
frequent travelers, including those who reside in border
communities; and in doing so, shall make readily available a
registered traveler program.''
To implement these measures, on April 5 the State
Department and Department of Homeland Security unveiled the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which over time will
increase the document requirement for Americans traveling in
this part of the world.
By the end of this year, a passport or other accepted
document will be required for all air and sea travel to and
from the Caribbean, Bermuda, Central and South America.
On December 31, 2006, the new document requirement will
apply for all air and sea travel to and from Canada and Mexico
as well.
And starting January 1, 2008, a passport or other accepted
document will be required for all air, sea, and land border
crossings.
While I support the general intent of this legislation, I
am concerned about its impact on average Americans. One of the
challenges of Washington policymakers is to ensure that our
laws make sense to average Americans outside the Beltway.
Minnesota is a border State; 2.2 million people travel
through the International Falls border-crossing site every
year. People in my State cross the border to fish or hunt,
shop, trade or just evaluate the hockey talent in our neighbor
to the north. Particularly since the NHL strike is, I think,
coming to an end, this is a very, very important effort.
Crossing the border is part of their routines. Many
frequent travelers in my State do not have passports because
they have never needed them. They need to be able to cross with
the IDs they carry in their wallets. Passports are difficult
and costly to obtain, especially for people who live outside of
a major city.
This policy also has the potential to seriously hurt the
travel industry. Cruises in the Caribbean and Mexico appeal to
American tourists in part because of the ease in getting to
these locations without a passport.
Millions of Americans visit Mexico, Canada, and the
Caribbean each year because of the ease and affordability of
these destinations. The new regulations will change this and
could have a devastating impact on the U.S. travel industry
just as it is beginning to recover from the post-9/11 slump.
There is little question that these new requirements will
hamper legitimate interstate travel between the United States
and our neighbors. While alternative documents such as SENTRI,
NEXUS, FAST and border-crossing cards may also be used in lieu
of a passport, these documents also cost money and are often
inconvenient or perhaps inappropriate for average Americans.
I am also concerned about the pace of this initiative. The
first requirement is supposed to take effect before the end of
this year. Yet, the departments still have not issued their
much-anticipated Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to lay
out the details on how the program is to be implemented. This
needs to happen sooner rather than later, so travelers have
time to prepare.
As this process moves forward, I hope the administration
will take the concerns of this subcommittee into account, as
well as, I might add, the concerns of President Bush himself.
I also hope that those who are watching and participating
in this hearing will make their views known directly during the
rulemaking process once it begins.
Like so many other policy issues, it comes down to a
question of balance. Today our country is challenged to strike
the right balance between a need to increase security along our
borders while simultaneously upholding our tradition of
openness to travelers, students, and trade.
While September 11 illustrated the need for improvements on
the security front, a fortress America mentality will not keep
our country secure and prosperous in this era of globalization.
We need to be vigilant of terrorists. But we cannot give them
the victory of making us twist ourselves into a pretzel in the
name of security.
Our goal today is to seek the proper balance between
security and conducting normal business and travel.
To address this question of balance, this committee will
hear from four witnesses. Our first panelists will discuss
plans by the State Department and the Department of Homeland
Security to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiatives.
Members of our second panel will shed light on how this
policy is going to affect real people, how it fits into the
real goal of enhanced security for all Americans.
We will begin with Ms. Elaine Dezenski, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Planning at the Department of Homeland
Security's Border and Transportation Security Directorate. In
this position, she is responsible for ensuring that the
policies enacted by BTS meet their objective of enhancing
homeland security.
Prior to this position, Ms. Dezenski has served as the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning in the BTS
Directorate, as Director of Cargo and Trade Policy at BTS; and
as Director of Maritime, Land and Cargo Policy at the
Transportation Security Administration.
Before joining the DHS, Ms. Dezenski was a Special
Assistant to the Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration. She has also served in the office of
Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, and began her professional
career with the transportation division of Siemens Corporation.
Next we will hear from Mr. Frank Moss, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Passport Services at the State Department's
Bureau of Consular Affairs. In this position, he is responsible
for overall management of the Department's efforts to
adjudicate and produce passports for more than 7 million
American citizen customers each year.
Prior to this assignment, Mr. Moss served as the Executive
Director of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, and as Senior
Advisor for Border Security to the Assistant Secretary of State
for Consular Affairs.
He has also worked in the office of the coordinator for
counterterrorism, as refugee coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in
Khartoum, Sudan, and for the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees in Pakistan.
Ms. Dezenski, we will begin with you. Please summarize your
remarks. Your full testimony will be included in the hearing
record.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE DEZENSKI, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR POLICY AND PLANNING, BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Dezenski. Thank you very much, Chairman Coleman. We
appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk to you
about a very important issue and a very timely issue. I would
like to request that my written statement be submitted for the
record.
Senator Coleman. Without objection.
Ms. Dezenski. Thank you. As you mentioned, the Intelligence
Reform Act of 2004 mandated that DHS and the State Department
develop and implement a plan to require U.S. citizens and
foreign nationals to present a passport or other authorized
travel documents that denote both identity and citizenship when
entering the United States.
Our ability to detect fraudulent documents is absolutely
critical to the success of a broader border management strategy
system that combines technology, human resources, and policy to
address the terrorist threat, and to expedite the travel of
legitimate citizens and visitors.
Last fiscal year, our border inspectors intercepted over
78,000 fraudulent documents, so this problem is very real. The
Intelligence Reform Legislation specifies a deadline of January
1, 2008, to implement the new document requirements. As my
colleague, Frank Moss, will tell you, we are working very
closely with the State Department to meet this ultimate
deadline and to achieve the security gains without
unnecessarily disrupting the flow of people at the border.
Our biggest challenge is at the land border, where we
handle over a million crossings a day. We know that in
communities like International Falls, border crossings are
often routine activities such as going to church and visiting
family. They are part of everyday life, not just occasional
trips to foreign countries.
That is why we are communicating so regularly and directly
with many of the stakeholder groups and prospective travelers
inside and outside of our borders; people who have the most
concerns about how these changes will affect them, their
businesses, and their communities. Throughout the process, we
will continue to do everything we can to keep them fully
informed and to take those needs into account.
Let me emphasize a few key points before I turn it over to
my colleague from the State Department. First, our goal is to
ensure travelers entering the United States have quality secure
documents. Secure documentation is required to positively
determine the identity and the citizenship of travelers; and
this is a prerequisite to ascertaining whether or not they pose
a risk.
When we meet that standard for all those who are crossing
into our country we will be able to better combat terrorism,
identity theft, document fraud, and illegal immigration.
Ultimately, this will make it easier, not harder, for good,
law-abiding people to enter the United States, especially when
we take advantage of all the benefits of new technologies, such
as biometrics.
Since January 2004, for example, we have used biometric
technology in our US-VISIT program, which is our entry/exit
process. Biometrics have made it almost impossible for those
who intend to do us harm or to break our laws to enter through
our ports of entry under a false identity.
They are enabling us to catch criminals and immigration
violators, and they are depriving would-be terrorists of one of
their most powerful tools, fraudulent travel documents.
Second, we want to avoid a last-minute rush for travelers
to comply with this--the new provisions, and we want to avoid
unnecessary confusion at the time of implementation. So, as we
implement these new requirements, we need to do so in a way
that gives the populations most affected sufficient time to
obtain the documents that they will need.
We are developing a series of implementation milestones,
building up to the January 1, 2008, deadline. I must emphasize
that the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which includes
this proposed implementation schedule is still under review and
has not been placed in the Federal Register.
Once it is published, we will allow ample time for public
comment, and the requirement will not be final until we hear
fully from the public and explore every option for taking their
concerns into account.
Last, I would like to emphasize that while DHS and State
have identified the passport as the principal document of
choice, we are also exploring the use of other secure documents
or combinations of documents that can prove identification of
that traveler and their citizenship, particularly at the land
borders, again where we have significant numbers of crossings
and challenges in terms of that facilitation.
The ultimate plan will include registered traveler programs
that expedite the travel of previously screened individuals,
particularly those who reside in border communities.
We have a couple of programs in place like NEXUS, SENTRI,
and FAST, but I think it is fair to say that these programs
were not originally designed as an alternative to the passport,
so as we move forward, we really need to think about the
registered traveler concept as part of the broader border
management strategy. And what we envision in that regard is,
based on a global enrollment system and a uniform set of
requirements for an RT-type card that could, in fact, fit in
your wallet and may be biometrically enabled, and could work at
multiple types of border crossings, not just at the land
border, but also in other modes.
And we are looking at the expansion of this concept and
taking our existing programs to move into this, what we
consider to be, sort of, a new vision for the RT program.
So we will be continuing to work through that process as we
finalize the regulatory requirements. We will be looking at the
broader management strategy for the border to make sure that we
have accommodated as appropriate.
This concludes my oral remarks. And thank you once again
for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dezenski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elaine Dezenski, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Policy and Planning, Border and Transportation Directorate, Department
of Homeland Security, Washington, DC
Chairman Coleman and Ranking Member Dodd and other distinguished
members, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the
approach that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is taking to
address the travel document provisions of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(IRTPA) mandates that, by January 1, 2008, the Secretaries of Homeland
Security and State develop and implement a plan to require all U.S.
citizens and foreign nationals, who currently do not require a passport
to enter the United States, to present a passport or other appropriate
secure identity and citizenship documentation when entering the United
States regardless of the origin of the travel. Under current
regulations, U.S. citizens who travel solely within the Western
Hemisphere do not require passports to return to the United States. A
similar ``exemption'' applies to most Canadian and Bermudan citizens
entering the United States. In addition, Mexican citizens traveling
directly from Mexico or Canada may present the United States-issued
``B-1/B-2 Visa and Border Crossing Card'' without a passport.
The Western Hemisphere Travel Document Initiative (WHTI) is the
joint response from the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and
State (DOS) to existing security concerns as well as the documentary
requirements of IRTPA. Further, the WHTI has been designed to
strengthen border security and facilitate entry into the United States
by legitimate travelers. It will also assist the Government in reducing
the market for stolen documents, as well as thwarting identity theft.
This initiative will require all United States citizens, Canadians,
and citizens of Bermuda and Mexico, as well as citizens of Caribbean
countries currently exempt from the passport requirement pursuant to
section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to have a
passport or other authorized secure documentation denoting nationality
and identity when entering the United States. It will also standardize
the documents which may be presented at ports of entry to demonstrate
both identity and citizenship.
In accordance with IRTPA, DHS, and DOS have identified the passport
as the principal document of choice right now, particularly in the
airport and seaport environments. However, we will also explore the use
of other secure documents, or combination of documents, denoting
identity and citizenship, particularly for land border use, where we
face the most pressing implementation challenges. The plan will include
registered traveler type programs to expedite the travel of previously
screened travelers, particularly, those that reside in border
communities. The WHTI, along with the biometric entry-exit system (i.e.
US-VISIT), registered traveler programs, and coordinated screening
capabilities, are part of a larger strategic vision for an immigration
and border management enterprise that ensures the appropriate mix of
technology, personnel, and systems connectivity to support security and
facilitation of legitimate travelers.
While the goal of the WHTI is to strengthen border security and
facilitate entry of legitimate travelers into the United States, we do
understand the implications for industry, business, the general public
or even our neighbors to the north and south. We are committed to
working with affected stakeholders to mitigate these implications as
this initiative gets underway.
Given the enormity of this change in practice, the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of State, in consultation with
other Government agencies, have agreed to adopt a phased implementation
plan for the WHTI. The specific timeline for the phases has yet to be
finalized and is under active discussion within the administration. We
will elicit and consider comments on all aspects of the plan. Both DHS
and DOS recognize the unique issues that this initiative will raise,
and we will remain flexible when working with affected communities.
It is important to keep the context of this initiative in mind when
balancing facilitation and security concerns. DHS officers inspect
about 1.1 million people at our borders every day and the security
layers we add to our inspections processes take into consideration
appropriate facilitation efforts such as ``trusted traveler'' programs.
Recognizing that we want to balance security with facilitation,
there are some additional documents that we may consider as alternative
documentation of identity and citizenship. This is primarily the case
at the land border where we think we may have some flexibility to look
at four different documents.
The first document is the BCC or the Border Crossing Card, which is
given to Mexican nationals who are coming across to the United States
on a regular basis. In order to get a BCC, you must have a passport,
and, since the BCC is a B-1/
B-2 visa when presented with a passport, the process is nearly
identical to issuance of a visa. Another card that we think could be
deemed a suitable alternative document is the SENTRI card. SENTRI,
which stands for Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid
Inspection, is also a program that is utilized to facilitate travelers
at the southern border. In order to obtain a SENTRI card, you need to
provide some type of proof of citizenship, a BCC, if required, as well
as other documentation. You also go through a background check and
other types of checks.
On the northern border, working with Canada, we have two existing
programs using cards. The first is the NEXUS card, which is similar to
the SENTRI card in that it facilitates travelers who have jobs on the
other side of the border, for example, or people who are routinely
visiting family. The NEXUS card is also linked to certain documentation
requirements. For example, you can provide a passport to get a NEXUS
card; you can also provide a birth certificate and other types of
documents that provide proof of citizenship.
The other card that we would be looking at is called the FAST card,
or Free and Secure Trade card, and this applies to commercial truck
drivers at both the northern and southern borders. It is commercially
focused with the goal of facilitating cargo coming across the border,
while enhancing security associated with the truck driver of that
particular truckload. With the FAST program, we have specific
requirements, including background checks, documentation requirements,
and biometric requirements.
As we move forward, we fully anticipate that additional ideas will
be coming forward for registered traveler type programs, and that we
will continue to look at options as they may become available, whether
that is harmonizing within the Department to get to some type of global
registered traveler program that could be applied at either border, or
looking at specific programs that can be expanded.
The WHTI is an important step in protecting homeland security, and
DHS and DOS will use all available resources to implement this travel
initiative by the deadline set forth in law. Mr. Chairman and members
of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present
this testimony today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
that you might have at this time.
Senator Coleman. Thank you very much, Ms. Dezenski.
Mr. Moss.
STATEMENT OF FRANK MOSS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
PASSPORT SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Moss. Chairman Coleman, thank you very much for
providing me this opportunity to describe how the Department of
State, in close cooperation with the Department of Homeland
Security, will enhance U.S. border security and, we believe,
facilitate travel through implementation of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, to comply with section 7209
of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004.
I would ask that my full statement be submitted for the
record.
Senator Coleman. Without objection.
Mr. Moss. In light of Ms. Dezenski's comments, I will focus
on the implications of the WHTI for the Department of State.
As you know, and have so eloquently stated, the scope of
the WHTI is challenging. The State Department estimates that
some 2 million Americans travel each year to the Caribbean
without a passport and more than 4 million other Americans do
the same by air or sea to Canada and Mexico.
American citizens also make about 100 million land border
crossings each year. To help assess the land border
implications of this program, the State Department has
contracted with outside experts who will survey land border
crossers in July at 16 ports of entry on the northern and
southern border to help us develop more accurate data on this
aspect of the WHTI.
Given the enormity of this change in practice, the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, in
consultation with other government agencies, have agreed to
propose a phased implementation program for the WHTI.
The specific timeline for the phases, as Ms. Dezenski has
said, has yet to be finalized and is under active consideration
within the administration.
A phased implementation program will help us accrue the
security advantages as soon as possible, facilitate travel at
an earlier stage, and give us the opportunity to inform the
tens of millions of travelers who will be affected by this
policy.
Last, by spreading out over time a projected increase in
the Department's workload, we will be able to acquire and
develop the resources needed to meet that aspect of the WHTI,
which will be met by U.S. passports.
Obviously, a key objective of the Bureau of Consular
Affairs is to ensure that passport services are provided in a
secure, efficient, and courteous manner. In fact, in order to
make applying for a passport as convenient as possible for
American citizens, we have more than 7,000 sites at post
offices, clerks of court, or other government agencies where
they can apply for a passport. In the case of Minnesota, Mr.
Chairman, there are more than 140 such facilities.
Although we are able to meet current demand for U.S.
passports, we expect to see significant resource shortfalls
over the next 3 years based on projected passport demand
increases.
In 2004, the Department of State's Office of Passport
Services issued over 8.8 million passports, a workload increase
of some 22 percent over the prior year total. Workload this
year is up another 13 percent, putting us on target to issue
more than 10 million passports to American citizens this year.
Based on our current analysis of the scope of the WHTI and
other projected growth in passport demand, we expect that
applications for passports will total about 12 million in
fiscal year 2006, about 14 million in the following year, and
reach a potentially sustainable annual demand of 17 million by
fiscal year 2008.
We look forward to working with Congress as we seek the
resources needed to implement WHTI in a fashion that does not
inconvenience American travelers.
We also recognize that there are many circumstances where
obtaining a U.S. passport is not the optimal solution for
travel, particularly in communities along the northern and
southern borders. And the Intelligence Reform Act recognizes
this by including the option of using another secure document
or other documents that denotes citizenship and identity when
entering the United States. My colleague has already discussed
these alternatives.
Both State and DHS recognize that a critical part of
successful implementation is public participation in the
regulatory process. With this in mind, we will soon solicit
public comments as a way to refine the implementation of the
WHTI.
The departments have prepared an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, ANPRM, and expect that the comments we receive,
after it is published, from the public, the private sector,
state and local governments, and foreign governments will have
a material effect on the rules we develop.
As we move forward, I must emphasize both Departments'
commitment to an open, transparent process with the full
involvement of the American public and affected groups.
We look forward to receiving public comments with great
anticipation and are committed to making sure that concerns and
interests are explored thoroughly.
