[Senate Hearing 112-835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-835
BALANCING PROSPERITY AND SECURITY: CHALLENGES FOR U.S. AIR TRAVEL IN A
21ST CENTURY GLOBAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
MARCH 21, 2012--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-477 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DANIEL COATS, Indiana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Professional Staff
Charles Kieffer
Chip Walgren
Scott Nance
Drenan E. Dudley
Rebecca Davies (Minority)
Carol Cribbs (Minority)
Administrative Support
Nora Martin
Courtney Stevens (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................... 1
Statement of Senator Dan Coats................................... 4
Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg......................... 6
Statement of Hon. John S. Pistole, Administrator, Transportation
Security Administration........................................ 7
Prepared Statement of........................................ 8
Adopting a Risk-Based Security Strategy.......................... 9
TSA PreCheck (Pre3TM) Program......................... 9
Statement of Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Deputy Commissioner,
Customs and Border Protection.................................. 11
Prepared Statement of........................................ 13
Business Transformation.......................................... 14
Professionalism and Model Ports.................................. 16
Advanced Targeting Initiatives................................... 18
Statement of Douglas A. Smith, Assistant Secretary, Private
Sector Office, Department of Homeland Security................. 20
Prepared Statement of........................................ 22
The Department's Efforts on Travel and Tourism................... 22
The Traveler Experience.......................................... 23
Statement of David T. Donahue, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Visa Services, Department of State............................. 24
Prepared Statement of........................................ 26
The Department of State's Role in Travel and Tourism Promotion... 26
Responding to Increasing Worldwide Demand for U.S. Visas......... 26
Meeting Demand, Especially in China and Brazil................... 27
The Role of Security Has Not Diminished.......................... 28
Interviews....................................................... 28
Reciprocity...................................................... 29
Visa Waiver Program.............................................. 29
Newark Liberty Airport: Staffing................................. 30
Staffing and Wait Times at Newark Liberty International Airport.. 31
Newark Liberty Airport Breaches.................................. 32
I-94 Replacement: Cost-Benefit................................... 32
Aviation Security Passenger Fee Increase......................... 34
Airport Screening: Pilots and Flight Attendants.................. 35
PreCheck (Pre3TM) Program............................. 36
Coordination With Airlines Airports and TSA or Customs........... 37
Airport Screening: Individuals With Special Needs................ 38
Cargo Screening.................................................. 40
Additional Committee Questions................................... 43
Questions Submitted to Hon. John S. Pistole...................... 43
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 43
TSA's PreCheck (Pre3TM) Program....................... 43
Expedited Screening for Military Members......................... 45
Expedited Screening for Pilots and Flight Attendants............. 46
Checked Baggage Fees............................................. 46
TSA Behavior Detection--Assessor Program......................... 47
Advanced Imaging Technology...................................... 49
Aviation Security Capital Fund................................... 50
Security Procedures for Airport Employees........................ 51
Screening Partnership Program.................................... 52
Known Crewmember Program......................................... 53
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats...................... 53
Risk-Based Passenger Screening (TSA Pre3TM Program)... 53
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby................. 55
Canine Explosives Detection...................................... 55
Questions Submitted to Thomas S. Winkowski....................... 55
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 55
CBP Wait Times and Staffing...................................... 55
Targeting High-Risk Passengers................................... 57
Model Ports of Entry............................................. 58
CBP Customer Service............................................. 59
Visa Waiver Program.............................................. 59
Global Entry..................................................... 60
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy................... 61
Cross-Border Passenger Rail Service.............................. 61
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats...................... 62
Cargo Screening.................................................. 62
Global Entry Program............................................. 62
Targeting in the Passenger Environment........................... 63
I-94 Form Automation............................................. 63
Electronic System for Travel Authorization....................... 64
Questions Submitted to Douglas A. Smith.......................... 64
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu................... 64
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats...................... 65
Collaboration With Airport Authorities........................... 65
National Travel and Tourism Strategy............................. 66
Questions Submitted to David T. Donahue.......................... 66
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 66
Visa Issuance.................................................... 66
Implementation of Executive Order................................ 68
Travel to the United States: From a Visa Waiver Program Country
Vs. a Non-Visa Waiver Program Country.......................... 69
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Statement of Roger Dow, President and CEO, U.S. Travel
Association.................................................... 73
Prepared Statement of........................................ 75
Implement Risk-Based and Efficient Passenger Screening........... 75
Promote and Expand International Travel.......................... 76
Visa Issuance Process............................................ 78
Visa Waiver Program.............................................. 79