The ANPRM process is an important step in informing the
public of this important change in travel requirements that we
will support with a sustained, extensive public outreach
effort. In addition to explaining the new requirements to the
American public, the Department of State will also work with
our hemispheric neighbors to make sure that they are aware of
the requirements of the WHTI and that they have adequate notice
to take the necessary steps to comply with them without
hindering the legitimate flow of people and goods between our
nations.
At this time, I am happy to answer my--any questions.
Senator Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank E. Moss, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Passport Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, DC
Chairman Coleman, Ranking Member Dodd, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe how the
Department of State, in close cooperation with the Department of
Homeland Security, plans to augment U.S. border security and facilitate
international travel by establishing new documentary standards pursuant
to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that U.S.
citizens and certain foreign nationals must comply with to enter the
United States from nations in the Western Hemisphere. I will refer to
this program as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).
In the aftermath of September 11, the Department of State's Bureau
of Consular Affairs conducted a comprehensive review of our procedures
for adjudicating the travel documents that we have the legislative
authority to issue: U.S. passports and immigrant and nonimmigrant
visas. The U.S. passport is arguably the most valuable travel and
identity document in the world. As the report of 9/11 Commission noted,
travel documents are as valuable to terrorists as weapons, and we have
taken steps to improve both the security features of the passport, as
well as the underlying adjudicatory process that determines who is
entitled to one.
In general, U.S. law requires that American citizens enter the
United States in possession of a valid passport. There is one major
exemption--United States citizens can travel to many destinations in
the Caribbean as well as Mexico, Canada, and Panama without a passport.
Canadian citizens traveling from within the Western Hemisphere are also
allowed to enter the United States with only limited documentation such
as a driver's license. In the spring of 2003, the Department of State
embarked on interagency consultations to address this potential
vulnerability.
Discussions of possible remedies quickly made clear that what will
augment U.S. border security will also facilitate international travel.
Currently, to determine whether someone is an American citizen, Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) officials may be presented with thousands
of different birth certificates by travelers, not to mention other
situations where the traveler makes an oral declaration to be an
American citizen. My colleague, Elaine Dezenski from the Department of
Homeland Security, will address this issue in more detail in her
testimony. Suffice it to say that both DHS and State believe that we
can strengthen border security and facilitate entry processing by
ensuring that travelers present documents in which border inspectors
have confidence in both the validity of the document and the validity
of the decision originally made to issue the document. To simplify and
secure entry requirements, we believe that a limited number of
recognized--and secure--identity and citizenship documents is
preferable.
Congress clearly endorsed the view that we should enhance border
security within the Western Hemisphere by requiring passports or other
secure documents denoting citizenship and identity for travel when it
enacted section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). This legislation, which was signed into
law on December 17, 2004, requires that the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, develop and
implement by January 1, 2008, a plan to require U.S. citizens and non-
U.S. citizens, currently exempt from the passport requirement for
travel within the Western Hemisphere, to present a passport or other
authorized documentation that denotes identity and citizenship when
entering the United States. The law provides for only limited
circumstances under which the documentary requirement may be waived for
U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens within the Western Hemisphere, such
as emergent or humanitarian circumstances or in the national interest.
Importantly, section 7209 also requires that the Secretaries of
Homeland Security and State seek to facilitate the travel of frequent
travelers, including those who reside in border communities.
We enthusiastically welcome legislative support for the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and appreciate the flexibility in
determining what document or combination of documents will be adequate
to establish identity and nationality.
Given the enormity of this change in practice, the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of State, in consultation with
other Government agencies, have agreed to adopt a phased implementation
plan for the WHTI. The specific timeline for the phases has yet to be
finalized and is under active discussion within the administration,
although the plan must be implemented by January 1, 2008, in accordance
with the law.
The scope of this potential program is challenging. The State
Department estimates that some 2.0 million Americans travel each year
to the Caribbean without a passport and more than 4.0 million Americans
do the same by air or sea to Canada and Mexico. And, American citizens
make about 100 million land border crossings each year, which
represents total number of trips made, not individuals. To help assess
the land border implications of this program, the State Department has
contracted with outside experts who will survey land border crossers in
July at 16 ports of entry to help us develop more accurate data on the
scope of this aspect of WHTI.
Based on the scope of WHTI, it appears that there are a number of
advantages to phasing in the requirement in an orderly fashion over the
next 3 years. Our plan is to complete implementation by January 1,
2008. First, by beginning implementation in advance of that deadline,
we will begin to accrue the security advantages and build up the
capacity to administer such a program as soon as possible, as well as
benefit at an earlier stage from the travel facilitation envisioned by
the Congress in crafting the legislation. Phased implementation will
also give us the opportunity to reach out and inform the tens of
millions of travelers who will be affected by the changes.
Importantly, by spreading out, over time, a projected increase in
the Department's workload, we will be able to acquire and develop the
resources needed to meet the increased demand for U.S. passports and
other documents satisfying section 7209.
Naturally, passport demand is a matter of intense interest to the
Department of State. Will American citizens choose to obtain U.S.
passports to fulfill the documentary requirement set forth in the
IRTPA? We expect that many will, especially those who travel by air or
sea. As I noted, the U.S. passport is undoubtedly the world's premiere
identity and nationality document. One of the key objectives of the
Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs is to ensure that passport
services are provided in a secure, efficient, and courteous manner. In
order to make applying for a passport as convenient as possible for
American citizens, we have more than 7,000 sites around the country
located at post offices, clerks of court, or other Government offices
where they can apply for a passport.
We are currently able to meet demand, but based on projected
passport demand increases over the next 3 years, we expect to face
significant resource shortfalls as we implement the WHTI. In 2004 the
Department of State's Office of Passport Services issued over 8.8
million passports--a workload increase of some 22 percent over the
prior year total. Workload this year is up another 13 percent, putting
us on target to issue more than 10 million passports to American
citizens this year. And, based on our current analysis of the scope of
WHTI and other projected growth in passport demand, we expect that
applications for passports will total about 12 million in fiscal year
2006, about 14 million in fiscal year 2007, and reach a potentially
sustainable annual demand of 17 million by fiscal year 2008.
We look forward to working with Congress as we seek the resources
needed to implement WHTI in a fashion that does not inconvenience
American travelers.
We also know that there are many circumstances where obtaining a
U.S. passport is not the optimal solution for travel--particularly in
communities along the northern and southern borders--and the IRTPA
recognizes this by including the option of using another secure
document or other documents that denotes identity and citizenship when
entering the United States. My colleague from the Department of
Homeland Security will discuss these alternatives.
Both the Department of State and the Department of Homeland
Security recognize that there are a host of issues that must be
addressed thoroughly to implement the WHTI smoothly and successfully. A
critical part of successful implementation is public participation in
the regulatory process. With this in mind, we will soon solicit public
comments as a way to refine the implementation of the WHTI. The
Departments have prepared an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) and expect that the comments we receive after it is published
will have a material effect on the rules we develop. The Department of
State is committed to making sure that concerns and interests are
explored thoroughly and look forward to these comments with great
anticipation.
The ANPRM process is an important step in informing the public of
this important change in travel requirements that we will support with
a sustained, extensive public outreach effort. In addition to
explaining the new requirements to the American public, the Department
of State will also work with our hemispheric neighbors to make sure
that they are aware of the requirements of the WHTI and that they have
adequate notice to take the necessary steps to comply with them without
hindering the legitimate flow of people and goods between our nations.
At this time, I am happy to answer any questions you might have
about the Department of State's role in supporting the Department of
Homeland Security's implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative.
Senator Coleman. Thank you very much, Mr. Moss.
First, let me say that I certainly recognize--this
committee recognizes--it is a great challenge and a great
responsibility that is in front of you.
Just to perhaps clarify a few things. You talk about RT
cards, which means? RT means?
Ms. Dezenski. Oh, I am sorry; registered traveler.
Senator Coleman. That is right. Okay.
And, Mr. Moss, you talk about 140 sites in Minnesota. Do
you have a chart that shows that?
Mr. Moss. Yes; I do.
Senator Coleman. All right.
Mr. Moss. Just one moment.
[Pause.]
Mr. Moss. In view of simplicity, we do not have them noted
location by location, but if you actually go to our website,
you can find the specific location down to the street address.
[Chart.]
[Note.--The information contained on the chart presented by
Mr. Moss can be viewed on the Web site: travel.state.gov.]
Senator Coleman. My concern, Mr. Moss, even by looking at
the chart, is that in the areas that are most impacted, which
is the northern border, are the places where there is the least
opportunity to get a passport. Let me read, if I can, a
constituent message that I received.
Senator Coleman, I just spent $300 to get passports
for my family of five so we could be able to travel to
Canada and fish a few times each year. It took 4 to 6
weeks to get the passports, and I have heard rumors
that the price of passports will be going up soon. I
followed the trend and tried to beat what I believe to
be the rush to comply with what I believe will become a
mandate. However, as a parent of three children, ages
17, 14, and 10, I question why they need passports to
travel back and forth to Canada. I can assure you and
others that my children do not match the profile of
anything that threatens us, yet my wife and I had to
incur this extra cost because of a desire to continue
to fish in Canada.
First, what is the cost of a passport for an adult and a
child?
Mr. Moss. Okay. What I would like to do is describe it. It
falls into two categories, not just adult and children, but a
first-time applicant versus a renewal.
For a first-time applicant, the total fee, the fee you pay
to the acceptance agent, one of these 140-odd entities, plus
the fee you pay that goes to the U.S. Treasury, and what the
State Department retains, is a total of $97 for an adult, $82
for a child, and then a renewal is commensurately $30 less in
the case of the adult. Each child's renewal under the age of 16
is essentially a de novo adjudication.
Senator Coleman. And how many years is a passport good for?
Mr. Moss. A passport is good for an adult for 10 years. For
a child it is good for 5.
Senator Coleman. Can you give your thoughts on lowering the
costs of passports if, in fact--and I am not there yet by the
way--but if, in fact, we are going to make passports required?
Have there been discussions of actually lowering the cost of
passports?
Mr. Moss. Well, the first point I would make, Mr. Chairman,
is that, as I said in my testimony, we do not see the passport
as being the only answer to this program, especially along the
land borders. That is why I think the cooperation we have with
the Department of Homeland Security is so important.
I can tell you, however, we are looking at the fee, because
the passport fee or the $97 fee is really composed of three
elements. One is the cost of the passport book itself, which is
increasing, because of the inclusion of biometrics. Another
cost is actually adjudicating the passport, deciding if someone
is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. And, finally, there is the issue
of what we call the--in State Department speak--the expected
cost of American Citizen Services, as people travel abroad.
Clearly, the number of passport applicants is increasing.
That spreads that relatively fixed cost of Citizen Services
over a larger population. And we are certainly looking closely
at the fee and will be doing so this summer.
I can make no assurance of what will happen with that. But
I do want to let you and the committee know that we are looking
at it very closely.
Senator Coleman. Among the alternative programs are the
NEXUS and FAST programs. Ms. Dezenski, talk a little bit about
those. Again, my concern is for the average person. They are
going across the border on occasion, maybe to fish, maybe to
just do a little commerce. Then there is the other side of it,
too, which I will get to, which is the impact this has upon our
Canadian neighbors and what kind of enrollments, what kind of
passport coverage and saturation they have, and the potential
for economically impacting these communities negatively,
because they do not have high levels, high concentration of
passport saturation.
But first could we step back? Tell me a little bit about
NEXUS and FAST and how they work, and how they apply to the
average citizen.
Ms. Dezenski. Sure. There are actually three programs--the
NEXUS program, which is utilized at the northern border; the
SENTRI program, which is--essentially it is the applicable
program for the southern border; and the FAST program, which is
used at both northern and southern borders, but is primarily
utilized for commercial traffic, so truck drivers. So that one
is an option in terms of a registration-type program, but is
really focused on the commercial traffic.
So the northern border, the NEXUS program is a program that
requires a background check, an in-person meeting with customs
officials. The submission of certain types of information. You
go through an enrollment process, and it takes, I believe,
about 4 or 5 weeks to obtain the card.
It is primarily focused on those who have frequent
crossings, business travelers----
Senator Coleman. For commercial travelers, or----
Ms. Dezenski [continuing]. Business travelers. Anyone can
apply for the card and, in fact, you do not have to be a U.S.
citizen. You can be a foreign national and apply for the NEXUS
card as well.
So it is heavily utilized at certain crossings that tend to
be higher volume crossings. And, again, it was not a program
that was intended to be a substitute for a passport. It was
really a facilitation type of a program, which now has security
applications and is, I think, the precursor to what we are
going to be looking at for a broader registered traveler-type
concept that could be used at multiple types of border
crossings.
The SENTRI program, of course, is very similar to it, but,
again, only applicable at the southern border.
Senator Coleman. And when you say border crossings, is this
program then available at a limited number of border crossings
at this stage?
Ms. Dezenski. There are a limited number of enrollment
centers, so you would have to go to the nearest enrollment
center to go through the interview process. And we do not have
an enrollment center in Minnesota at this time.
We are looking at where we need to expand based on where
these requirements will take us.
Senator Coleman. One of the comments made is the schedule
for implementation. I think both you and Mr. Moss said at this
point that is flexible. In my opening statement, I noted that I
believe that this was the schedule that by the end of this
year, a passport or other accepted document will be required
for all air and sea travel to and from the Caribbean, Bermuda,
Central and South America. And then on December 31, 2006, the
new document requirement will apply for all air and sea travel
to and from Mexico and Canada as well. And starting January
2008, a passport or other accepted document will be required
for all air, sea, and land border crossings.
Am I correct that that schedule is not now a firm schedule?
Ms. Dezenski. Well, it is still under review with OMB and
within our Departments. We have not actually issued that
advance notice yet.
When we announced this initiative about 6 or so weeks ago,
that was the proposal that we were looking at at the time. So
we will finalize it and will be able to talk more about it once
the advance notice goes out. But we are very well aware of the
concerns that have come up about the potential implementation
schedule.
Senator Coleman. I just want to be clear, though, because
we do not have the notice out. As we sit here today on the 9th
day of June, is it the Department's intention to require a
passport for all air and sea travel to and from the Caribbean,
Bermuda, Central and South America by the end of the year? As
of today, is that still the intention?
Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, what I would first note is that the
real impact of this is on travel to and from the Caribbean and
one country in Central America. The other countries basically
require a passport to enter and we, therefore, expect the
traveler to use it on the way back in.
We are taking, as Elaine said--Ms. Dezenski said, a very
hard look at this issue of the schedule. There is the
possibility of perhaps making this into a two-phase program as
opposed to three phases.
We also recognize that, obviously, delay in the publication
of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does put into
question the entire schedule that we had in that April
announcement. So I would ask that you bear with us for another
week or so while we finalize this within the executive branch.
Senator Coleman. But is it then clear that you will take
into account the delay, that you will have a full period for
people to respond, that those responses will be carefully and
thoughtfully evaluated and will factor into any final decision?
Mr. Moss. Absolutely. And the other point I would make is
that the public announcement on April 5 has really already
triggered some of the types of comments that would normally be
received to an ANPRM process, and that is, of course, already
affecting the policy deliberations. But we will have a full
public comment period under the--as we laid out in the original
announcement.
Senator Coleman. Thank you.
Ms. Dezenski, you noted that you have been communicating
regularly with stakeholders regarding this. What are they
telling you?
Ms. Dezenski. It depends on the stakeholder group. I mean,
we have certainly heard from the American Society of Travel
Agents, who I know will join us for the next panel. And we have
heard of concerns regarding the implementation schedule. We
have also heard from stakeholders that, to a certain extent,
some surprise that those requirements are not already in place.
Many people already carry their passports because they
think it is a requirement. And, in fact, if you travel to the
Caribbean on a cruise, the cruise lines often require you to
have a passport. So it may not be a Federal requirement, but
the cruise lines have implemented that.
So it depends on which part of the requirements we are
addressing. And, of course, when we talk to folks who are
primarily affected at the land border, there are concerns about
what the alternatives might be for the routine types of
crossings that we discussed earlier.
Senator Coleman. Certainly it is an essential part of the
concern. The commercial piece is also important.
But getting back to land border crossings, you also in your
testimony talked about the importance of quality secure
documents. What do we have in place today? How would you
evaluate the system today?
Ms. Dezenski. The system in terms of checking documents?
Senator Coleman. We have people going back and forth, a
million a year by land border, by land crossings. I have got
the figure here. We are talking millions of folks going back
and forth. Is it your testimony that today we do not have in
place a system of secure documentation checks?
Ms. Dezenski. We do--well, I think we are checking
documents very regularly. I think the problem is that there is
not always uniformity in type--in terms of the types of
documents that are utilized.
For example, there are over 6,000 different types of birth
certificates, and many different types of driver's license
formats, so the ability for our border inspector to look at a
birth certificate, for example, and determine whether that is a
legitimate document and denotes U.S. citizenship can be very
challenging, particularly when you want to move people across
the border very quickly.
So what we are hoping we get to, is a bit more
harmonization to not only help the passenger, but help our
border inspectors make a determination more quickly.
Senator Coleman. I am trying to get an assessment from you
of where we stand today, how bad the system is currently. I
mean, we are talking about a very significant change here. We
have millions of people crossing every day.
Thank God, we have been relatively safe. Folks have done a
good job. But we are talking about the family of five, who is
living up in International Falls or a little town right next
door to it, or go further west to Hallock or Warroad. We are
saying, ``You are going to need to get passports for you and
your kids.'' And I am trying to assess the level of danger
today in the system that we have in order for me to get a
better understanding of how much we have to change it.
Ms. Dezenski. Right. Well, I think we would agree with some
of the results of the 9/11 Commission that there are
vulnerabilities, particularly at the land border, where we do
have folks who are exempted from certain types of documentation
requirements, and that we do need to strengthen and close those
vulnerabilities--strengthen the requirements and close those--
--
Senator Coleman. One----
Ms. Dezenski [continuing]. Loopholes.
Senator Coleman. One last question. You talked about
biometrics. Is that kind of looking in the eye and seeing
whether that works for you? Is there thought of using that more
extensively?
Ms. Dezenski. Yes, there is. As you know, we have rolled
out biometrics as part of the US-VISIT entry/exit program, and
some of the programs that I have mentioned, NEXUS and SENTRI,
also have biometric requirements. You have to give your
fingerprints, for example, so we can run the appropriate
background checks.
So we think there is lots of applications for biometrics
along with certain types of chip technologies, use of radio
frequency technology, for example, to make it easy to move
through by flashing a card, for example.
But everything has to be tied into some type of process
that ensures that you are clean beforehand. So we have a lot of
work to do in that area, but I think you will see that in terms
of the development of the exit system and entry system moving
forward. And, of course, as we look at programs like the TWIC,
the Transportation Worker Identity Card, although not
applicable in this instance, it is the same concept, which is
let us vet--let us make sure that people have access to places
where they should have access.
Senator Coleman. All right. My wife is signed up with
Northwest Airlines. They have a biometric program, and she
thinks it is great.
Ms. Dezenski. Yes.
Senator Coleman. On the other hand, I would suspect that
there would be a lot of Americans who would be very concerned
about each of their kids being fingerprinted or the Government
having on file a biometric pattern for every single person in
this country. So there are some cultural and practical
concerns.
It would seem to me that if we could find a driver's
license that worked that you could--you know, when I go fish, I
keep my fishing license and my driver's license in my pocket. I
do not keep my passport.
And it would seem that this would be so much simpler if we
could find some standard kind of identification that people are
comfortable with that would not create a sense of greater
intrusiveness and infringement upon some personal privacies,
because I think you are going to get quite a reaction.
My last question is: Did anybody respond to the President
when he raised his concerns?
Ms. Dezenski. Did we respond within the executive----
Senator Coleman. Yes. Did you write a letter back or tell
him that we are rethinking this?
Ms. Dezenski. I am not aware of any correspondence, but I
mean we certainly agree with the President that we have to be
flexible in terms of how we move this forward.
Senator Coleman. I appreciate that. I am very pleased to
have a very distinguished ranking member here, Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd, I will turn it over to you, both for an
opening statement and for any questions you may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, U.S. SENATOR FROM
CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My--is this on? Yes.
Senator Coleman. Yes.
Senator Dodd. My apologies for being a few minutes late. I
had the Woodstock Middle School from Connecticut down, all 800
of the 8th graders around the steps of the Capitol, so my
colleague knows what that is like, so--I did not want to be
late.
But let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing this, having
this hearing, and I thank our witnesses as well. This is always
a tough section to deal with, the consular sections. I admire
people who get involved in this subject matter. It is hard. And
I am grateful to you for your dedication.
I am trying to think. I was recalling as we were looking at
the map of Minnesota here. I guess a map of Connecticut really
would not be terribly effective in this discussion, but----
Mr. Moss. We happen to have one.
Senator Dodd. I do not know how my colleagues in
Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio are going to feel about this.
There are some in my State who think they should have passports
to come through, but I appreciate you bringing it up.
[Laughter.]
I am thinking as I was listening to Norm talk about the
issues of border towns in Minnesota, a year or 2 ago, 3 years
ago, I gave the commencement address at the University of North
Dakota in Grand Rapids, which is a separate story itself, how a
guy from Connecticut ended up at the University of North Dakota
giving a commencement address, but it was a great experience.
I was actually out there a day early, and I wanted to go to
see Grand Forks, the town. And this was the town, you may
recall, not many years ago that actually had this huge flood.
And then in the midst of the flood, the town caught on fire,
and so they could not even get to the buildings that were
burning.
And I met with the mayor and they really did a great job of
rebuilding that small community in North Dakota. But there was
a meeting in the mayor's office that morning, and he asked me
if I wanted to come and attend. And it was on this subject
matter, ironically, the morning of the commencement address.
And in the meeting, was--I think he had most of the Federal
agencies that would be affected--I think the immigration
office, the customs offices, and so forth, as well as FBI and
other people were all there to talk about what needed to be
done.
And there was one wonderful vignette that occurred, that I
may have already shared this story with the chairman of the
committee. One gentleman got up--and Grand Forks, for those who
are not familiar with where it is, is not that far from the
Canadian border. I do not know how far, but it is relatively
close, certainly within a commuting distance for people who
work back and forth.
And I forget how many roads there are between Canada and
North Dakota, but not many actually that cross the border. And
apparently up until then, at least, border control consisted in
some areas of putting down two snow cones at 9 p.m. at night
and then picking them back up again at 9 a.m. in the morning,
and that was pretty much what the border controls were.
And one gentleman got up in the room and he had a business
in North Dakota that employed a lot of people from Canada. And
he pointed out that his business opened at 8 a.m. in North
Dakota and that he had quite a few people who crossed the
border to come to work.
He said, ``Now, the border does not open until 9 a.m., but
no one has ever been late for work,'' the point being this is a
rather porous border at that time going back and forth.
Anyway, again, I thank the chairman for doing this, and
obviously this issue goes--is an interest, obviously, to all
Americans because it speaks very directly to our national
security issues, economic issues, and public diplomacy
concerns, which are not an insignificant factor at all, in our
view. So I thank you for doing this.
As all of us know, and this may be repetitive, the chairman
may have made these points, but let me repeat them. Last
December, of course, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act
of 2004 was signed into law. The legislation included a
provision which required the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop a plan,
which is what we are there to talk about, that would enable us
to verify the identity and citizenship of all travelers
entering the United States.
This coordination led to the establishment of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative. According to the Department of
Homeland Security, this initiative will--and I am quoting--
``require all travelers to and from the Americas, Caribbean,
and Bermuda to have a passport or other accepted document that
establishes the bearer's identity and nationality to enter or
reenter the United States.'' It will also primarily affect two
groups of people, U.S. citizens who do not currently have valid
passports and foreign nationals who currently are not required
to present a passport to travel to the United States, mainly
Canadian and Mexican citizens.
In April 2005, DHS announced its plan to implement this
initiative. Three deadlines--the chairman just recently
discussed this--have been promulgated. The beginning of
December 31, it was supposed to take effect for all travel to
and from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. On
December 31, 2006, it will take effect for all air and sea
travel to and from Mexico and Canada; December 31, 2007, apply
to all air, sea, and land border crossings.
And you have indicated that you want a little time before
the--some adjusting of those dates. Is that what I heard you
say?
Mr. Moss. We are certainly looking at the three dates in
view of the same delays and in view of some of the reactions
from the public and other governments, especially to the first
deadline, but clearly we still have to have this program in
effect by December 31, 2007. That is, of course, written into
law.
Senator Dodd. Well, without a doubt, last year's
Intelligence Reform Legislation was an important milestone in
beginning to implement the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission. That legislation rightly addressed the issues of
cross-border travel and border security and, indeed, the tragic
events of September 11 made it all too clear that these systems
were broken and in need of major reform.
And it is essential that we act, in my view, responsibly to
tighten our borders to protect America and its citizens.
I think it is also very critical that when we address these
issues, we seek to strike a balance--and this is where I would
like to make some emphasis, if I could--to strike the balance
between national security interests on the one hand and our
Nation's economy, its vitality obviously, and public diplomacy
on the other.
After all, for years, the United States has been a beacon
for foreign tourists. This tourism has helped to drive our
economy even in the worst of times. It has also left an
impression with tourists of what America is all about, what our
country means, and who we are as a people.
And this person-to-person interaction, I think, has helped
tremendously over the years to spread what America's values are
and its ideals in a way that I do not think ever gets achieved
through other means in many ways. And I say that with all due
respect to other efforts.
But we should not underestimate the value of what one
average American--what the impression of one average American
makes--can make on a first-time visitor to this country or a
repeat visitor, for that matter.
First, I would like to touch on just the economic issues,
if I can. Although there have been modest increases in the
number of international arrivals in the United States, over the
past 2 years the number of such arrivals has declined overall
since 2000. These applications are also down, as are the number
of visas issued.
As fewer and fewer people visit our great country, I think
our economy is going to be hurt by that. This does not only
affect service industries and restaurants--such as restaurants,
shops, and hotels, it also affects those who supply these
industries. So what we could see is a ripple effect in our
economy.
Second, I think we must not overlook the public diplomacy
issues, which are at stake here as well, and we should not
underestimate them. Namely, when foreign citizens, I mentioned
a minute ago, visit the United States, they have an opportunity
to see our land firsthand and to meet our people, average
people, firsthand. They interact with Americans and they get a
chance to experience the freedom and democracy, which rightly
make us proud as citizens of this great country.
In essence, this person-to-person contact allows American
citizens here to become ambassadors of American ideals, without
ever having to leave their communities.
And equally as important, it also turns those who visit our
Nation into our unofficial ambassadors when they return to
their countries. The importance of this dual effect should
never be taken for granted, and I hope it never will be.
Last, there is another impact that we often do not take
into account, and that is the possibility of reciprocal
restrictions imposed by foreign nations on U.S. travelers.
After all, as we--when we tighten our restrictions here, other
countries may do the same, so we must ensure that any reforms
we implement would be equally palatable if they are imposed on
Americans traveling abroad. Otherwise, we could risk
complicating the process for many thousands of our citizens who
travel on personal and business reasons. And complications
arising from such a situation could have a further negative
effect on our economy here at home.
None of this, of course, should take away from the
legitimate and vital need to protect our national security and
our borders, which is why the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative is the topic of our hearing here today.
But it certainly is my hope that as we move forward with
this program, that we will always seek to strike that balance,
that reasonable intelligent balance that protects our security
and keeps us open as a welcoming place, as we have been for so
many decades.
And I am also struck, Mr. Chairman, by the fact that in so
many instances, of course, we fail to appreciate how
intelligent and--unfortunately, how intelligent these--some of
these terrorists can be, and the idea that they are going to
follow a normal pattern of behavior to come into our country
is--I think can be terribly naive with their determination to
get here.
And so we need to make sure that we do not give these
terrorist organizations far greater victories than they have
already achieved in many ways.
I want to say terrorism--terrorists are less concerned
about the damage that they do with a specific attack. The real
rationale is the effect of the attack. What do we do as a
result of what they have done?
And, in a sense, you are watching a lot of these things and
I am worried in some ways that we try to fix everything, and we
become so restrictive that we lose the essence of who we are
and what we stand for as a people.
So, just a couple of quick questions for you, and the
chairman sort of touched on them a bit here. And I will try to
be fast on these, as well--we have got another panel to come--
but I am just curious as to whether or not any assessments have
been made as you are looking at this. And if you have not,
yourself, are others doing this on things like NAFTA?
I was a supporter of NAFTA. I believe it was very important
for us. And are we looking here--are we seeing any effects of
this? And, if so, we ought to--that ought to be part of the
discussion, it seems to me, as we go forward.
I hope to be a supporter of CAFTA. We are having
discussions about that and hopefully--and this is not a--this
is going to be a tough battle in any circumstances--and the
implications could be very important, if we do not get this
right.
But I do not need to tell you how important it is going to
be if that is to work, that there be a free flow here, back and
forth. If there is not, then we can end up passing a trade
agreement that has less of the positive impact than we would
like to have because of actions we are taking that may appear
unrelated to some, but it will be very directly affected.
I am curious about the tourism issue, and I mentioned here,
but I wonder if you are seeing any reaction to this at all?
The public diplomacy--again, I mentioned the visa
applications, and the numbers are declining. We have raised
issues--I know we did with Condoleezza Rice. I think we all
raised the questions when she was here, in this very room at
her confirmation hearing, the concerns we have about the number
of students who are coming here and how--what a benefit this
has been to us over the years to have these students who come
to the United States to get undergraduate degrees or graduate
degrees. And we are watching a decline, not so much in the
graduate degree area, but the undergraduate degree area.
And I know there are steps being made to try and deal with
that, but I have run into it several times in other countries
where I have been. It has been raised by foreign nationals
there about what has happened, several cases of their own
students deciding to go to Europe, deciding to go to India,
going to China to study, because it was far easier for them to
go there to get an advanced degree than come here.
I hope I do not have to preach to anyone about the value
that has been to us, particularly since the post-World War II
period, of the literally hundreds of thousands of people. In
fact, I was struck when President Bush was in Georgia recently
and, of course, welcomed ceremoniously by this wonderful new
president, who by the way got a degree at Columbia University.
You run into this all the time around the world. I
certainly have.
My brother taught at Georgetown for 27 years in the foreign
service school. And I cannot go to a country in Latin America--
literally cannot go to one where I do not run into some
minister or some businessperson that had my brother as a
professor over the last 27 years that was at Georgetown
University.
I hope in our effort to get better on the national security
issues we are not going to watch that kind of flow be damaged.
So I would be interested in your observations you are making
about that.
And the reciprocal question--ironically, this morning I was
out getting a haircut, and the fellow who is the barber has a
daughter who is at Georgetown, who is going to Chile to do--she
is at Georgetown, a junior at Georgetown. She is going to do a
semester in Santiago, Chile. He was describing to me the amount
of work that is being required of her by the Chilean Embassy
for her to go down as a student.
And without thinking necessarily about the hearing this
afternoon, I was curious as to whether or not we are watching
the Chilean Government all of a sudden ratcheting up the kinds
of requirements that they are imposing upon kids going down to
study in response to what we may be asking of them.
If that is a fact, then so be it, if that is what we have
to go through. But I am curious as to whether or not you are
seeing any trend lines here on reciprocal behavior. So there is
a series of questions there, some of which go beyond your
direct portfolio, but obviously you are going to be--you are
important witnesses to us.
And, again, I thank you for what you do. I have a deep
appreciation for people in the consular section. It can be a
thankless job and really do--you do tremendous work.
I have been in offices all across the world and to sit in
there and watch what--the lines that form around our consular
offices everywhere in the world, people seeking to come here
for one reason or another, and the job, day in and day out, to
be there, to process that and make determinations, I wish more
Americans could watch people do it, the respect they should
have for people who do this job, in my view, is just--I--and
the respect I have is tremendous. So I thank you on behalf--if
you could mention to your staff and others how much this
Senator appreciates the work your people do.
Mr. Moss. Senator, thank you very much for your kind words
about my colleagues in the consular services around the world
and I also take that as applying to my colleagues and my staff
who process and get passports here in the United States.
If I could try and touch on the issues you just raised,
first of all, an important element in our rulemaking process
will be the fact that we are required to do an economic
analysis of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. We have
split lead responsibilities on different aspects of that. That
actually rests with staff of the Department of Homeland
Security, but they will be looking very closely at the economic
analysis, the NAFTA issues, the tourism issues, things of this
nature.
In terms of the tourism issue, one thing that I can tell
you for sure is that several of the Caribbean countries have
expressed reservations over the current timing cycle that we
have. They are concerned that this may, in fact, disadvantage
tourism to the Caribbean versus going to Mexico for the coming
2005/2006 tourism season. That is one of the reasons why we are
also taking a second look at the ANPRM.
In terms of the public diplomacy, the number of students,
obviously this is not a Western Hemisphere issue, because
clearly the Western Hemisphere program largely affects the
travel of American citizens, but it is certainly an issue that
we are well aware of your views on, as well as that of the
chairman.
I think we are doing a much better job on this issue. For
example, during the summer period when students are trying to
get their student visas, we have expedited appointment systems
for them and things like this.
We certainly recognize, as you have so eloquently stated,
the value of an American education, literally the one-to-one
relationships, as you put it, for the American ambassador in
the small town in the United States or the university
professor. I think we are doing a very good job at that. Can we
do better? Obviously, we are always looking for opportunities
to improve.
You are right about a decline in visa applications since
2001. I think that decline has largely leveled off, but
certainly it has not begun to recover to the levels we saw
then. However, those levels may have been slightly inflated by
some work we were doing in Mexico in the 1999-2001 period. But
the reality is still, we are processing fewer visas than we
were a few years ago.
In terms of reciprocity, I think there has been a general
tightening of visa requirements around the world. You are
talking about the daughter of your barber and the steps she has
to take to get a visa to be a student in Chile. I really think
the governments around the world do want to have a better
understanding of who is in their country and who is leaving
their country, in much the same way as we are trying to do
through our US-VISIT program.
In terms of issues like the collection of biometrics, we
are certainly seeing biometrics becoming a more widespread
phenomenon in the visa world. The European Union is moving in
that direction. At least one other country I can think of,
after we imposed our fingerprint requirement a year and a half
ago, did impose a requirement on American citizens. That has
been more the exception than the rule, but it has happened.
But certainly it is something that we recognize. But, of
course, sovereign governments are making their own decisions
right now on who they wish to admit and what types of screening
they may subject people to before they come, just as happens,
quite honestly, not just with students but with casual visitors
as well.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Mr. Moss. I hope that helps to answer some of your
questions.
Senator Dodd. It does. It does.
Mr. Moss. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. And I appreciate that. And you will keep us
posted, because I think this is going to be a story that is
going to develop and I would be very interested in how it is
working and maybe keeping the subcommittee and the full
committee up to speed on a regular basis on what these numbers
are looking like, because the trend lines, I think, will be
important for us to watch.