Immigration Processing Upon Arrival Into the United States....... 80
Statement of Charles M. Barclay, President, American Association
of Airport Executives.......................................... 81
Prepared Statement of........................................ 82
Attachment, G-10 Airports Coalition--Atlanta; Chicago;
Dallas/Fort Worth; Denver; Houston; Los Angeles;
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; Miami; New
York/New Jersey Port Authority; Philadelphia; Phoenix;
San Francisco; Seattle/Tacoma.......................... 86
CBP Issues....................................................... 86
Visa (Department of State) Issues................................ 87
Statement of Thomas L. Hendricks, Senior Vice President of
Safety, Security and Operations, Airlines for America.......... 87
Prepared Statement of........................................ 89
Needed Actions................................................... 89
Statement of Steven Hacker, President and CEO, International
Association of Exhibitions and Events.......................... 90
Prepared Statement of........................................ 91
Statement of Sara Nelson, International Vice President,
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA........................... 94
Prepared Statement of........................................ 96
TSA Workforce.................................................... 96
Security Screening............................................... 97
Carry-On Baggage Limitations..................................... 98
Letter From the American Association of Airport Executives....... 100
Additional Committee Questions................................... 102
Questions Submitted to Roger S. Dow.............................. 102
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 102
Questions Submitted to Charles M. Barclay........................ 104
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 104
Questions Submitted to Thomas L. Hendricks....................... 105
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 105
Questions Submitted to Steven Hacker............................. 106
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 106
Attachment, Exhibits A-E..................................... 108
Questions Submitted to Sara Nelson............................... 119
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 119
Known Crewmember Program......................................... 119
Checked Baggage Fees............................................. 119
BALANCING PROSPERITY AND SECURITY: CHALLENGES FOR U.S. AIR TRAVEL IN A
21ST CENTURY GLOBAL ECONOMY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu, Lautenberg, Coats, and
Murkowski.
opening statement of senator mary l. landrieu
Senator Landrieu. Good morning, and let me call the
subcommittee of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee to
order.
I am looking forward particularly to our hearing this
morning. This is a favorite topic of mine and to many people
that I represent, and I am happy to provide the time to air out
some of these important issues. I thank my ranking member.
We were notified this morning that there will be a vote on
the floor of the Senate at 10:45 a.m. We are going to try to
keep this subcommittee moving forward, even as we vote. It just
depends on the members and if they are going to be able to
attend. Senator Coats has another meeting at 10:30 a.m. So we
will just see how it goes, but we are going to try to be
accommodating to everyone's schedule.
Let me welcome all of you.
The tourism and travel industry is a substantial component
of the U.S. economy. In 2010, it represented 2.7 percent of the
country's gross domestic product and 7.5 million jobs.
International travel to the United States supports 1.2 million
jobs alone. The average overseas visitor spends $4,500 while
they are here. And I would venture to say much of that money is
spent at relatively small businesses, whether it is restaurants
or museums or gift shops, art stores, antique dealers, et
cetera. So we want to increase that opportunity for our small
businesses here.
Travel is a key economic driver for many of our major
cities. According to information from the Department of
Commerce, New York City continues to reign as the number one
destination for international travelers, commanding a 32-
percent share of overseas arrivals. Los Angeles experienced a
33-percent increase during 2010, gaining over 800,000 visitors.
Las Vegas saw a 31-percent increase in overseas visitation
during 2010, welcoming 570,000 more visitors than the year
before. And during the first half of 2011, 446,400
international travelers visited New Orleans, a 6.9-percent
increase over the first half of 2010 and the largest jump for
us in many years. There are other parts of the country, of
course, that benefit as well, but just pointing out those
specific destinations.
Today's hearing will focus on the Federal Government's
initiatives, primarily the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), but also the Department of State (State Department) in
both domestic and international arenas to make air travel as
efficient but as convenient as possible but without sacrificing
security. The subcommittee will examine the execution of a
number of existing programs designed to expedite security
screening for air travelers and to improve the arrival process
for visitors to the United States.
We will also look at steps the State Department is taking
to expedite the issuance of tourist visas. We will also hear
from representatives of the private sector who are impacted by
these programs.
On January 19, earlier this year, President Obama announced
a series of initiatives to enhance travel and tourism to this
country. He stated: ``Every year, tens of millions of tourists
from all over the world come and visit America. The more folks
who visit America, the more Americans we can get back to work.
We need to help businesses all across the country grow and
create jobs, compete, and win. That is how we are going to
rebuild an economy where hard work pays off, where
responsibility is rewarded, and where everyone can make it if
they try.'' I could not agree more.
Today the U.S. Travel Association is launching a national
bus tour at Union Station to highlight many of the issues we
will be discussing this morning.
The travel dollar is an integral part of our economy, and
we all should want to see it grow. At the same time, we must
never forget that planes were, in fact, used as weapons of mass
destruction on 9/11, and Congress created the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) in response to those horrific
attacks and the continued threat to our Nation's aviation
sector that has been widely publicized lately.