Mr. Moss. I certainly appreciate that offer. I know my
colleagues from our public affairs and congressional relations
office talk all the time to your staff, but we will make
certain that they routinely see data on visa applications, and
we can also share with them the data on passport applications,
where, of course, the numbers are trending very much in a
different direction up, upwards.
Senator Dodd. Let me ask a naive question. I apologize for
this, and I will wrap this up here.
Are we rotating--I mean I use the old cone system. You
know, you are in the consular section and obviously you have
people who make careers of it, but are we trying to move people
in and out, as well? Because I know it can--this is very trying
work and----
Mr. Moss. You are absolutely right, it is very trying work.
And it is certainly work virtually all officers do within their
first couple of tours.
And then people begin to specialize in it and do it for the
rest of their career. It is certainly considered a core
responsibility of the State Department, and it is something in
which we want all of our officers to have expertise, not just
in a classroom setting, but actual hands-on practice. So we
really view our ability to take our entry-level officers and
have them experience consular work as a real benefit, not just
for the provision of the service, but really to help them with
their language skills and help them understand the country to
which they are assigned.
Senator Dodd. Yes. I just--you know, one thing and, again,
I turn to our offices, our district offices where, at least in
my case, all of the case work is done. I do not know whether
Norm does the same thing or not, but it is tough work to be a
caseworker day in and day out on veterans issues or Social
Security, problems coming in.
The effort we can make, and I want to say this carefully,
because I do not want it to appear as though I am negating what
I said earlier in commending, but the ability to be good
diplomats, too, with those people coming in, the sense of fear
that someone could have as a foreigner walking into that
consular office and hoping and praying that they can get that
visa to visit a family member or something else, and how they
are received and how they are welcomed, even when, obviously,
there are suspicions and so forth, they decide to turn people
down, and I--for many people that is the only contact they will
ever have with us.
And I do not know to what extent we really work at training
people on that aspect of this, but I suspect you know what I am
driving at here.
Mr. Moss. Absolutely. I think I can probably speak of it a
little bit more directly from the passport side, but you
certainly go through the same process. You are coming into a
government office. You have just been through a security
screening process. Both on the visa side and the passport side,
and, of course, on our citizen services side, we pride
ourselves on delivering services using the best principles of
customer service.
On the passport side, we are very proud of the fact that in
the recent University of Michigan surveys that are done on
customer service throughout the United States, we actually
scored considerably above the standard for American corporate
customer service.
The obvious issue for the visa process is, of course, that
sometimes you have to say ``no'' to the applicant. What we try
and explain to our officers, and we think we are very
successful at that, is there is a way to tell someone ``no'' in
a polite fashion so that they understand why. And they may not
go away happy, but they, at least, go away believing you made a
considered judgment in their case.
Senator Dodd. Now, what are all these dots on the map in
Connecticut for? What does that mean?
Mr. Moss. I am sorry.
Senator Dodd. Passport acceptance facilities.
Mr. Moss. Those are some 220 different facilities around
the state of Connecticut. They are post offices, clerks of
court, other facilities, where someone can begin the passport
application process.
Senator Dodd. Oh, okay.
Mr. Moss. This was in terms of the fact that we do--we may
only have passport agencies in 16 cities--of course, one of
which is in your State--but we do try and make the process as
transparent and as simple as possible by having literally
thousands of acceptances.
Senator Dodd. I thought--as you go down to Stanford,
Connecticut, you know, I was looking at one of these dots in my
own hometown. I thought, how did I miss this?
Mr. Moss. Well, excuse me. In fact, the agency is actually
now in Norwalk, but in obviously the same, very much----
Senator Dodd. Okay.
Mr. Moss [continuing]. The same general area.
The point is here, though, for your constituents they do
not have to go to Norwalk to get a passport. They can go into
their local post office.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Mr. Moss. And I will put in another plug for our Web site.
If you go to travel.state.gov, you can find this not just for
Connecticut and Minnesota, but for every State in the United
States, including directions, their operating hours, things of
this nature.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for letting me take so much time.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Senator Dodd. I would note that
you have much more extensive coverage in Connecticut than we do
in Minnesota.
Senator Dodd. Yes. I do not think that was really smart to
have Minnesota having fewer dots up there than Connecticut. I
was not going to mention that, Mr. Chairman, but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, we are always looking for
additional opportunities and additional post offices and clerks
of court. We would be happy to work with you and your staff to
identify more.
Senator Coleman. I think the key is--and I will just end on
this, the challenge, particularly being a border State, and if
you look at the map of Minnesota, you can see in the border
areas, there is not the coverage, and those are the ones most
affected. And so I really think you have to look at that.
There are four points I am going to make that I really want
you to consider. When we look at other documentation, I think
we need to expand the type of documents. And the fact is that
SENTRI and NEXUS, really at this point, are not beneficial in
terms of ease of getting them and applicability to some of
these vast numbers, at least at the daily border crossings that
people make in a State like Minnesota. And I would suspect if
Chairman Collins were here, she would have the same
perspective.
Second, and it ties into this, just making it easy as
possible to get these documents. Particularly in those places
where people's lives are going to be impacted on a regular
basis. We have to reflect on that.
Third, the timing. You have already reflected some
sensitivity to that, and this committee appreciates that. But
the more time to plan, the less disruptive the implementation.
And there needs to be ample time after the notice of rulemaking
is out so folks can respond, and so those responses are taken
into consideration.
Last, and not least, get the word out. You have got to let
people know what we are looking at. Whatever we do, there are
going to be significant changes. The system is different. When
you have only 20 percent of the population with passports, you
are talking about a massive change in human behavior, in
American behavior, and I, like Senator Dodd, I worry about the
impact. I worry about whether we have studied it. And once it
happens, it happens. And the sensitivity, particularly in
border areas, Senator Dodd, is that these are places that right
now they are scraping to get by.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Senator Coleman. They do not have the masses of population.
They do not have the masses of economy diversity and
opportunity, so you hit them in the gut on a travel piece, on a
small, little thing, on what may be a little economic
development to somebody in Stanford or Bridgeport or New Haven
or Minneapolis, St. Paul----
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Senator Coleman [continuing]. It may be a little thing to
them, but it is what they've got. And so I think we have got to
be very careful and carefully understand the impact.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Senator Coleman. So I thank both the witnesses. I thank you
for the work that you do, and I look forward to continue
working with you.
Mr. Moss. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dezenski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coleman. Thank you.
Our second panel will shed some light on how the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative will impact the travel industry
and how it fits into the overall picture of North American
border security.
First, we will hear from Mr. Paul Ruden, Senior Vice
President for Legal and Industry Affairs for the American
Society of Travel Agents, ASTA, the world's largest association
of travel professionals, including travel agents and the
companies whose products they sell, ranging from tours to
cruises to hotels and so on.
Mr. Ruden has been with ASTA since 1990, in this capacity
and as acting chief operating officer. Prior to joining ASTA in
1990, Mr. Ruden was in private law practice in Washington, DC,
for 19 years.
Mr. Ruden worked as a trial attorney at the Civil
Aeronautics Board from 1967 to 1969.
Our final witness will help us put this issue into the
broader context. Dr. Robert Pastor is vice president of
international affairs and professor of international relations
at American University, where he established and directs the
Center for North American Studies, a public policy research and
educational center.
Previous to his position at American University, Dr. Pastor
was a professor of political science at Emory University and
founding director of the Carter Center's Latin American and
Caribbean program and the Democracy Project. He was director of
Latin American and Caribbean affairs at the National Security
Council from 1977 to 1981.
Dr. Pastor was also vice chair of the Council on Foreign
Relations Task Force on the Future of North America.
Before we begin, I would like to enter three statements
into the record, a statement from the United States Chamber of
Commerce, a statement from Mark Travel Corporation, and a
letter from the Travel Industry Association. And they will be
entered without objection.
[The information follows:]
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2005.
Hon. Norm Coleman,
Chairman, Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs
Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Dodd,
Ranking Member, Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs
Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Coleman and Ranking Member Dodd: On behalf of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I would like to thank you for holding a
hearing this week on ``Safety and Convenience in Cross-Border Travel:
An Analysis of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.'' The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation,
representing more than 3 million businesses of every size, sector, and
region. Thus, proper implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI) is of tremendous importance to us and we welcome the
opportunity to submit these written comments in anticipation of the
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking expected to come out later this
month. I would also like to take the liberty of requesting that this
letter be included in the hearing record.
Our main concern with the WHTI is with the implementation of the
land border-crossing requirements to be phased in by 2008. It is
impossible to quantify, with any precision, the commercial impact of
the new document requirements under the WHTI because we still do not
know what the new document requirements will be. However, it can be
reasonably estimated that if the document requirements are too strict,
the impact on the American economy will be severe. Clearly, if
documentation such as SENTRI, NEXUS, FAST, and BCC program cards are
acceptable substitutes for a passport, the impact will be lessened.
The main debate, however, revolves around the acceptance of driver
licenses together with birth certificates as a proper substitute to a
passport in land border crossings. It is the chamber's position that if
licenses and birth certificates comply with certain requirements--
especially given the new requirements found in the REAL ID Act--they
should also be authorized as appropriate substitutes to a passport.
Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004, the legal basis for the new regulations, clearly states that a
passport substitute should be another document ``or combination of
documents'' that are ``sufficient to denote identity and citizenship.''
This language would clearly allow for acceptance of a driver's
license with a birth certificate--the best known combination of
documents that denote identity and citizenship. We understand that
training costs for border personnel may be less under a restrictive
program authorizing a very limited range of documents; however, the
possible commercial costs of a restrictive program must also be
weighed.
For example, Canadian visitation to the United States alone is far
greater than from any other foreign nation. There were 34.5 million
visits by Canadians to the United States in 2003, which had a $10.9
billion impact on our national economy. At the same time, fewer than 40
percent of Canadians hold passports and even a smaller percentage of
children hold passports.\1\ Thus, communities that cater to family
vacationers face the prospect of losing a substantial number of the
market audience. Further, many older Canadians own, rent, or lease
residences in the United States for extended periods of time. While it
is possible they would go through the process of obtaining a passport,
visits by vacationing younger relatives would very likely be
diminished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1 Data obtained from the Canadian Consulate in Buffalo, NY, by
the Buffalo Niagara Partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo Niagara Partnership, the Detroit Regional Chamber, and
the Bellingham/Whatcom Chamber, which together represent employers in
three border States that conduct over $60 billion in annual bilateral
trade with Canada, are an integral part of the local efforts by
chambers of commerce, from San Francisco to Baltimore, in seeking the
continuation of driver licenses with birth certificates as substitutes
to passports. As these groups pointed out, last week in a letter to
other chambers, a restrictive program would have an impact well beyond
border communities.
Unfortunately, the Departments of Homeland Security and State have
been dismissive of authorizing acceptance of a combination of a driver
license and a birth certificate as a passport substitute. They
acknowledge that a birth certificate and a driver license are
sufficient to establish nationality and identity for the purpose of
obtaining a passport. However, they argue that the difficulty of
training border officers to determine the validity of these documents
makes impossible to allow them to be acceptable substitutes to
passports. This determination seems to have been made without a
discussion with the States/provinces, business interests, and other
affected parties, on possible fixes to their concerns.
In fact, new laws, such as the REAL ID Act, are undermining the
Departments' position, given that driver licenses and birth
certificates are becoming increasingly more secure. States have already
been moving toward making these documents machine readable, coded with
biometric identifiers, and other security and tamper resistant
features. We are not advocating for the acceptance of ``baptismal
records, certificates of naturalization, [and] certificates of
identity,'' \2\ which the Departments seem to be concerned about. We
also understand that there are multiple State/provincial driver
licenses and birth certificates. However, we believe the solution is in
having reasonable prerequisites for the acceptance of driver licenses
with birth certificates rather than to eliminate outright their
acceptance, especially since they do, by the Departments own admission,
serve to prove both identity and citizenship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Answer by U.S. Customs & Border Protection to ``Frequently
Asked Questions,'' also available at www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/
vacation/kbyg/west_hem_faqs/dhs_faqs.xml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is imperative that the Departments of Homeland Security and
State reach out to all sectors affected by any change at the border and
work with them to find solutions that facilitate trade and travel
without jeopardizing national security. In the past private/public
partnerships, such as the Data Management Improvement Act (DMIA) Task
Force, which the chamber served on, have been instrumental in reaching
consensus on difficult border issues. Solutions will require
flexibility and may well require different identification systems for
different types of visitors. Taking reliable documents ``off-the-
table'' without substantial and formalized discussions with affected
businesses would lead to a program that unduly penalizes American
business and the American economy.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the
topic covered at the hearing, and the U.S. Chamber looks forward to
continuing our relationship with the subcommittee and the Departments
of Homeland Security and State to address these issues.
Sincerely,
Randel K. Johnson,
Vice President, Labor,
Immigration and Employee Benefits.
______
Wiley Rein & Fielding LIP,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2005.
Hon. Norm Coleman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Coleman: On behalf of Tammy Lee, Vice President,
Corporate Affairs of the Mark Travel Corporation, l ask that the
enclosed testimony be placed in the record for the June 9 Committee on
Foreign Relations hearing on ``Safety and Convenience of Cross-Border
Travel.''
This is an extremely important issue to Mark Travel, one of the
largest tour operators in North America, and its customers. There is
significant concern about the ability of government agencies to process
all passports from cross-border operations that would be needed under
recent changes enacted by the Department of State.
Considering the importance of travel and tourism to the economic
health of this country, it is important that actions not be taken that
will discourage people from traveling.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Edward P. Faberman.
Enclosure.
Prepared Statement by Tammy L. Lee, Vice President, Corporate Affairs,
the Mark Travel Corporation
Chairman Coleman, Senator Dodd, and distinguished members of this
committee, on behalf of the more than 1 million passengers our company
carries to Mexico and the Caribbean, I respectfully ask you to consider
a short delay of the new requirements for cross-border travel recently
proposed by the State Department and Department of Homeland Security.
While we support the stricter border security proposals and agree
with the need to protect the Nation's borders, we believe the proposed
timeline will negatively impact the travel and tourism industry at a
time when the industry is still somewhat stagnant--but showing positive
signs of future growth and expansion.
Moreover, the new requirements will create unanticipated added
costs for travelers who have already booked their vacations; and will
place an extraordinary burden on the Department of State's ability to
process all of the new applications in such an abbreviated timeframe.
In short, we all need more time to plan appropriately for the new
requirements and execute the plan. The end of this year simply isn't
enough time for the industry, the government, or consumers.
Here is why we are so concerned about this.
The Mark Travel Corporation is one of the largest tour operators
and vacation packagers in North America.
We carry about 2.6 million passengers each year, and operate 16
vacation companies including: United Vacations, US Airways Vacations,
Southwest Vacations, Midwest Airlines Vacations, ATA Vacations, Funjet
Vacations, Funway Holidays, Mountain Vacations, Vacations by Adventure
Tours, TransGlobal Vacations, MGM Mirage Vacations, Blue Sky Tours,
Mark International, Conquest Vacations, Las Vegas and More, and
Showtime Tours.
Of these 2.6 million passengers, annually, we carry about 1 million
passengers to Mexico and approximately 130,000 passengers to the
Caribbean.
We estimate that only 20-30 percent of our passengers currently
have passports.
Challenges to meeting the proposed timeline
The new regulations would require all travelers entering or
reentering the United States from Bermuda and nations of the Caribbean,
Central and South America to show passports starting December 31 of
this year. In addition, it would require passports for all travelers
entering the United States by air and sea from Mexico and Canada by
December 31, 2006, and extend the same requirements for all cross-
border travel beginning December 31, 2007.
This proposal will immediately affect our company's 130,000
passengers to the Caribbean. It also immediately impacts other tour
operators and vacation packagers as well as the hundreds of thousands
of cruise ship passengers who currently sail without passports. The
following year, our 1 million passengers to Mexico would be similarly
impacted.
Implementation must be fair and equal for all sectors of the industry
Regardless of whether you are a tour operator, cruiseline, or other
vacation retailer--we all face the same negative and cumbersome
challenges in complying with this timeline.
We have heard from several sources that the cruiselines may be
asking for an exemption from this policy and extension of the
deadlines.
If such an extension is granted for one travel industry sector, it
must be granted for all.
We all compete for the same customers and giving one group of
travelers an exemption would be anticompetitive and unfair.
By giving an exemption or extension to one industry sector, such as
the cruiselines, the Government would create an unlevel playing field
and drive customers (particularly cost-conscious travelers) to choose
the vacation option that doesn't require the passport expense or
hassle.
More time equals better implementation
With all of these complexities and considerations, we all need more
time to sort through the impacts and put together a well thought out
plan for compliance.
Otherwise, implementing the new requirements according to the
current timeline could quickly become a customer relations quagmire and
open Pandora's Box for passport processing.
But most importantly, imagine the problems that this timeline would
create for a large family or group planning an end-of-year vacation.
Therefore, we strongly urge you to delay implementation of these
requirements.
Justification for an extension
Complying with the new requirements is extremely problematic given
that:
The State Department issues about 8.8 million passports each
year and currently has the capacity to issue 10 million.
The requirement could result in the need to issue
approximately 17 million new passports each year.
To meet this new demand, the State Department has said it
may open new regional passport offices in Denver, Atlanta, and
other cities. However, new offices are not yet open and
operational.
The State Department has not completed the recruitment and
hiring process for the hundreds of new workers needed to comply
with nearly twice the number of anticipated new passport
applications.
The Department of State (DOS) and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) still have not issued a formal Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on the new passport requirements--which
they were expected to do in mid-May.
To properly implement the new requirements the government, travel
industry, and traveling public all need more sufficient notice.
Recommendations
With these factors to consider, we recommend the following:
Direct DOS and DHS to immediately initiate the formal
rulemaking process to get additional comments from travel and
tourism on impacts.
Delay the passport requirements for the Caribbean 1 year to
December 31, 2006.
Delay new passport requirements for reentry by air or sea
from Mexico an additional 6 months to June 1, 2007.
Request from the Appropriations Committee an allocation for
a public awareness campaign on new passport requirements to be
executed at the airports (at the ticket counters, screening
areas, and customs inspection areas) and signage and marketing
materials at all border-crossing check points.
Benefits of extending the implementation
Delaying the implementation timeline gives the United States travel
and tourism industry the time to work with our marketing counterparts
in the Caribbean and Mexico (the Caribbean Tourism Organization,
Mexican Government, and convention and visitors associations) and
create joint promotional campaigns to continue to stimulate United
States vacation traffic to this region.
We would also have more time to work with our suppliers in these
regions to offer marketing incentives to help defray the costs of the
passports. Large resort companies, such as SuperClubs, are already
starting to do this, but more time is needed for a more coordinated
effort.
We would also have adequate time to upgrade our technology systems
to be able to collect passport information and also alert customers who
book vacations to Mexico, the Caribbean, or Canada, about the new
passport requirements prior to them booking their vacations and
applying payment.
Failing to alert customers of the new passport requirements in a
proactive manner will certainly result in great customer
dissatisfaction, higher cancellation rates, and more losses for our
industry.
Conclusion: Support . . . but delay
In conclusion, we join the administration in support of the new
recommendations to enhance border security, but ask that the proposals
be implemented on a more reasonable timeline.
Doing so allows the State Department to hire additional workers for
passport processing and train new and existing border-crossing and
customs officials as well as allows us the necessary time to put into
place a customer-friendly program to continue to encourage cross-border
travel, without suffering additional staggering losses to our business.
Thank you, sincerely, for your consideration of our request. If we
can be of assistance in the implementation of this new requirement, or
other reasonable measures to improve border security, we would be happy
to do so.
______
Travel Industry Association of America,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2005.
Hon. Norm Coleman,
Chairman, Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs
Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Ranking Member, Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs
Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Coleman and Ranking Member Dodd: I am writing to you
on behalf of the Travel Industry Association of America's more than
2,000 member organizations both to thank you for holding this hearing
on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and to express our
industry's concern regarding its potential impact on travel and
tourism.
The Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) has a long history
of working with Congress and the executive branch on issues impacting
international travel to the United States. TIA's mission is to promote
and facilitate increased travel to and within the United States. Long
before the events of 9/11, TIA worked hard to promote international
travel to the United States while supporting Federal efforts to enhance
U.S. border security. Today we believe more than ever that this Nation
can foster increased international travel and trade while at the same
time incorporate new procedures designed to enhance U.S. homeland
security.
Programs such as US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology) and the incorporation of both machine-
readable passports and biometric passports are all supported by TIA and
the U.S. travel industry. In most cases, the only question is whether
or not the timing of such new programs and requirements can occur in a
manner that does not significantly disrupt inbound international
travel.
In the case of the WHTI, TIA and its member organizations strongly
support the move toward the use of passports or similar secure
documents that permit preregistered travelers to cross the U.S. border
with Canada or Mexico. We agree that U.S. security will be enhanced
with this move toward the wider use of passports for entry into the
United States by U.S. citizens and citizens of Western Hemisphere
countries.
As in the past, our major concern lies in the timing of such a new
requirement. The only mandate by Congress was to commence the use of
passports or similar secure documents no later than January 1, 2008.
The three-step phase-in of this requirement has been preliminarily
proposed by the Departments of State and Homeland Security, and will
reportedly be in a proposed rulemaking that has yet to be released.
We understand the Federal Government's desire to phase in the WHTI
in order to ease the administrative burden of implementing it in its
entirety on December 31, 2007, but in doing so the Federal Government
will be creating unnecessary hardships on travelers and the U.S. travel
industry that could potentially lead to billions of dollars in lost
visitor revenue. Easing the Federal Government's administrative burden
by shifting the onus to domestic and international visitors and the
travel industry does not advance our Nation's economic, foreign policy,
or homeland security interests.
TIA's members have raised several concerns with the WHTI, including
the impact on the following travel sectors:
--Cruise travel, since the majority of cruise visitors departing the
United States and traveling the Caribbean or up to Alaska via a
Canadian port do not currently carry U.S. passports;
--Student and youth travel, both for American students traveling into
Canada, Mexico, and other areas, and for students entering the
United States from Canada and other countries; and
--Cross-border bus tours between the United States and Canada and
Mexico, and whether or not these visitors would be negatively
impacted by the cost of obtaining a U.S. passport.
TIA is currently working with more than 30 travel and tourism
associations that all participate in the Travel and Tourism Coalition
to develop an official, industrywide position paper on the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which will be submitted in response to
the anticipated proposed rulemaking.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for the
concept of moving to passports or other secure documents in order to
enhance our Nation's homeland security, while at the same time
expressing our concern regarding the timing of such a program and its
likely negative impact on the U.S. travel industry.
We thank you in advance for entering this letter into the official
hearing record in conjunction with your subcommittee's hearing on June
9, 2005.
Regards,
Roger J. Dow,
President and CEO.
Senator Coleman. Mr. Ruden, we will begin with your
testimony. Please keep your remarks to 5 minutes, and your
complete written statement will be entered into the record.
And then Mr. Pastor, we will follow with you.
Mr. Ruden.
STATEMENT OF PAUL M. RUDEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF LEGAL AND
INDUSTRY AFFAIRS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS, INC.,
ALEXANDRIA, VA
Mr. Ruden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Society of
Travel Agents appreciates your leadership in calling this first
hearing into these important issues and is grateful for the
opportunity to present the views of a broad range of interests
in our industry.
To be absolutely clear, we and our related industries
concur fully with the need to improve security at all U.S.
borders and other points of entry. Sustaining consumer
confidence to travel freely in the post-September 11 world is
critical to the vitality of the national economy.
At the same time, we will gain little by achieving absolute
security if fewer and fewer travelers are willing to run the
security gauntlet. The goal should be a tourism policy that
allows U.S. citizens to travel abroad free of unreasonable
restrictions--a careful balancing between security and tourism
concerns, as both you and Senator Dodd have indicated.
We respectfully submit that the WHTI, as proposed, fails to
strike that balance and will have a devastating impact on the
businesses and millions of jobs that comprise and depend upon
the travel and tourism industry.
First and most importantly, there is insufficient time to
implement the first phase of a new document program by the
first announced effective date of December 31, 2005.
Even if, contrary to experience, the administrative
processes can be completed swiftly, there will be insufficient
time to educate the public about the regime and secure
widespread compliance. Given these obstacles, a compelling case
for rushing to a new system does not exist. It is not legally
required, and no security crisis involving American travelers
seeking to reenter the country has been identified.
Further, requiring passports will create a major new
obstacle to millions of people who are otherwise ready to
travel, including the growing numbers who make their travel
plans close to departure. Passports are expensive to obtain and
require significant advance planning.
Document alternatives, that themselves require a passport,
are not an improvement as to cost or advance planning issues
and are not solutions for most travelers most of the time.
Many travelers, including many students and senior
citizens, especially in the border States, have enjoyed the
freedom to travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, relying
instead on documents they already possessed, such as a driver's
license or birth certificate. This freedom has encouraged huge
numbers of travelers to move freely and spontaneously, for both
leisure and business, across our neighbor borders, without
material extra cost.
This freedom will disappear under a passport-based regime,
especially if, as we fear, the demand for passports in the wake
of a passport-based system well exceed the capacity for issuing
them.
In addition, the markets affected by the first phase of
WHTI are in direct economic competition with markets that will
be brought into the program later. By raising costs and time
barriers to traveling to the Caribbean, for example, while
postponing the impact on Mexico and Canada, the program will
create an economic incentive favoring some destinations over
others.
Similarly, reducing the short-term impact of a new regime
by exempting certain sectors of the travel industry from the
requirements will create perverse effects on competition
between sectors of the industry and must be avoided.
Another side of the coin is that in the cruise market, many
travelers have already made bookings for 2006. If the proposed
phasing occurs, these travelers will incur unexpected and
significant cost increases, in many cases exceeding 25 percent
of the vacation cost. Many will cancel, a lose-lose outcome for
everyone.
The longer term, any way one looks at this, a new and
imposing degree of formality, advance planning, and cost will
be introduced for many people for whom cross-border travel for
leisure and business has been an almost casual experience,
particularly students and senior citizens.
Unless costs can be lowered and efficiencies introduced,
the certain result is a reduction in travel demand for cross-
border and nearby air/sea destinations.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, the
Departments of Homeland Security and State should withdraw the
announcement regarding WHTI insofar as it introduces or
provides for a December 31, 2005, implementation.
Second, we should seek development, in our view, of a
single new travel instrument that accomplishes the security
requirements of identification and entry/exit tracking, but
does not provide for consular or other government services
outside the United States, which we have been informed are the
largest drivers of passport costs. There is still time, then,
to find options that are not as expensive and are easier and
faster to obtain than passports. We recommend exploration and
testing by the Departments and consultation with the affected
industries and the traveling public, an agenda directed at new
approaches that will enhance security while minimizing
disruptive impacts on the traveling public. ASTA would welcome
the opportunity to participate in that process.
Third, we should consider linking the WHTI to the evolution
of the Registered Traveler program, so that as more travelers
have the option to qualify in advance and achieve rapid border
processing without the need for a passport, the problem becomes
self-correcting.
Fourth, consider adoption of commercially tested and proven
methods of influencing consumer behavior by providing pricing
incentives for early purchases, group purchases such as a
family application for passports where they are all submitted
together, student and senior discounts, to name a few.
Finally, under no circumstances should any attempt be made
to implement WHTI using passports as the core instrument less
than 1 year after a final rule, whatever its content, is
adopted.
Thank you for considering our views, and we look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul M. Ruden, Senior Vice President of Legal and
Industry Affairs, American Society of Travel Agents, Inc., Alexandria,
VA
The American Society of Travel Agents (``ASTA'') is pleased to
provide the committee with its perspective on the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative (``WHTI''), announced April 5 of this year by the
Departments of State and Homeland Security.\1\ For the presentation of
this testimony, we have consulted with the American Bus Association
(ABA), the Interactive Travel Services Association (ITSA), the
International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), the National Tour
Association (NTA), the Student Youth Travel Association (SYTA) and the
Travel Industry Association of America (TIA). This testimony will share
some of their concerns along with our own. Some of them will likely
file separate statements for the record.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTA was established in 1931 and is today the leading
professional travel trade organization in the world. ASTA's corporate
purposes specifically include promoting and representing the views and
interests of travel agents to all levels of government and industry,
promoting professional and ethical conduct in the travel agency
industry worldwide, and promoting consumer protection for the traveling
public. ASTA has provided testimony to numerous legislative committees
and fact finding bodies. ASTA is widely recognized as responsibly
representing the interests of its members, the travel agency industry,
and consumers of travel services.
\2\ We have attached to this testimony copies of previously issued
position papers from ICCL and SYTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We first want to make absolutely clear that the retail travel
industry, and our related industries, concur fully with the need for
improved security at all U.S. borders and other points of entry. We
applaud the commitment of the State Department and the Department of
Homeland Security to accomplish this difficult but vital goal. Our
observation of the US-VISIT program suggests it is a true success
story, in large part because of the measured and open consultative
outreach through which it has been developed and implemented.
Sustaining consumer confidence to travel freely in a post-September 11
world is critical to the survival and growth of our industry, the
travel suppliers whose services we sell, and the national economy whose
vitality depends upon a thriving travel and transportation industry.
At the same time, it is important that the Government have regard
for the effects that enhanced security measures may have on the
willingness of people to travel domestically and overseas. We will gain
little to achieve absolute security and find fewer and fewer travelers
willing to run the gauntlet to take a trip. Leisure travelers have
choices of how to vacation, including the option to simply stay home,
with disastrous consequences for our industry and the economy. Business
travelers may have fewer options about whether to travel, but modern
technology is providing new choices for them as well.
The goal should be a tourism policy that allows U.S. citizens to
travel abroad and foreign citizens to visit our country, free of
unreasonable restrictions and preconditions that deter law abiding
people from traveling. A careful balancing between security and tourism
concerns should be a key part of that policy.
We respectfully submit that the WHTI, as proposed, fails to strike
that balance. As proposed, the WHTI will dramatically complicate the
plans of American travelers and those traveling to the United States
from countries in the Western Hemisphere. As a result, it will have a
devastating impact on the businesses and millions of jobs that depend
upon the travel and tourism industry.
As further predicate, we understand that the initial program
announcement, at least nominally, contemplates the possibility of a
substitute for passports, an ``other secure, accepted document,'' but,
as noted earlier, none of the listed options is a real substitute for
the typical leisure or business traveler. Moreover, the announcement
clearly states that ``the passport (U.S. or foreign) will be the
document of choice.''
No other instrument that is low in cost and relatively easy to
obtain has been identified. The original announcement of the program
said that ``additional documents are also being examined to determine
their acceptability for travel. The public will be notified of
additional travel document options as those determinations are made.''
Without information about the nature of the documents being considered
and the likely timetable for their disclosure and possible
implementation, the possibility of their development is too little and
too late when we are facing a December 31, 2005, initial implementation
date. While Federal law is trying to induce improvements in the
processes used to issue state drivers' licenses, it appears that the
Government does not plan to include any driver's license, regardless of
the circumstances of its issue, as a possible substitute for a
passport. It therefore seems highly likely that the passport is going
to be the instrument through which the WHTI is implemented.
That brings us to the core problems with the program as announced.
First, there is simply insufficient time to permit the first phase
of a new document program to be developed and implemented before the
first announced effective date of December 31, 2005. While we commend
the sensitivity to business and other travel concerns underlying the
phasing concept of the Departments of Homeland Security and State, we
are extremely concerned that any attempt to proceed on the announced
timetable will have severely disruptive effects on travel.
Although the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
described by the two Departments in their April announcement of this
program and, presumably, the notice of proposed rulemaking to follow,
will provide an opportunity for public and industry comments, the ANPRM
has not been released. Insufficient time remains before the initial
deadline for the Departments to thoroughly consider the expected large
mass of comments, conduct necessary followup discussions and
evaluations, extensively publicize the new requirements, whatever they
ultimately are, and permit appropriate adjustments by travelers and the
businesses that serve them. The first deadline is now barely 6 months
away and the administrative regulatory process has not begun in a
meaningful way.
Even if, contrary to experience, the required input processes can
be completed swiftly, there will be insufficient time to fully educate
the public about the new regime and secure widespread compliance. The
Government will likely look to the travel industry to assist in the
consumer awareness effort and many members of our industry will want to
help. However, many private firms will be handicapped in their efforts
to participate in public awareness campaigns regarding the new regime,
because none could have anticipated the December 31, 2005, initial
deadline and, therefore, will have no budgeted funds available for that
purpose.
Given these obstacles, there is no compelling case for rushing to a
new system. It is not legally required, as there is no mention, let
alone a requirement, in the statute that the implementation be phased
or that it be started as early as the end of 2005. The statutory
deadline for implementation of that plan is January 1, 2008. Nor has
any security crisis involving American travelers seeking to reenter the
country been identified. Yet the primary focus of the new document plan
is precisely those persons.
So, to be clear, the first major problem is not with the phasing
concept as such, but lies in the attempt to start the phasing at the
end of this year.
A second, and closely related, issue is that requiring passports,
or travel cards that require a passport to obtain one, will create a
major new obstacle to millions of people who are otherwise ready to
travel, including particularly the growing numbers of those who make
their travel plans close to departure. There are several components to
this problem.
One is that passports are expensive to obtain and require
significant advance planning. Publicizing the requirement and having
the traveling public absorb it, and then comply with it, will
necessitate substantial lead time and effort. Alternatives that
themselves require a passport to obtain only complicate the situation--
they are not an improvement from the standpoint of cost or advance
planning. The options mentioned in the program announcements are not
solutions for most travelers most of the time.
The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection
(SENTRI) is more expensive and complex than passport requirements and
even a casual examination of its rules and limitations will make clear
that it is not a meaningful option for many Americans in WHTI.\3\ The
United States-Canada NEXUS Air Program is a pilot program of limited
duration. Its $50 fee is an annual cost to the traveler. The highway
version of NEXUS requires the applicant to appear at one of five
offices located in places such as Blaine, Washington; Detroit,
Michigan; Port Huron, Michigan; and Champlain, New York.\4\ NEXUS is
not going to work for most U.S. citizens. The Free and Secure Trade, or
FAST, program is for shippers \5\ and the Border Crossing Card is for
Mexican citizens only.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http//www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/frequent_traveler/sentri.xml.
\4\ http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/nexus/faq-e.html#12.
\5\ http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/import/fast/menu-e.html#what.
\6\ http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1266.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another element of the obstacle is the reality that many student
travelers and senior citizens, especially, though not exclusively, in
border States, do not have passports. In the past these travelers have
had the freedom to travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean without
a passport, relying instead on documents they already possessed, such
as a driver's license or birth certificate. This freedom has encouraged
the making of close-to-departure decisions to travel across the
borders. Huge numbers of travelers have been able to move freely and
spontaneously, for both leisure and business, across our neighbor
borders, without material extra cost. This freedom will disappear under
a passport-based regime.