However, 10 years after TSA was created, the screening
process is viewed by many as overly burdensome. For too long,
travelers with low-risk profiles have been screened no
differently than those with high-risk profiles in a one-size-
fits-all system.
I am pleased to have the Administrator of TSA here today to
discuss his efforts to think anew and to move away from that
outdated screening model. TSA has launched an expedited
screening program for known travelers called PreCheck
(Pre3TM). It relaxes screening requirements for
children under 12 and this week began relaxing screening
procedures for passengers over age 75 and for the military. The
plan is to expand Pre3TM from 11 airports to 35
airports this year. That is good news, but we have many more
airports to reach. These efforts have received positive reviews
and today we will explore how risk-based screening can be
expanded to accommodate more travelers.
TSA is also beginning to expedite access to airplanes for
pilots through its crewmember program. I personally believe we
must expand this program to include flight attendants. If any
group should be considered trusted travelers, it most certainly
is our flight crews.
The bottom line is that security and convenience are not
mutually exclusive. It is important that pleasure and comfort
once again become words that are associated with air travel.
Airlines have a big role to play in this, as do airports, but
so does the Federal Government.
As someone who has returned from international travel and
has been required to stand in long lines without the use of a
cell phone for a long time, waiting to clear Customs, I have
often wondered what tourists coming to this country for a
vacation to see the sights and spend their money must think of
this great country of ours if this is their first impression.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at our Nation's
airports are the face of America to these tired travelers. It
is important that we be both vigilant and welcoming.
In 2011, more than 91 million travelers to the United
States were processed by CBP through international airports.
CBP has developed a number of Trusted Traveler programs
designed to securely expedite the entry process for frequent
travelers. Global Entry allows expedited clearance for
preapproved, low-risk travelers who have paid $100 to
participate in the program for 5 years and submitted to a more
thorough background check. There are currently more than
252,000 members enrolled in Global Entry.
NEXUS is a binational cooperative effort with Canada,
similar to Global Entry and valid for land, sea, and air.
Currently there are more than 629,000 participants who pay $50
for a 5-year enrollment.
At the direction of Congress, CBP initiated the Model Ports
of Entry program in 2007 to make the entry process more
streamlined, understandable, and welcoming. It currently
operates at 20 major airports, and there are other programs
which will be discussed today.
In an effort to promote these activities, we put in our
bill last year additional funding--and I thank my co-chair--for
300 CBP officers at new and expanded ports of entry and $10
million above the request for TSA to support risk-based
screenings such as Pre3TM. We will get an update,
Senator, on that investment today.
The State Department has the primary responsibility for
issuing visas to people wishing to travel. The President's
January 19 Executive order specifically calls for a 40-percent
increase in non-immigrant visa processing capability over the
coming year while ensuring that 80 percent of non-immigrant
visa applications are interviewed within 3 weeks of their visa
application. These benchmarks reflect mandates that I have
worked to include in the fiscal year 2012 State and Foreign
Operations budget as a member of that subcommittee. These are
robust targets. We will want to know what steps the State
Department is taking to meet these goals.
On the second panel, we will have a variety of witnesses
from the private sector who will discuss how these policies,
already implemented by the Government, have improved the travel
and entry process, and equally as important, they will share
with the subcommittee their ideas on what more can be and
should be done to further improve the ability to visit this
country, increase travel, and grow the economy.
I would like to now call on Senator Coats for his opening
statement, and then I will turn to Vice Chair Frank Lautenberg
when he arrives. And Senator, please and thank you. And I
understand you have to leave in about 20 minutes. So thank you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAN COATS
Senator Coats. Madam Chairman, you have suggested we do a
rolling coverage so we can keep the subcommittee going. I can
work that out. So you go first. I will wait, and then vote when
you come back. Then I have got another appropriations hearing
that is important to me. But this is important and I want to be
here as much as I can. So we will figure that out.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for bringing these
people together on this subject. All of us have experienced
travel issues, lines at airline counters and self-check kiosks,
and delays at boarding gates, lines at security screening and
so forth. But we have to remember that 9/11 was a game-changer
and that a lot of important adjustments needed to be made in
terms of our ensuring that travel and the tourists that do
travel and Americans that travel are safe to every extent
possible. And so these adjustments have been made--many
adjustments and things have been added to our ability to make
travel more secure and convenient.
There is this ying and yang that goes back and forth. We
all want to balance security with convenience. Everybody wants
to be perfectly safe or as safe as possible and at the same
time have everything be as convenient as possible. And the
members of the first panel that is before us have to deal with
these issues every day and finding that balance is a real
challenge, and I think we have to recognize that and recognize
the efforts that have been made to try to achieve those two
goals.
TSA and CBP have a number of initiatives underway,
Pre3TM and Global Entry among them, which could
positively impact their ability to concentrate their limited
resources on risk-based screening. The State Department is
working on an initiative to address visa issuance problems.
There is a ying and yang between our first panel and our
second panel. If CBP and TSA schedule too few staff on a shift,
resulting in lines and delays for processing and screening,
that is a problem. But airline policies and scheduling also
play a role in processing and screening. Too few personnel
staffing airline self-check kiosks can hold up travelers, as
can the impact of an airline's baggage fees. If there are too
many international flights scheduled for arrival, say, between
3 p.m. and 5 p.m. at Dulles, this contributes to long lines for
processing. And too many flights scheduled for early morning
departure or late afternoon arrival or departure contribute to
long lines for security screening.
So I am hoping this morning that we will hear concrete,
achievable suggestions for improvements. Let me just expand on
that. Achievable suggestions for improving processing and
screening while maintaining our security and recognizing budget
constraints. This is a real challenge.
We are facing a serious crisis in this country with our
Nation's debt and the yearly deficit. It cannot be ignored, and
there can no longer be such a thing as a sacred cow. We all
have our sacred cows, but when you add them all up, nobody
wants to subtract anything. I do not believe the answer to our
problems is more taxpayer money sent to Washington. So we need
to find innovative ways to be more efficient with the resources
we do have.
I note that several of the written testimonies include
calls for more Federal staff at airports, mandating in statute
a time limit for processing international arriving flights,
mandating a time limit for processing visa applications,
modernizing Federal information technology systems, providing
Federal funding for checked baggage, screening equipment, et
cetera. And while many of these suggestions that have been made
may be good ideas, most likely most of them will require
additional appropriations, which we do not have. They might
require increases in fees levied on international airline
passengers or visa applicants or even domestic passengers which
have, as we know, little if any public support. And most
importantly, some of these suggestions have a cost in lowered
security.
So do we want CBP watching the clock every time an
international flight lands, or do we want them concentrating on
assessing the information and the demeanor of each individual
who has come off that plane?
Do we want the State Department checking the calendar every
day a visa application is in the office, or do we want them
making sure that they have found every piece of information
they can about a potential visitor or immigrant to this country
before making a final decision?
It is not okay to complain about security requirements for
visas, airports, or entry into the United States and then
demand that they be fundamentally changed when one mishap or
one bad guy gets through the system. None of us want to see
international travel drop in the wake of a successful terrorist
attack the way it did in 2002 in the aftermath of 9/11.
So in conclusion here, we all need to work together to
figure out ways to work smarter but not necessarily more
expensively or in a way that could compromise security. TSA,
CBP, and the State Department need to contribute ideas just
like the travel industry, airlines, event planners, and flight
attendants need to contribute ideas for all of us to do this
while ensuring that the United States remains a safe and
preferred destination for international travelers.
I look forward to continuing this discussion on these
important issues.
Madam Chairman, I know you and I, Senator Lautenberg, and
others on this subcommittee pledge to work with all of you to
try to achieve efficiency and effectiveness, at the same time
providing security for those who travel from abroad and for
Americans who take advantage of this magnificent country by
getting on a plane, train, bus to go to places and continue
this vibrant and dynamic tourist industry.
I might just say I am happy to see my friend and fellow
Indiana Law School graduate, John Pistole, here. We would
prefer that nothing happens to interrupt our time between
Friday evening 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. when Indiana plays Kentucky in
the Sweet 16.
Mr. Pistole. Go Hoosiers.
Senator Coats. So to the extent you gentlemen can prevent
anything serious from distracting during that timeframe, we
would be most appreciative.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
The President set the goal for America to be the top
tourist destination in the world, and thanks to the Travel
Promotion Act and other new policies, we are well on our way.
Tourism is a big business even in my small, most densely
populated State of New Jersey. People like to see the wonders
of that energetic State, and it continues to be one of the
largest and fastest growing businesses in our State. Nationwide
the industry is supporting more than 7 million jobs, and in the
next 10 years--think of it--travel and tourism will create 1
million more jobs in the United States. And we have to be
aggressive in searching those jobs out.
But our tourism industry can only reach its full potential
if travelers are confident that they are going to be safe and
secure. And as 9/11 showed, a terrorist attack can have a
devastating impact on our travel industry, in addition to the
tragic human toll.
More than a decade after 9/11, aviation security remains a
serious concern, particularly in my home State of New Jersey
where we have witnessed security lapses at our airport, Newark
Liberty, one of the busiest airports in the country. And one
cannot talk about the conditions without remarking about how
well our security structure has served. We have had incidents.
Incidents, thank goodness, that were interrupted along the way
show that our people are there. And Mr. Pistole, you have got a
good team out there. We are looking for perfection. Hard to get
but essential as a goal.
In one incident a carry-on bag containing a knife got past
the TSA agents at the airport.