Yet another dimension of the advance planning impact is the
question whether, in the time available, the Department of State can
gear up sufficiently to handle a vast increase in passport applications
in the normal course, without forcing many travelers to incur still
higher costs for passport expediting services. While we have heard,
anecdotally, that passport applications have increased in recent weeks,
we have seen nothing that measures that increase against the total need
if the new rules are made effective with the year-end 2005 deadline in
place. Since the vast majority of Americans do not have passports now
and since the markets affected by the WHTI are traveled predominantly
by persons without passports, we anticipate the demand for passports in
the wake of a rule requiring them may well exceed the processing
capacity of the State Department.
A third aspect of the phasing problem is the diplomatic controversy
that it will likely create. The markets affected by the first phase of
WHTI are in direct economic competition with markets that will be
brought into the program later. By raising the barriers, in terms of
cost and time, to traveling to the Caribbean, while postponing the
impact on Mexico and Canada, the Government will create an economic
incentive for travelers to favor the latter regions over the Caribbean
as a destination.
New passports cost close to $100 for an adult, and the total out-
of-pocket procurement cost exceeds that amount when passport photos are
included. While the total cost of a new passport in the range of $125
may not seem like much money, it must be remembered that in the travel
industry price differentials of less than 10 percent of that amount are
seen as critical to consumer choices among travel suppliers and between
travel packages. Differences of $125 per person would, therefore,
certainly and significantly, affect destination choices, especially
when the cost is multiplied for a family traveling together.
These concerns are supported by a study conducted by the World
Travel & Tourism Council of the potential impact of the December 31,
2005, passport requirement on Caribbean markets. The WTTC analysis
found that nine Caribbean destinations will be seriously impacted.
According to the study, nonpassport U.S. visitors to some countries,
such as Jamaica, account for 80 percent of total U.S. visitors. Other
islands have somewhat lower, but still very large, shares of
nonpassport U.S. visitors in the range of 15 to 30 percent.
These realities are a compelling reason why it is not feasible to
reduce the impact of a new passport regime by exempting certain sectors
of the travel industry from the requirements. To do so would have
perverse effects on the competition between sectors of the industry, in
addition to the market discrimination described earlier.
Yet another element of the phasing issues is that some travelers
have already made vacation and other travel bookings for 2006. This is
particularly true for the cruise market where, unlike some of the
transborder land-based markets, substantial advance booking is common.
If the proposed phasing occurs, these travelers will incur completely
unexpected and significant cost increases. Since the cost of many tours
and cruises to nearby destinations in Mexico and the Carribean sell for
as little as $400, the per-person price increase from WHTI, as
proposed, will exceed 25 percent of the vacation cost. Many will cancel
because of the increase, a lose-lose outcome for everyone.
The longer term consequences of a passport-based regime are also
troubling. We are informed that about 80 percent of motor coach
passengers are students and senior citizens. Canada is the number one
market for motor coach travel. Senior citizens also comprise more than
60 percent of the group tour business. While no hard data appears to
exist, industry experience suggests that these groups are a large part
of the estimated 75 to 80 percent of Americans who do not currently
possess a passport.
Any way one looks at this, the result is that the cost of
international travel by U.S. citizens is going to rise significantly
under the new document regime. And new advance planning restraints are
going to be imposed on a large market of students and senior citizens,
whose ability to travel on short notice will, therefore, be impaired.
For many people for whom cross-border travel for leisure and business
has been almost a casual experience, a new and imposing degree of
formality will be introduced. Unless costs can be lowered and
efficiencies introduced, the almost certain result is a reduction in
travel demand for cross-border and nearby air/sea destinations.
Congress has wisely chosen to permit enough lead time that direct
consultations with industry groups can be held that could lead to new
approaches that will enhance security while minimizing any intrusive
and disruptive impact on the traveling public. Options that are not as
expensive, and easier and faster to obtain than passports, should be
devised, explored, and tested by the Departments in conjunction with
the affected industries and the traveling and touring public. In that
regard, we urge senior representatives from the Department of State and
Department of Homeland Security to convene discussions with executives
and other experts from these affected industries, sitting together, at
the earliest possible time. ASTA would welcome the opportunity to
participate in such discussions. The goal would be to determine how
security can be enhanced at our borders without unreasonably
undermining a key segment of the economy.
The announcement of the initial December 31, 2005, implementation
date has spawned a number of suggestions for modification of the
timeline, as well as changes in the passport regime. We believe that,
at least, the following are worth further consideration and ask the
subcommittee to use its good offices to urge the Departments of
Homeland Security and State to take these up.
First and foremost, the Departments of Homeland Security and State
should withdraw the announcement regarding WHTI insofar as it provides
for a December 31, 2005, implementation.
Second, in connection with the multisegment discussions referred to
earlier, consideration should be given to development of a single new
travel instrument that accomplishes the security requirements of
identification and entry-exit tracking, but does not provide for
consular or other government services outside the United States that we
have been told are the largest drivers of passport costs.
Third, consider linking WHTI to the evolution of the Registered
Traveler program, so that more travelers would have the option to
qualify in advance, achieve assured rapid processing at points of exit
and entry without the need for a passport.
Fourth, consider adoption of commercially tested and proven methods
of influencing travel document consumer behavior by providing pricing
incentives for early purchases, group purchases (family applications
submitted together), student and senior discounts, to name a few.
Fifth, under no circumstances should an attempt be made to
implement WHTI using passports as the core document less than 1 year
after a final rule is adopted.
Thank you for considering our views and we look forward to your
questions.
______
Western Hemisphere Travel Initative (WHTI)--ICCL Position Paper
The International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) hereby has taken
the following position regarding the above captioned matter on behalf
of its members. ICCL is a nonprofit trade association, whose membership
comprises over 90 percent of the North American cruise industry,
representing the vast majority of the berth capacity for passengers
embarking from U.S. ports.\1\ Since 1968, ICCL and its predecessor
organization have represented the interests of the cruise industry
before domestic and international regulatory bodies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ICCL member lines include: Carnival Cruise Lines, Celebrity
Cruises, Costa Cruise Lines, Crystal Cruises, Cunard Ltd., Disney
Cruise Line, Holland America Line, NCL America, Norwegian Cruise Line,
Orient Lines, Princess Cruises, Radisson Seven Seas Cruises, Royal
Caribbean International Ltd., Seabourn Cruise Line, Silversea Cruises,
and Windstar Cruises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ICCL clearly understands that the U.S. Government has a
legitimate need to enhance the security at the borders, and requiring
passports (or other appropriate documents) is an essential step in that
effort. In general, the cruise industry believes that a standardized
document simplifies the process of border crossing and adds to
security.
However, the membership of the ICCL has serious concerns with
several aspects of the proposed rule, which, for ease of discussion,
are outlined and reviewed issue by issue.
PROPOSED PHASE-IN
Although ICCL was aware of the January 1, 2008, implementation date
required in the Intelligence Reform bill, we were not consulted in
advance regarding the announced phase-in schedule for the passport
requirements and believe the December 2005 phased-in announced date for
the Caribbean is very problematic.
The State Department proposes that the phase-in approach gives
sufficient notice to industry and travelers. In reality, this is not
sufficient time, and the proposed phase-in approach unfairly affects
travel to Bermuda, Caribbean, and Central and South America as compared
to Mexico and Canada. The fact is, the decision to take a cruise is
often determined by a traveler many months in advance. Travel agents
are currently booking cruises to the Caribbean region for the 2006
season. Since the proposed rule has not yet been published, the final
rule is unlikely to be finalized until winter 2005. That schedule will
not allow sufficient time for cruise passengers to get a passport nor
will it allow the industry to promote the new requirements. How will
those passengers already booked on cruises to the Caribbean be treated?
After a reservation is made, travel agents have little opportunity to
interact with passengers until they show up for their vacation at the
port.
ADVERSE DISCRIMINATION OF TRAVEL TO THE CARIBBEAN
From the fall of 2005 until January 1, 2007, if a U.S. citizen is
thinking of booking a vacation crossing international borders to the
Western Hemisphere and they do not yet have a passport, they will
likely choose Mexico or Canada over anywhere else because of the extra
cost ($97) and time of obtaining a passport. If they are a last minute
traveler without a passport, there will be no other option but Mexico
or Canada. The December 31, 2005, deadline clearly favors Mexico and
Canada over other regions in the Western Hemisphere.
The cruise industry had over 10 million passengers in 2004; over 8
million were North Americans. The Caribbean is the most heavily visited
cruise destination accounting for approximately 45.1 percent of all
cruise line placements. In 2004 it is estimated that there were over
3,578 cruise ships that visited the region with a total passenger
potential of 6,380,021 visitors. Based on these numbers, it is easy to
understand why the industry is concerned with the proposed December
2005 deadline.
PASSPORT COSTS
Passports currently cost $97. Initially, this could be cost
prohibitive for a family of four or larger, who may decide to choose
another vacation within the United States that will not require a
passport. The State Department has estimated that 20 percent or less of
all Americans have U.S. passports.
NEW U.S. PASSPORT REQUIREMENTS
The State Department recently issued a new rule on biometric
requirements for future U.S. passports, which are anticipated to be in
effect by 2006. It seems counterproductive and less secure to require
millions of Americans to obtain passports by the end of 2005 under the
current passport parameters. The State Department will be proposing a
new electronic passport which is supposed to enhance security. Would it
not be better to have travelers wait until next year and get the new
version than to purchase a less secure passport this year?
PROPOSALS/SUGGESTIONS
Implementation of all phases of the proposed passport program
should be delayed until January 2008. The proposed regulations
discriminate against travelers to the Caribbean and air/sea travelers
with the 2006/07 activation date.
Delaying the action date will give much-needed time for the Federal
Government, the travel industry and, most importantly, the traveling
public, to adapt to the new passport program.
Create a separate (shorter) queue for those Western Hemisphere
travelers who are in possession of a passport and widely publicizing
this benefit.
To conclude, ICCL does not believe there is any basis for treating
travelers to the Caribbean, Bermuda, and Central and South America any
differently from travelers to Mexico or Canada, and would suggest that
any implementation deadlines be revised to treat both regions the same.
ICCL will be working closely with other travel industry associations
and will be submitting comments regarding these and other concerns to
the State Department once the proposed rule is published.
______
Proposed Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(By the Student and Youth Travel Association)
OVERVIEW
On April 5, 2005, the U.S. Departments of State (DOS) and Homeland
Security (DHS) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
regarding the proposed Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative requiring
all United States citizens, Canadian citizens, citizens of the British
Overseas Territory of Bermuda and citizens of Mexico to have a passport
or other secure document to enter or reenter the United States by
January 1, 2008. Security and safety is, and always has been, of utmost
importance to travelers and the travel industry, especially for senior
citizens and young travelers. Cross-border travel provides cultural and
educational experiences that promote lifelong learning and peace
through tourism. However, cross-border tourism for students, youth, and
senior citizens, especially those traveling in groups, will be
adversely affected by this initiative with negligible improvement to
security or safety.
BACKGROUND
1. On December 17, 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA, also known as the 9/11 Intelligence
Bill) was signed into law mandating that the DHS, in consultation with
the DOS, develop and implement a plan to require U.S. citizens and
foreign nationals to present a passport, or other secure document when
entering the United States by January 1, 2008.
2. On April 5, 2005, the DOS and DHS issued the ANPRM announcing
the proposed Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that moved up the
timeline for implementation as follows:
December 31, 2005--Passport or other accepted document
required for all travel (air/sea) to or from the Caribbean,
Bermuda, Central and South America.
December 31, 2006--Passport or other accepted document
required for all air and sea travel to or from Mexico and
Canada.
December 31, 2007--Passport or other accepted document
required for all air, sea and land border crossings.
3. Canada and Mexico are the number one and two destinations for
U.S. citizens traveling outside the United States. Often the first out-
of-country travel experience for U.S. citizens, especially for students
and youth, is either Canada or Mexico.
4. Age 16 and older: The passport fee is $55. The security
surcharge is $12. The execution fee is $30. The total fee is $97.
Additionally, there are expenses for a photo, transportation, and
overnight delivery service (DOS recommended for both submitting and
receiving). The total actual cost is normally $150-$200 per passport.
5. Under Age 16: The passport fee is $40. The security surcharge is
$12. The execution fee is $30. The total fee is $82. Additionally,
there are expenses for a photo, transportation, and overnight delivery
service (DOS recommended for both submitting and receiving). The total
actual cost is normally $145-$185 per passport.
6. Fee to expedite passport is an additional $60.
EFFECT
1. Many senior citizens do not have passports. Since seniors
comprise the largest market for group travel in the United States, the
passport requirement will make it more difficult for them to visit our
neighbors to the north and south.
2. Most students and youth do not have passports. Student/youth
travelers in North America will be negatively impacted. Student tours
provide a way for young residents of North America to learn about their
neighbors and this hemisphere's diverse culture and history. Placing an
additional obstacle on student tours (for negligible security gain)
creates barriers for cross-border educational/cultural programs and
deprives them of experiences that will enhance their ability to compete
globally.
3. The cost of obtaining a passport adversely affects students,
youth, families, and senior citizens.
For student/youth groups it will add $100 or more to their
trip cost.
A family of four would incur an extra expense of over $600
to travel to Mexico or Canada.
The passport fee could make a cross-border trip unaffordable
to low-income youth and senior citizens on a fixed income.
4. Youth who are at-risk, disadvantaged, and/or physically/mentally
challenged, may be especially impacted by the proposed passport
initiative.
5. At a time when the U.S. Educational System is promoting no child
left behind, the number of students who are unable to participate with
their classmates in school-based student tours to our neighboring
countries will increase.
6. Tour operators specializing in cross-border group travel will be
negatively impacted.
7. A decrease in cross-border tourism will adversely affect those
employed in the tourism industry, thus, also having a negative economic
impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Implementation of all phases of the proposed passport program
should be delayed until January 2008. The proposed regulations
discriminate against travelers to the Caribbean and air travelers with
the 2006/07 activation date. Delaying the action date will give much
needed time for the Federal Government, the travel industry and, most
importantly, the traveling public, to adapt to the new passport
program.
2. Lower the total cost of a passport for under age 16 and senior
citizens to no more than $50.
3. Allow student/youth travelers, traveling with an adult who has
appropriate secure travel documents, to use photo identification and
proof of citizenship (i.e. birth certificate) as secure documents to
satisfy U.S. entrance acceptance.
4. Find ways to increase application efficiency and reduce the time
it takes to obtain a passport for applicants with appropriate
documentation.
Senator Coleman. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Ruden.
Mr. Pastor.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT A. PASTOR, VICE PRESIDENT OF
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR
NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Pastor. Thank you, Senator Coleman. It is good to see
you, Senator Dodd.
I appreciate the invitation to speak before your committee
and to place, as you requested, the issue on your agenda in a
broader context.
As you know, I have been one of the cochairs of a task
force on the future of North America sponsored by the Council
on Foreign Relations. The title of the report is called,
``Building a North American Community.''
We included 31 people from all of the parties in all three
countries. We proposed a blueprint with very specific
recommendations on where we should go from here.
I would say that the discussion at this hearing is
symptomatic of the problem that we face and it diverts us from
the solution.
By focusing on passports at the two borders, we are
thinking too small about a problem that has grown phenomenally
as a result of two pivotal events in the last decade, NAFTA and
9/11.
By thinking small, we are drawn into tradeoffs that are
actual traps. For every step that we take to secure ourselves,
we pay a higher price in terms of harassment of travel and in
terms of the costs of our goods transiting the border.
As a result of NAFTA, our country has become much more
dependent on our two neighbors for our prosperity and as a
result of 9/11, our country has become much more dependent on
our two neighbors for its security.
Only by framing the issue before you today in its broadest
context will we succeed in transcending this tradeoff between
prosperity and security. Let me, therefore, very briefly
summarize the four main points in my statement to you.
First, in the United States, we take our two neighbors for
granted, but since NAFTA, North America has become the largest
free-trade area in the world, larger than that of the European
Union.
While Mexico and Canada are more dependent on the United
States since NAFTA, we have not adequately recognized how much
more dependent we have become on our two neighbors.
We export more each year to Canada and Mexico by--we export
almost twice as much more to Canada and Mexico each year as we
do to the 25 nations of the European Union and almost 4 times
more than what we export to China and Japan.
Our two largest sources of energy are not in the Middle
East or in South America. They are Canada and Mexico.
The largest source of legal and illegal migration is our
Mexican neighbor to the south.
Our two borders are crossed each year more than 400 million
times.
Second, the agenda that we face has changed since NAFTA,
but we have not kept policy apace to the economic and social
integration of those changes.
The new agenda requires us to address challenges like the
development gap between Mexico and the United States,
transportation and infrastructure, immigration, education,
energy, institution building, security, and a different way of
thinking about our two neighbors than we have in the past.
NAFTA was not designed to address any of those issues. It
was designed simply to dismantle trade and investment barriers.
It succeeded in doing that. It is our job now to focus on the
second decade agenda.
Third, the summit of March 23 succeeded in being more than
just a photo op, which was what charactered the previous
summits of the three leaders. But the truth is that it did not
adequately address this full agenda that we discussed, and I am
not optimistic that the reports that have been requested from
the Ministers in all three countries are going to take us very
far down this road.
I think there are many reasons why that is the case. And I
would hope that your committee pursues the report that comes
out on June 23. But in our Council on Foreign Relations task
force, we decided to take a broader vision than what the three
executive branches have done.
And we have identified not only a vision that says that our
prosperity succeeds and is enhanced to the extent that the
prosperity of all three countries are improved, but is
diminished to the extent that we do not address each country's
problems.