On another occasion, the passengers were able to enter
secure areas without being screened properly. That one did not
have a weapon but it did have a love connection. There was one
last kiss goodbye and the guy just went under the rope and that
was it. They shut the airport down for 1\1/2\ hour.
Incidents like these raise concerns about our ability to
protect the public as they move through our aviation system.
And I also remain concerned about the ability to scan
baggage effectively as airline baggage fees cause passengers to
carry on more and bigger bags. And the bottom line is this. We
have got to make aviation security our primary mission, but
where we can speed up the process and improve efficiency, we
must make these investments.
And I look forward to hearing these witnesses today, Madam
Chairman, on how we can address the challenges. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much, Senator Lautenberg.
Let us begin, if we could, with our first panel.
I want to welcome Senator Murkowski who has joined us and
we will go through a round of questioning after our panel.
Why do we not start, Mr. Administrator, with you? John
Pistole, of course, has testified many times before this
subcommittee, as the TSA Administrator. Thomas Winkowski,
Acting Deputy Commissioner, CBP; Douglas Smith, Assistant
Secretary, DHS for the Private Sector; and David Donahue,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services. So we will go in
the order that I have called you all. John, why do we not begin
with you?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. PISTOLE, ADMINISTRATOR,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Vice Chairman
Lautenberg, Ranking Member Coats, and Senator Murkowski. Good
to see you today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify as to what TSA's
ongoing efforts are to provide the most effective security in
the most efficient way for the traveling public.
As you are aware, TSA employs a risk-based, intelligence-
driven approach to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation's
transportation systems to terrorism. Our goal is to maximize
security and we are accomplishing this through an evolving,
multi-layered approach.
Really at its core, the concept of risk-based security
(RBS), as we say, is an acknowledgment that we are not in the
business of eliminating risk associated with traveling from
point A to point B. Our objective is to mitigate that risk
working with our partners and to reduce the potential for
anyone to commit a deliberate act against our transportation
systems. RBS enables our dedicated transportation security
officers (TSOs) to focus their attention on those travelers we
believe are more likely to pose a risk to our transportation
network, including those on terrorist watch lists, of course,
while providing expedited screening and perhaps a better travel
experience to those less likely to pose such a risk.
Through RBS initiatives, TSA is moving closer to its goal
of providing the most effective security in the most efficient
way possible. While a one-size-fits-all construct was necessary
after 9/11, technology and intelligence are facilitating and
enabling TSA's move toward an RBS model.
Perhaps the most widely known RBS initiative is TSA
Pre3TM. Since first implementing this effort last
fall, we have expanded it to 11 airports, including Reagan
National and Chicago O'Hare, which both began yesterday. More
than 540,000 passengers have experienced expedited physical
screening through TSA Pre3TM. Effective partnerships
with participating airlines, airports, and CBP all contribute
to this initiative's success. Airlines work with us to invite
eligible passengers to participate, while CBP works with us to
extend TSA Pre3TM benefits to many members of its
Trusted Traveler programs including Global Entry. By the end of
2012, we expect to be offering expedited security screening in
35 of our busiest airports. We also look forward to working
with individual airports on initiatives they may have to expand
this also.
This subcommittee's support of these efforts has been
essential and is much appreciated. In fiscal year 2012, the
subcommittee included $10 million to fund necessary upgrades to
the Secure Flight system, a key enabler of TSA
Pre3TM. Yesterday at Reagan National, we extended
TSA Pre3TM benefits to Active Duty U.S. Armed Forces
members with a common access card (CAC). This initiative also
includes Active drilling members of the U.S. National Guard and
reservists. These travelers are entrusted to protect and defend
our Nation and its citizens with their lives. So this
initiative comports with the new law signed by President Obama
on January 3 of this year called the Risk-Based Security
Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act.
Internationally CBP, of course, operates 14 aviation
preclearance locations. Each of these locations has been or is
scheduled to be evaluated by TSA to confirm that preclearance
airports are performing checkpoint screening procedures of
passengers and accessible property comparable to those of
domestic airports. All pre-cleared flights arriving from the 14
preclearance airports are permitted to deplane passengers
directly into the sterile area of U.S. airports. At this point,
checked bags on connecting domestic flights will continue to be
screened by TSA upon arrival until the screening technology and
protocols at preclearance airports conform to U.S. standards.
In addition, under the Beyond the Border initiative, TSA
and others are working with Transport Canada for mutual
recognition of checked baggage screening systems. And that is
an initiative that began last month working closely with them.
We are also supporting the expansion of the Known
Crewmember initiative, which you mentioned, Madam Chair, an
identity-based system which checks uniformed pilots against a
database called the Common Access Security System to confirm
their identity. We have had 475,000 pilots go through that thus
far and look forward to expanding that as that takes hold in
the 10 airports and is expanded throughout the country.
In addition, we are committed to using the behavior
detection officers to determine whether a traveler needs
additional screening.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And finally, we are in the final processes of testing
technology to automatically verify passenger identification
documents and boarding passes, strengthening our ability to
identify altered or fraudulent documents. And we will be
deploying that throughout the rest of the year.
Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss RBS and the streamlining process for
inbound international passengers.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John S. Pistole
Good morning Chairwoman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Transportation Security
Administration's (TSA) on-going efforts to develop and implement a
comprehensive risk-based approach to secure our Nation's transportation
systems, and about Department of Homeland Security (DHS) travel
programs to make domestic and international travel more convenient and
efficient for passengers without sacrificing security.
TSA employs risk-based, intelligence-driven operations to prevent
terrorist attacks and to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation's
transportation systems to terrorism. Our goal at all times is to
maximize transportation security to stay ahead of evolving terrorist
threats while protecting privacy and facilitating the flow of
legitimate commerce. TSA's security measures create a multi-layered
system of transportation security that mitigates risk. We continue to
evolve our security approach by examining the procedures and
technologies we use, how specific security procedures are carried out,
and how screening is conducted.
ADOPTING A RISK-BASED SECURITY STRATEGY
Since becoming TSA Administrator, I have solicited the opinions of
our key stakeholders and security professionals, our dedicated
workforce and our counterparts abroad about how TSA can work better and
smarter. Based on this feedback, I directed the agency last fall to
begin developing a strategy for enhanced risk-based security (RBS) in
all facets of transportation, including passenger screening, air cargo,
and surface transportation.
At its core, the concept of RBS demonstrates a progression of the
work TSA has been doing throughout its first decade of service to the
American people. It is an acknowledgment that we are not in the
business of eliminating all risk associated with traveling from point A
to point B. Risk is inherent in virtually everything we do. Our
objective is to mitigate risk and to reduce, as much as possible
without undermining travel and commerce, the potential for anyone to
commit a deliberate attack against our transportation systems.
RBS in the passenger screening context allows our dedicated
transportation security officers (TSOs) to focus more attention on
those travelers we believe are more likely to pose a risk to our
transportation network--including those on terrorist watch lists--while
providing expedited screening, and perhaps a better travel experience,
to those we consider pose less risk.
By utilizing our RBS initiatives, TSA is moving away from a one-
size-fits-all security model and closer to its goal of providing the
most effective transportation security in the most efficient way
possible. While a one-size-fits-all approach was necessary after 9/11
and has been effective over the past decade, two key enablers--
technology and intelligence--are allowing TSA to move toward a RBS
model.
TSA PRECHECK PROGRAM
Perhaps the most widely known security enhancement we are putting
in place is TSA PreCheck (Pre3TM). Since first implementing
this idea last Fall, the program has been expanded to nine airports and
more than 460,000 passengers around the country have experienced
expedited security screening through TSA Pre3TM. The
feedback we've been getting is consistently positive.
The success of TSA Pre3TM has been made possible by the
great partnerships with our participating airlines and airports and our
sister component, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The
airlines work with us to invite eligible passengers to opt into the
initiative, and working with CBP we are able to extend TSA
Pre3TM benefits to any U.S. citizen who is a member of one
of CBP's trusted traveler programs, such as Global Entry, SENTRI, or
NEXUS. By the end of 2012, TSA expects to be offering passengers in 35
of our Nation's busiest airports the expedited screening benefits
associated with TSA Pre3TM.
This subcommittee's support in these efforts has been essential,
and it is deeply appreciated. By providing funding for essential
technologies and program enhancements, TSA will be positioned to
include new airports, air carriers and other populations as
participants in TSA Pre3TM. In fiscal year 2012, Congress
appropriated an additional $10 million to TSA for upgrades to the
Secure Flight system, allowing it to incorporate new populations into
the low-risk passenger pool. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget
proposal requests $7 million in fiscal year 2013 which will continue to
support this new capability.
Under TSA Pre3TM, individuals volunteer information
about themselves prior to flying in order to potentially expedite the
travel experience. By learning more about travelers through information
they voluntarily provide, and combining that information with our
multi-layered system of aviation security, TSA can better focus our
limited resources on higher risk and unknown passengers. This new
screening system holds great potential to strengthen security while
significantly enhancing the travel experience, whenever possible, for
passengers.
TSA pre-screens TSA Pre3TM passengers each time they fly
through participating airports. If the indicator embedded in their
boarding pass reflects eligibility for expedited screening, the
passenger is able to use TSA's Pre3TM lane. Currently,
eligible participants include certain frequent flyers from American
Airlines and Delta Air Lines as well as existing members of CBP's
trusted traveler programs who are U.S. citizens and are flying on
participating airlines. We are actively working with other major air
carriers, such as United, US Airways, Jet Blue, Hawaiian, and Alaska
Airlines, to expand both the number of participating airlines and the
number of airports where expedited screening through TSA
Pre3TM is provided. In February, Secretary Napolitano and I
announced the national roll out of TSA Pre3TM and our goal
to have the program operating at the 35 busiest domestic airports by
the end of 2012.