We recommend a North American security perimeter, a common
external tariff, a North America investment fund, which has
been proposed also by Senator John Cornyn, new institutions
like the North American Advisory Council, a North American
interparliamentary committee that would join your United
States/Mexico and United States/Canadian interparliamentary
committee, a North America commission on competition, or on
antitrust, centers for North American studies to be supported
like the European Union supports its EU Centers in this
country, additional scholarships for our students to travel in
all directions.
As vice president of international affairs at American
University, my job is to encourage our students to travel
abroad and to encourage international students to come to
American University. And they are going. Our students are going
at twice the rate they have gone 3 years ago.
But students from Canada and Mexico are much fewer than
ever before. And it is not easy to get our students to want to
go to Mexico and Canada. These problems should be addressed.
Let me address, specifically, the challenge before this
committee, today, by referring to the problem of how do we
define a security perimeter, that the best way to secure the
United States, today, is not at our two borders with Mexico and
Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole, and to
recognize that each of the three governments have to feel a
stake in addressing the terrorist challenge.
And the question is what should they do? I think what we
need is, first, a common exclusion list, better intelligence
sharing among the three countries than we have had up until
now, combined training by immigration and customs, and security
personnel that work the borders between the two countries and
the security perimeter, exchange of personnel that bring
Canadians and Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security
as individuals and with their perspective that would enlarge
our own vision of our own security.
A common external tariff would relieve the pressure on the
borders by allowing our inspectors to stop focusing on goods
transiting and eliminate rules of origin, but concentrate their
limited time on security and terrorist matters.
A North American border pass that would combine and unify
the existing SENTRI, NEXUS, BCC, and FAST into one single
biometric North American border pass or passport, if you will,
that would be secure and that would invite people to apply for
that under a common system among our three countries.
These are some of the specific ways that we could address
this issue without having to consider, but just introducing a
passport for people that are reentering and that would, at the
same time, guarantee our security overall.
In conclusion, if you look closely at public opinion polls
as I have done in all three countries, and in particular, a
poll that was done in 2003, you will see that a majority of the
people in all three countries actually believe that we will
have an economic union in North America in 10 years.
Despite the fact that we are taking few steps in that
direction, the majority believe that we would be better off if
we had a more integrated policy on a range of economic issues;
security, transportation, and even defense-related issues.
And a majority that believe that we would benefit by a
North American security perimeter.
Too often we focus on our differences between the
countries. I think it is time now to take the debate within
this country to a new level and to think about ourselves as
part of a larger North America and to define what we mean by a
true North American community.
This may not seem urgent at this moment, but it is in our
long-term interest. And the longer we put off the harder
questions about how do we relate to our neighbors, the more we
will pay the price of that. Our security and prosperity depend
on our ability to define what we mean by a North American
community.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pastor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert A. Pastor, Vice President of
International Affairs, Professor of International Relations, and
Director of the Center for North American Studies, American University,
Washington, DC
Chairmen Lugar and Coleman and members of the committee, I
appreciate the invitation to testify before your committee. You asked
me to place the issue of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
within the context of North American cooperation and border control and
to relate it to the recent report by an Independent Task Force on the
Future of North America sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations
in New York. The Chairs and Vice Chairs of the three nation, 31-person
Task Force were John F. Manley and Tom d'Aquino of Canada, Pedro Aspe
and Andres Rozental of Mexico, and William F. Weld and I from the
United States. Entitled ``Building a North American Community,'' the
report offered a blueprint of the goals that the three countries of
North America should pursue and the steps needed to achieve those
goals.
The focus today is on the new requirement for all citizens of the
United States, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda to have a passport to travel
among our countries. It is intended to secure the homeland, but I
question whether this approach will achieve the goal, and I fear that
it will harm other U.S. interests and divert us from more effective
paths toward securing our continent.
As we approach the fourth anniversary of 9/11, it is time for us to
step back from our trauma and the border and examine the problem in a
broader context. The best way to assure security is not at our borders
with Canada and Mexico and not by defining ``security'' in conventional
and narrow terms. We need to think about these issues in the context of
a continent that is integrating economically and socially at a rapid
rate. The problem is that the three governments have failed to
understand this phenomenal transformation. Policy has not kept pace
with the market, and our security is endangered as much by the limits
of our vision as by the terrorists who threaten us.
Defensive about Europe's example, we have failed to learn from
their experience and succumbed to the opposite mistake. Whereas Europe
built too many intrusive, supra-national institutions, we have
practically no credible institutions. Instead of trying to fashion a
North American approach to continental problems, we continue to pursue
problems on a dual-bilateral basis, taking one issue at a time. But
incremental steps will no longer solve the security problem, or allow
us to grasp economic opportunities. What we need to do now is forge a
North American Community, based on the premise that each member
benefits from its neighbor's success and is diminished by its problems.
The subject of this hearing today--whether passports should be
required to cross our two borders--is symptomatic of the problem. We
are thinking too small. We need to find ways to making trade and travel
easier while we define and defend a continental security perimeter.
Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide
them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit
across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through
toll booths.
In my statement, I will comment first on the emergence of North
America, the next decade's agenda, and the response by the three
governments. Next, I will describe some of the recommendations of the
Council Task Force Report and focus on the travel initiative and the
security and border issues.
As a word of introduction, I have been working on issues related to
North America for nearly 30 years--in the government, in a
nongovernmental organization (the Carter Center) monitoring elections
in Mexico, the United States, and Canada, and as a teacher and writer
of five books and many articles on the subject of North America.
Because I believe deeply that our security and prosperity depend on
forging a new relationship with our neighbors, in September 2002, I
established, and now direct, a Center for North American Studies at
American University.
THE EMERGENCE OF NORTH AMERICA
On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
came into effect. If one judges a free-trade area by the size of its
product and territory, North America became the largest in the world,
larger than the European Union (EU). Yet that fact escaped all but a
few analysts. It is widely known that the United States has the world's
largest economy, but North America also includes the eighth (Canada)
and ninth (Mexico) largest economies as well. (The Economist, 2004)
In the 11 years since NAFTA came into effect, U.S. trade (exports
and imports) more than doubled with its two neighbors--from $293
billion in 1993 to $713 billion in 2004. Annual flows of U.S. direct
investment to Mexico went from $1.3 billion in 1992 to $15 billion in
2001, and the stock, from $14 billion to $57 billion. The annual flows
of U.S. investment in Canada increased eight-fold, and the stock of FDI
increased from $69 billion in 1993 to $153 billion in 2002. Canadian
investment flows to the United States grew from a stock of $40 billion
in 1993 to $102 billion in 2001.
Travel and immigration among the three countries also increased
dramatically. In 2004, people crossed the two borders about 400 million
times. The most profound impact came from those people who crossed and
stayed. The 2000 census estimated that there were 21 million people of
Mexican origin in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of all Mexican-
born immigrants arrived in the last two decades.
North America is larger than Europe in population and territory,
and its gross product not only eclipses that of the EU but also
represents one-third of the world's economic output. Intraregional
exports as a percentage of total exports climbed from around 30 percent
in 1982 to 58 percent in 2002 (compared to 61 percent for the EU). Our
two neighbors export more energy to us than any other country, and U.S.
exports to them were nearly twice those to all of Europe and nearly
four times those to Japan and China in 2004. North America is no longer
just a geogaphical expression. It has become a formidable and
integrated region.
NORTH AMERICA'S NEW AGENDA AND THE RESPONSE
With a few notable exceptions--such as trucking, softwood lumber,
and sugar--where U.S. economic interests have prevented compliance,
NAFTA largely succeeded in what it was intended to do: Barriers were
eliminated, and trade and investment soared. A decade later, however,
North America faces new challenges that require new policies.
First, NAFTA was silent on the development gap between
Mexico and its two northern neighbors, and that gap has
widened.
Second, NAFTA did not plan for its own success: It failed to
invest in new roads and infrastructure to cope with more trade
and traffic. The resulting delays raised the transaction costs
of regional trade more than the elimination of tariffs lowered
them.
Third, NAFTA did not address immigration, and the number of
undocumented workers in the United States jumped in the 1990s
from 3 million to 11 million (55 percent or 6 million came from
Mexico).
Fourth, NAFTA did not address energy issues, a failure
highlighted by the catastrophic blackout that Canada and the
northeastern United States suffered in August 2003, and the
dramatic growth in imports of natural gas by Mexico from the
United States.
Fifth, NAFTA created few credible institutions to coordinate
policy, leaving the region vulnerable to market catastrophes
like the Mexican peso crisis.
Finally, NAFTA did nothing to address security, and as a
result, the long-term effects of September 11 threaten to
cripple North American integration.
This is the agenda for North America in the next decade. On March
23, 2005, President George Bush, President Vicente Fox, and Prime
Minister Paul Martin met in Texas. This was not their first meeting,
but the others had been little more than photo opportunities. The three
leaders announced a ``Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America,'' based on the premise that both security and prosperity are
``mutually dependent and complementary.'' They declared that the
partnership is ``trilateral in concept,'' but the framework was
incremental and dual-bilateral in fact.
Instead of addressing chronic problems like softwood lumber or
sugar, the three leaders tasked their Ministers to chair working groups
with ``stakeholders'' and produce a report in 90 days--by June 23--with
concrete steps to achieve measurable goals. The first question, of
course, is why these security and competitiveness goals have not
already been implemented since most of them have been declared often,
and the security goals are, by and large, a part of the ``smart
borders'' agreement. The answer is that our governments are not
organized to address these questions on a trilateral basis, and so it
should come as little surprise if the results are meager.
More importantly, compared to the agenda above, these steps are
quite timid. The truth is that traffic has slowed at the border because
of additional inspections, but it is not at all clear that the borders
are more secure today than they were 4 years ago. The flow of
unauthorized migrants is as high or higher. The Communique lacks a
clear uplifting goal like a customs union. One cannot eliminate
``rules-of-origin'' provisions without a common external tariff, which
the WTO equates with a ``customs union.'' Most important, there is no
allusion to the paramount challenge of North America--the development
gap that separates Mexico from its northern neighbors and, therefore,
there is no proposal for dealing with that. There are no plans for
dealing with education, energy, transportation, or establishing
institutions that could prepare North American options or monitor
progress. To move this agenda requires an organizing vision and
political will.
There was a moment early in the Fox and Bush administrations when
North American leaders appeared to grasp the essence of such a vision.
In February 2001, Fox and Bush jointly endorsed the Guanajuato
Proposal, which read, ``After consultation with our Canadian partners,
we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose
benefits reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to
the most vulnerable social groups in our countries.'' Unfortunately,
they never translated that sentiment into policy (with the exception of
the symbolic but substantively trivial $40 million Partnership for
Prosperity).
All three governments share the blame for this failure. President
Bush's primary goal seemed at first to open the Mexican oil sector to
United States investors, while then-Canadian Prime Minister Chretien
showed no interest in working with Mexico. President Fox, for his part,
put forth too ambitious an agenda with too much emphasis on radical
reform of U.S. immigration policy. Bush's initial response was polite,
but he soon realized he could not deliver and postponed consideration.
The illegal immigration issue remains thorny and unsolved. Ultimately,
however, it is more symptom than cause: The way to reduce illegal
immigration is to make Mexico's economy grow faster than that of the
United States.
The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report spells out such
a vision. (http:// www.cfr.org/pub8102/independent_task_force_report/
building_a_north_
american_community.php) Let me summarize and amplify some of its
recommendations.
NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American
governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual
bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate.
Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance
that rules, not power, will resolve problems.
This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North
American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European
Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and
advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation.
Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for
leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the
implementation of the resulting agreements. It should be an advisor to
the three leaders but also a public voice and symbol of North America,
It should evaluate ways to facilitate economic integration, producing
specific proposals on continental issues such as harmonizing
environmental and labor standards and forging a competition policy.
The United States Congress should also merge the United States-
Mexican and United States-Canadian interparliamentary groups into a
single ``North American Parliamentary Group.'' A third institution
should be a ``Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.'' NAFTA
established ad hoc dispute panels, but it has become difficult to find
experts who do not have a conflict of interest to arbitrate conflicts.
A permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay
the groundwork for North American business law.
Canada and Mexico have long organized their governments to give
priority to their bilateral relationships with the United States.
Washington alone is poorly organized to address North American issues.
To balance U.S. domestic interests with those in the continent,
President Bush should appoint a White House adviser for North American
affairs. Such a figure would chair a Cabinet-level interagency task
force on North America. No President can forge a coherent U.S. policy
toward North America without such a wholesale reorganization.
For North America's second decade, there is no higher priority than
reducing the economic divide between Mexico and the rest of NAFTA. A
true community or even a partnership is simply not possible when the
people of one nation earn, on average, one-sixth as much as do people
across the border. Mexico's underdevelopment is a threat to its
stability, to its neighbors, and to the future of integration.
Europe demonstrated that the gap could be narrowed significantly in
a relatively short period with good policies and significant aid. The
Council Task Force proposed serious reforms by Mexico coupled with a
North American Investment Fund, which was also proposed by Senator John
Cornyn. This is a far-sighted initiative that deserves the support of
this committee and Congress. I have written a report explaining the
need for such a Fund and the way it could work. (See www.american.edu/
cnas/publications)
North American governments can learn from the EU's efforts to
establish EU Educational and Research Centers in the United States.
Centers for North American Studies in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico would help people in all three countries to understand the
problems and the potential of an integrated North America--and to think
of themselves as North Americans. Scholarships should encourage North
American students to study in each other's country. Until a new
consciousness of North America's promise takes root, many of these
proposals will remain impractical.
THE TRAVEL INITIATIVE, THE INTEGRATION DILEMMA, AND THE SECURITY
PERIMETER
September 11 and the subsequent U.S. response highlighted a basic
dilemma of integration: How to facilitate legitimate flows of people
and goods while stopping terrorists and smugglers. When Washington
virtually sealed its borders after the attacks, trucks on the Canadian
side backed up 22 miles. Companies that relied on ``just-in-time''
production began to close their plants. The new strategy--exemplified
by the ``smart'' border agreements concentrates inspections on high-
risk traffic while using better technology to expedite the transit of
low-risk goods and people. The decision to require passports to reenter
the United States after brief visits to Canada and Mexico is another
example of an approach that is too narrow to solve so fundamental a
problem.
Overcoming the tension between security and trade requires a bolder
and more innovative approach. The three governments should negotiate
and complete within 5 years a North American customs union with a
common external tariff (CET). This would have a dual purpose. It would
enhance the security on the border because guards could concentrate on
terrorism rather than inspection of all the goods, and by eliminating
cumbersome rules-of-origin provisions (which deny non-NAFTA products
the same easy access), it would enhance efficiency and reduce the costs
of trade.
At the same time, our Task Force recommends that all three
governments define and defend a continental perimeter. This means that
all three governments have to have confidence that a terrorist has no
more chance of entering their own country as their neighbors. A common
exclusion list, better intelligence-sharing, and combined training are
needed. The three governments should establish a ``North American
Customs and Immigration Force,'' composed of officials trained together
in a single professional school, and they should fashion procedures to
streamline border-crossing documentation. The Department of Homeland
Security should expand its mission to include continental security--a
shift best achieved by incorporating Mexican and Canadian perspectives
and personnel into its design and operation.
Instead of creating new obstacles at the border, we should find
ways to ease traffic and harmonize safety and transportation
regulations. As a May 2000 report by a member of Canada's Parliament
concluded, ``Crossing the border has actually gotten more difficult . .
. While continental trade has skyrocketed, the physical infrastructure
enabling the movement of these goods has not.'' The bureaucratic
barriers to cross-border business impede as much as the infrastructural
problems. There are 64 different sets of safety regulations in North
America, 51 in the United States.
The North American Council should develop an integrated continental
plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North
American highways and high-speed rail corridors. The United States and
Canada should each develop national standards on weight, safety, and
configuration of trucking and then negotiate with Mexico to establish a
single set of standards.
In addition, the United States and Canada should begin to merge
immigration and refugee policies. It will be impossible to include
Mexico in this process until the development gap is narrowed. In the
meantime, the three governments should work to develop a North American
Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This would permit expedited
passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout
the region. The program should build upon and unify the existing NEXUS
(United States-Canadian) and SENTRI (United States-Mexican) programs.
Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a
security clearance would obtain a Border Pass, which would be accepted
at all border points within North America as a complement to passports.
These are alternatives to the Western Hemisphere Initiative. It is
true that we have not done a good job of keeping track of people
crossing the border, and the passage of the Real ID Act shows that
there is a growing and grudging recognition that some form of National
Identification Card may be needed. Congress really ought to address
this issue head on. We should not use the driver's license, the Social
Security card, the Medicare card, or our credit cards for anything
other than the purpose for which they are intended. These cards are not
intended to judge immigration status or citizenship. We will not only
fail if we use them for that purpose; we will also undermine their real
purpose. We don't want to discourage people from getting tested to
drive because they fear that their status will be questioned.
Similarly, compelling Minnesotans to get passports to cross the
border into Canada for a Sunday afternoon picnic is not the best way to
approach the border security issue. What we need is a new approach to
jointly police the perimeter, a North American border pass to
facilitate travel, and a Customs Union to allow inspectors to
concentrate on terrorists rather than tariffs on goods.
DEFINING A NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY
North Americans are ready for a new relationship. Studies over the
past 20 years have shown a convergence of values, on personal and
family issues as well as on public policy. An October 2003 poll taken
in all three countries by Ekos, a Canadian firm, found that a clear
majority believes that a North American economic union will be
established in the next 10 years, The same survey found an overwhelming
majority in favor of more integrated North American policies on the
environment, transportation, and defense and a more modest majority in
favor of common energy and banking policies. And 75 percent of people
in the United States and Canada, and two-thirds of Mexicans, support
the development of a North American security perimeter. The United
States, Mexican, and Canadian Governments remain zealous defenders of
an outdated conception of sovereignty even though their citizens are
ready for a new approach. Each nation's leadership has stressed
differences rather than common interests. North America needs leaders
who can articulate and pursue a broader vision.