Because we know more about these passengers, TSA Pre3TM
travelers are able to divest fewer items, which may include leaving on
their shoes, jacket, and light outerwear, and may enjoy other
modifications to the standard screening process. As always, TSA will
continue to incorporate random and unpredictable security measures
throughout the security process. At no point are TSA Pre3TM
travelers guaranteed expedited screening.
Earlier this month, we expanded the TSA Pre3TM
population to include Active Duty U.S. Armed Forces members with a
Common Access Card, or CAC, traveling out of Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport. Servicemembers will undergo the standard TSA Secure
Flight pre-screening, and if we are able to verify the servicemembers
are in good standing with the Department of Defense, by scanning their
CAC card at the airport, they will receive TSA Pre3TM
screening benefits, such as no longer removing their shoes or light
jacket, allowing them to keep their laptops in their cases, and their
3-1-1 compliant bags in a carry-on.
In addition to Active Duty members of the United States Army, Navy,
Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, this evaluation will also
include Active drilling members of the U.S. National Guard and
reservists. U.S. servicemembers are entrusted to protect and defend our
Nation and its citizens with their lives. In treating them as trusted
travelers, TSA is recognizing that these members pose little risk to
aviation security. This evaluation is being conducted in compliance
with the ``Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed
Forces Act,'' signed into law by President Obama on January 3, 2012
(Public Law No. 112-86).
Streamlining the Process for Inbound International Passengers
TSA Pre3TM, as mentioned previously, is being extended
to any U.S. citizen who is a member of one of CBP's trusted traveler
programs.
To further expedite the screening process, CBP currently operates
15 international aviation preclearance locations. Each of these
locations has been or is scheduled to be evaluated by TSA to confirm
that preclearance airports are performing checkpoint screening
procedures of passengers and accessible property comparable to those of
domestic airports and are providing an equivalent level of protection.
All precleared flights arriving from the 15 preclearance airports are
permitted to deplane passengers directly into the sterile area of U.S.
airports. However, connecting passengers' checked baggage intended for
connecting domestic flights must still be screened by TSA upon arrival
in the United States, until the screening technology and protocols at
the preclearance airports conform to TSA domestic checked baggage
requirements.
To that end, under the Beyond the Border (BTB) initiative, in
accordance with a joint declaration signed by President Obama and
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 4, 2011, TSA and the
National Security Staff (NSS) have been working with Transport Canada
(TC) toward mutual recognition of the two countries' checked baggage
screening systems. Under an action plan, released last December,
Canada's eight preclearance airports (Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax,
Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg) have initiated the
process to upgrade their checked baggage screening equipment to TSA-
certified explosives detection system (EDS) equipment as the primary
checked baggage screening equipment. According to the BTB Action Plan,
this upgrade, partnered with comparable implementation of TSA-
equivalent policies and procedures, will make it unnecessary to
rescreen checked bags from these Canadian airports when the passengers
connect in the United States to other flights.
This upgrading process began on February 11, 2012, and is scheduled
to be completed at all Canadian preclearance airports by March 31,
2015. TSA will conduct a site visit of each preclearance airport in
Canada to ensure checked baggage screening procedures provide an
equivalent level of protection.
Additional Security Initiatives
The following additional recent initiatives to enhance security
complement those discussed above.
Known Crewmember.--To build on our risk-based approach to security,
we are currently supporting efforts to test another identity-based
system to enable TSOs to positively verify the identity and employment
status of airplane pilots. The Known Crewmember program is the result
of a joint operation between the airline industry (Airlines for
America) and pilots (Air Line Pilots Association, International), which
allows uniformed pilots from 22 airlines to show two forms of
identification that are checked against a database called the ``Cockpit
Access Security System,'' which confirms identity. After more than 2
months into the pilot program, and with deployments nearly complete at
the seven participating airports, over 59,000 uniformed pilots have
been cleared through the process, with an average of nearly 1,900
approvals per day. Like TSA Pre3TM, Known Crewmember is a
clear example of TSA's commitment to focusing its attention and
resources on those who present the greatest risk, thereby improving
security and the travel experience for passengers across the country.
Expanded Behavior Detection.--TSA took steps last fall to expand
its behavior detection program that builds on the existing Screening of
Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program, which has grown
since 2003 to include over 160 airports. Under the Expanded Behavior
Detection pilot program, TSOs employ specialized behavioral analysis
techniques to determine if a traveler should be referred for additional
screening at the checkpoint. The vast majority of passengers at the
pilot airport checkpoints experience a ``casual greeting'' conversation
with a behavior detection officer (BDO) as they pass through travel
document verification. This additional interaction, used by security
agencies worldwide, enables officers to better verify or dispel
concerns about suspicious behavior and anomalies.