I hope this committee will pursue the North American agenda beyond
the travel initiative considered here. On June 23, the three leaders
promised to publish a report with specific recommendations on how to
deepen North American integration. These should be reviewed together
with Senator Richard Lugar's far-sighted bill for a ``North American
Cooperative Security Act'' and Senator Cornyn's ``North American
Investment Fund.'' The time has come for us to define a true North
American Community. Our security and prosperity depend on it.
Senator Coleman. Thank you very much, Dr. Pastor.
In many ways, it seems to me that as we see Europe trying
to develop a system of lessening barriers and maximizing the
economic potential of large land mass and a large economic
base, a varied resource system, it almost seems, at least in
this particular initiative, that we are kind of cutting
ourselves off, that we are shrinking rather than expanding the
opportunity that we have.
And, again, security issues are security issues, but I
worry about the direction. And what I am hearing from you, Dr.
Pastor, is that instead of thinking small, we have got to think
big, and ultimately I think we will, but I worry about the
disruption before we get there.
I want to thank both gentlemen for your very specific
recommendations and specific suggestions. Mr. Ruden, if I can,
you were very clear about the devastating impact if we move
forward as scheduled with this passport requirement.
What I am hearing is, in effect, you are saying Cancun is
going to do well in this, but Jamaica and the Bahamas and that
kind of travel is going to suffer. So are we creating winners
and losers with the schedule that we are on?
Mr. Ruden. Well, I--Mr. Chairman, I think that is the
inevitable effect if you phase this in, and I well appreciate
the--and I think everyone does--the effort that State and
Homeland Security were making to try to ease the transition by
doing it in steps. In a certain sense, that makes sense, but
there are, as you indicated in your opening statement,
unintended consequences and implications of that.
There is a very strong economic competition between the
countries in the Caribbean, some of whom have already got
passport policies and some who do not. And regardless of what
you think about that, that is the reality that we have to face
in developing policy, so because the financial consequences and
other issues associated with getting passports are so
significant, they are going to cause people to make different
choices about where they go if this regime is put in place. And
that will affect the business in various parts of these areas
and also Mexico and Canada eventually.
Senator Coleman. The numbers I have--I think the U.S.
Chamber number is 34.5 million visits by Canadians to the
United States in 2003, $10.9 billion impact on the economy.
Does the travel industry check the impact of folks coming in? I
have the figure here somewhere, but I believe a very small
percentage of Canadians have passports. Do we know, either of
you gentlemen, whether we are working with Canada? I presume
there is going to be reciprocity here. Do we know if we are
working with them to change their system, to advertise to their
people to do the things that have to be done?
Mr. Ruden. I hope that we are preparing to do that. One of
the difficulties here is that we do not really know what is
going to happen next. And I have empathy for the folks from
State and DHS, who are trying to do what the statute ultimately
requires of them in an environment in which it is, I hope,
clear now that December 31, 2005, simply does not work.
And the President has expressed his concerns about the
overall question of passports, certainly to the end of this
year as a nonstarter, and it is just hard to imagine how we
would cope with that, if you plug in the even minimum times to
get through an ANPRM and then an NPRM that will follow it in a
context where they are talking about as yet undisclosed
alternatives to passports other than SENTRI and NEXUS and so
forth, which I think everyone would agree do not work as
substitutes.
We are in an environment of multiple variables. I do not
know what the Canadians would even say to us if we said, ``Get
ready,'' because we do not know what is coming.
Senator Coleman. Just one last followup, trying to look for
an acceptable alternative. I did not hear that today. I did not
hear from any of the witnesses a solution other than the
passport, the NEXUS, the SENTRI, these are too narrow. They do
not reach the population that has to be reached as we saw on
the chart with Minnesota. We do not even have any of those
processing abilities here in my State that I represent, a
border State.
Is it simply a matter of needing a more secure driver's
license? At this point I am looking within the next year. What
do you see as possible out there?
Mr. Ruden. Frankly, I do not think in a year's time it is
likely that you could bring 50 States' drivers' licenses to a
state of secure issuances where the Federal Government would be
prepared to accept them. And, in fact, there is a provision in
the bill that was recently passed that deals specifically with
this subject and says, State drivers' licenses will only be
accepted by Federal agencies if they meet a rather imposing set
of requirements covering their issuance and their security and
so forth.
There is no way the States are going to get there in 1
year's time. So that instrument probably, or that possibility,
may not exist realistically.
I do think, however, there is an enormous amount of
creative talent available in our industry that if we could sit
down as an industry, not one off meetings with us and other
people, which are valuable and helpful to both of us, but an
industry kind of conclave or process where we bring this talent
together.
Everyone is committed ultimately to the same goal--better
security, balanced with--against tourist--tourism interest and
economic interest for the country. We could, I think--I am
optimistic that we could find a way toward a new instrument
that would achieve the objectives and have lower costs.
The cost issue is a very, very important question for
millions of people, who do not have passports today. We are
told by State that a huge part of the passport cost, that $97,
is the imputed component of overseas services that are rendered
to citizens.
I could imagine a situation--and it is reflected in our
recommendations--in which you have an instrument that is issued
that does not call upon the United States Government to provide
those services and therefore would be cheaper, because you
would not have to impute those costs to it. It would be good
for identification, good for citizenship. You would still have
those components. And that instrument might be a path that we
could follow.
Senator Coleman. I think, Mr. Ruden, that there would
simply be a volume discount, going from 20 percent of the
population to requiring everybody to have one. You would think
it would be cheaper by volume.
The last question--and this is to Dr. Pastor. Reflecting on
your background, the National Security Council, can you assess
for us today the state of security regarding our borders with
Canada and Latin America, Central America? Or how problematic
is the current situation and how much of the change that we are
talking about is being dictated because of fear that the gaps
are so big that if we do not act we are going to suffer some
terrible consequences?
Dr. Pastor. It is very hard to give a definitive answer to
that question, but I think if you took just one dimension of
that, which is the flow of people, I think the unauthorized
migration from Mexico to the United States has not been
diminished since September 11. It has probably been increased.
I think an increase in border patrol, though it has been
significant, has not dramatically affected that. So I think if
that is the dimension that you look at in terms of asking
whether we are more secure or less on our borders, I guess one
would conclude that we are less secure.
Senator Coleman. My frustration is that, in fact, this may
be a little like the gun debate. Those folks that you are
talking about that are less secure, they are not going to get
passports. And those folks who are going to get passports are
probably the ones who are not the problem.
And I worry that that is the way we are looking at it. We
are going to register all those who register and yet we still
face massive border and immigration issues that are not at all
addressed by what we are talking about here today.
Dr. Pastor. No. That is quite correct. The issue of how do
you affect unauthorized migration to the United States over the
long term is not going to be solved by discussion of passports.
It is going to be solved in the long term by reducing the
development gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors on a
significant enough commitment on the part of all three
countries, particularly of Mexico, that would begin to have an
effect very much like the European Union did for themselves.
They, in 15 years, significantly narrowed the development
gap between their richer and poorer countries and eliminated
the kind of internal migration that many had feared when they
first came into the EU.
Senator Coleman. I appreciate that, Doctor Pastor.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. That is a great point, because I think we
missed that. We talked about further integration, the kind of
investments that we should be making in the infrastructure. And
this is an infrastructure issue, and is critical. And I just
want to know--talking about having just come back after 5 years
of chairing and cochairing the Spain Council, just had our
annual meeting in Seville, and Mel Martinez is now taking over
the cochairmanship of this organization.
Just watching what is happening in Spain, the tremendous
investment of Spain and Portugal, Ireland, it is incredible
what is happening. I mean, here was a country that 15 years
ago, I think they were losing about 40,000 young people a year,
who were immigrating out of Ireland to find jobs in England,
Australia, and the United States. They now have a huge
immigration problem because of the tremendous economy, in no
small measure because of the tremendous investments that were
made by the European Union to make sure that Ireland would be
able to participate fully.
So it is a very, very good point, and one that we should
think about. We think of this situation, sometimes we think of
it as aside, as not being part of a seamless garment here, if
you will, of dealing with national security and building the
kind of relationships economically that you are going to have.
Too often, I think, we have a stovepipe, sort of, in how we do
these things, because there is the national security stovepipe
and there is the economic issues, that stovepipe, all of that
diplomacy, and failing to recognize, that really, they are all
one and the same issue. You are not going to succeed in any one
of these so-called stovepipes, unless you succeed in the other
two.
And so you need to have--if you really want to deal with
national security effectively, the economic issues play a huge
role, and public diplomacy plays a huge role. And if you want
to, you know, deal with public diplomacy, then you have to have
good economics and good national security, so there is a great
inter-relationship here.
And you sort of touched on this already and I want to sort
of--just raise sort of the same questions that I did with the
witnesses from the consular section of the State Department.
And I wondered--we have talked about NAFTA, Bob, but I wonder
if you might also touch on CAFTA, because I think it is the
next game here in town. And people say, ``Well that was--NAFTA
was then.''
But talk about CAFTA. Aside from the issues of whether or
not you can actually come up with an agreement here that we can
all support, or at least many people can support, tell me how
this issue relates to CAFTA in your mind.
Dr. Pastor. Well, if I could just follow your first point--
--
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Dr. Pastor [continuing]. And then I will answer that.
Spain's growth and Ireland going from one of the poorest to the
second richest----
Senator Dodd. Right.
Dr. Pastor [continuing]. Country in Europe was not just the
result of free trade.
Senator Dodd. No. No.
Dr. Pastor. It was the result of $500 billion, $500 billion
transferred from the richer countries of Europe to those
countries. I have done a detailed analysis, even wrote a report
on it, which I will be glad to give you a copy for the North
American Development Bank.
They wasted a lot of that money. They made a lot of
mistakes. We do not want to replicate what Europe did, but we
can also learn a lot from them, because the two investments
that made the biggest difference was infrastructure that
connected their markets to the northern markets----
Senator Dodd. Right.
Dr. Pastor [continuing]. And post-secondary education just
10 percent of that.
So there is a plan that could make a huge difference. The
bottom line, however, comes back to your question, which is
that trade--free trade and free investment does promote growth.
It does help. CAFTA is in our interest, but it is not
sufficient, just as NAFTA was not.
You need to follow that with ways to take full advantage of
this free trade and this competition, both by the United States
and by the other countries like Mexico.
I think CAFTA is very small from the perspective of the
United States. Even the most optimistic projections suggest
that our income is raised by $15 billion, theirs by $5 billion.
I mean the issue of CAFTA is the one that you have wrestled
with and contributed so much over the last 30 years. It is the
security of Central America and its implications for the United
States.
And we cannot say ``no'' to Central America, the first time
in its history where they are democratic, and they are looking
toward the market of the United States.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Dr. Pastor. That, I think, is the issue. We do not want to
tangle all of the symbolic other areas or issues that are on
the table, as we sometimes address with free trade agreements,
but which may be the case in this as well. I think we ought to
focus on that.
But we also ought to think hard about: How do you build on
a free trade agreement to make it work for all of the people
and sustain the kind of public support that our country and
that the Central Americans and Latin Americans need in order to
keep pursuing free trade? Because that public support is
missing right now.
Senator Dodd. Well, just in the--again, your assessments--
and I--and you sort of touched on this already, but we raised
the issues about the reciprocity problems, which you have
touched on, and the public diplomacy--and maybe you will also
comment on this, Mr. Ruden, because I--there is a tendency to
say, ``Well, that is, you know--this is tourism.''
But I think we fail to ever appreciate the value of
tourism, and it is hard to put numbers on it. People like to
put numbers, ``How many--what is your vacancy rate in hotels
and how many meals were bought,'' and so forth. The harder
question is: To what extent does someone come here, leave--how
do they leave here, with what attitudes about us?
I am sure there is no way we can really measure all of
this. Do they come back again? What sort of experience--that we
can measure. I suspect someone does not come back strictly for
economic reasons, because they could go to some mall and make
good purchases. But they had a wonderful experience here. They
liked being here. And I wonder if there is any sort of support
or evidence you can supply and the importance of this
correlation.
Mr. Ruden. Well, I do not have any particular data and I do
not know that that data really exists, but the--when you engage
in the business of tourism in other countries and we go to
other countries frequently and interact with their tourism
people and the commercial people in those countries that are
looking to draw Americans there and also the countries that are
sending people here, the view you generally get is that most
people who come here, once they get here, have a favorable
experience with America. And they take that back.
We hope that most of the people we are sending, that our
members send out of this country--and I believe this to be
true--have favorable experiences in the foreign countries they
go to. So your point about diplomacy, the personal diplomacy of
individuals traveling is at the core of what we are really all
about. And there is no contrary evidence. Maybe that, as much
as anything, is the proof. There is nothing to indicate that
what--that your point is not completely correct.
Senator Dodd. Can I ask you one question just because I--we
were talking about it--I think it was this morning I was
talking to some people about it. It is only anecdotal, and so I
do not want to suggest that maybe it is as widespread as some
people may think, but I am getting a lot more--because I am
fairly close to New York and JFK, as an airport. I have a lot
of constituents, obviously, who travel, particularly in western
Connecticut. Fairfield County, a lot of people who work in New
York, and are heavily involved in international travel on
business.
I am getting a lot more complaints about how people are
treated at that--at the entry points coming into the country,
just attitudinally. I mean, it is just--again, I do not want to
overstate the case here, unless you are going to tell me that
this is something you are hearing too, but the lack of that
kind of, ``Boy, we are glad you are here and we welcome you,
and delighted you are going to be here and hope you will come
back,'' just that sense of basic business practices.
If you are running a small restaurant or haberdashery, or
whatever else--the customer walks in the door. And I am worried
that customers walking in our door are not being as warmly as--
received as they may have been in the past, and whether or not
you are picking up any of this at all. Is this a--Bob, you may
want to comment on this, too.
Dr. Pastor. Yes. Let me just say I think you are
understating the case, Senator. I think we have a real problem
out there and it is partly direct and it is partly indirect.
And I can feel it in American University.
The direct effects occurred as a result of September 11 and
our own fears. Our student population from the Middle East
declined by more than half, and we have not recovered.
And when I have met with people in the Middle East or in
Latin America or in Asia, they have repeatedly talked about how
much more difficult it is to get a hearing at the United States
Embassy, to get a visa. And they are discouraged.
We have--we have seen a tremendous decline in international
students, which we are determined to reverse, but I think it is
partly a result of that. And also frankly, I think there is a
public relations problem we have in the world right now that
you and others who travel know. It is very different.
You can see it in public opinion polls. You can see it in
the polls in Canada and Mexico. They have persistently, over
the last 25 years, been very high about Americans. You have
seen a real dip in their attitude toward the United States. And
some of that is a result of foreign policy difference, and some
is a result of fears in the United States.
But we need to--I think our strength as a country relies on
us as being an attractive model, and that has been diminished.
And we need to, as a country, both parties, all of our leaders
need to work together to try to reverse this image that people
are getting about the United States right now.
So I think you are absolutely right. There is a serious
problem out there.
Senator Dodd. Well, it has come--we got a vote on here--but
let me just--on this notion, because I think it comes down--
obviously, look, we all recall the recrimination that can occur
after 9/11, you know, how did these people get through the
airport in Boston, how did they get on that plane, who was not
doing their job watching these things? And you get that notion
that, you know, people really had screwed up terribly.
So the word kind of goes out. And you create an environment
that, you know, it is not going to happen on my watch. And so
there is almost this hostile kind of environment that I really
worry about. Do you want to----
Mr. Ruden. Senator, I have a slightly different perspective
on that, I think. I believe it is the case based on personal
experience and things I have read elsewhere that most people
today who go to airports have one thing on their mind, and that
is getting through what they perceive is a security gauntlet.
It is everywhere and it is imposing, it is threatening to
your ability to reach your plane on time, especially if you
arrive late. There is uncertainty a lot of times about--because
things have changed fairly frequently. Do--when do I need to
show my ID? How many times do I need to show it? Do I need to
take my shoes off?
I think the people trying to do this by and large are doing
a remarkably good job----
Senator Dodd. I agree with that.
Mr. Ruden [continuing]. And part of it is anxiety raised by
the fact that we have a new deal here. It is a new system, and
it is not going to go away.
I think it is working--US-VISIT, in particular, I think the
State Department has done a remarkable job of promoting and
advertising and implementing that. We thought at the outset
there might be real big problems with that. And, in fact, it
takes a few seconds, people go through it. I know there are
some concerns----
Senator Dodd. I am talking less about people coming into
the country than I am talking about going through the airport
out here at National. I am talking about the time when you get
off that plane and you are coming through--before you have even
met anybody, just an attitudinal----
Mr. Ruden. I think that difficulty is probably true
everywhere in the world that you have to go through customs and
immigration. It is not a particularly warm experience. I have
been to some countries which were near police states, and you
knew it when you landed.
It was different. And by those standards coming into
America for a foreign person, I think, is a great experience,
but it is nonetheless an imposing thing to cross a national
border and face those people looking at you as possible
suspects.
Senator Dodd. I say it is more anecdotal, but I have heard
enough of it that it concerns me a little bit about--anyway,
Mr. Chairman, thank you for a good hearing.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, gentlemen. Your testimony has
been very helpful, very focused, very specific, and not only
will we consider it, but we hope that the State Department and
the Department of Homeland Security also considers it as well.
I will keep the record open for 7 days. This hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]