Preliminary analysis from Boston, where the pilot is currently
being conducted, shows an increase in the rate of detection of high-
risk passengers. However, additional data is required to understand if
the trend seen in the Boston data is statistically significant and
replicable at other airports. TSA is currently conducting analyses with
the DHS Science and Technology Directorate to estimate the number of
cases required for validation. In the meantime, we have expanded the
pilot program to Detroit to collect additional data on incorporating
enhanced real-time risk assessments into our other layers of security.
New Document Assessment Technology.--In addition to testing new
procedures for low-risk populations, TSA is also employing technology
to automatically verify passenger identification documents and boarding
passes, providing TSA with a greater ability to identify altered or
fraudulent documents. This technology, known as Credential
Authentication Technology--Boarding Pass Scanning Systems (CAT-BPSS),
will eventually replace the current procedure used by security officers
to detect fraudulent or altered documents. CAT-BPSS enhances security
and increases efficiency by automatically comparing a passenger's ID
and boarding pass to a set of security features to concurrently
authenticate them and ensure that the information on both match. The
system can screen a wide range of travel documents. TSA began testing
the technology in July 2011 and will deploy and evaluate the technology
at airports in the near future.
CONCLUSION
As we review and evaluate the effectiveness of these aviation
security enhancements, additional changes to the security screening
process may be implemented in the future as TSA continues to work
toward providing all travelers with the most effective security in the
most efficient way possible. Of course, TSA will always retain the
ability to incorporate random and unpredictable security measures
throughout the airport, and no individual is ever guaranteed expedited
screening.
We appreciate the ongoing support and cooperation of the aviation
industry and the traveling public as we strive to continue
strengthening transportation security and improving, whenever possible,
the overall travel experience for all Americans. The interconnectedness
and interdependence of the global economy requires that every aspect in
aviation security spectrum be as strong as possible. Whether it is for
business or for pleasure, the freedom to travel from place to place is
fundamental to our way of life, and to do so securely is a goal to
which everyone at TSA is fully committed.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
RBS, the streamlining process for inbound international passengers, and
TSA's additional security initiatives.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much.
Tom.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS S. WINKOWSKI, ACTING DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Good morning, Chairman Landrieu, Vice Chair Lautenberg,
Senator Coats, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
It is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of the
men and women of CBP to discuss the important work we do to
secure and facilitate the flow of passengers into the United
States.
CBP has worked to improve the entry process for visitors to
the United States, reengineering the way we process travelers
while also increasing security and expediting the flow of
legitimate travel.
Today I would like to highlight how we are transforming our
business model, enhancing professionalism, and pursuing
advanced targeting initiatives to provide a safer, more
welcoming environment for visitors coming to the United States.
In the area of transforming our business model, CBP is
continuing to transform the way we do business at our ports of
entry. For instance, our Trusted Traveler programs expedite
processing for low-risk, preapproved travelers upon arrival.
These programs include SENTRI, NEXUS, and Global Entry and have
nearly 1.3 million travelers enrolled.
Global Entry, our newest program, allows members to bypass
the regular lines and instead use self-service automated kiosks
at 30 airports. Approximately 4,500 travelers use the kiosks
each day, which allows CBP to make more efficient use of
resources to secure and facilitate the flow of passengers.
Global Entry typifies the unprecedented partnership we have
forged with the travel industry. Together we have promoted
Global Entry through community outreach events, advertisements,
press releases, media events, and partnerships with airports
and airlines. And as Administrator Pistole indicated, we have
also partnered with the TSA to pilot the Pre3TM
screening concept, which Global Entry is an integral part of.
In the area of automation, CBP is continually exploring
automation opportunities that will bring efficiencies to
passenger processing and make more efficient use of resources.
The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) enables
DHS to conduct enhanced screening of visa waiver program
travelers through a fully automated online system. This not
only helps us determine the eligibility of travelers under the
visa waiver program, it allows us to eliminate the paper I-94W.
This has resulted in a 58-percent faster processing time and
helped us meet these demands of increased passenger volumes.
CBP is actively working to automate and eliminate the I-94 form
for other visitors as soon as possible.
In the area of professionalism, a CBP officer is the first
face an international traveler sees on arrival, as you
indicated, Chairman, and we work actively to promote customer
service while maintaining our important law enforcement focus.
At the 20 model airports, CBP has installed audio and video
technology to display informational and welcoming videos for
travelers. There are also uniformed CBP Passenger Service
Managers on site who act as key advocates for promoting
traveler satisfaction.
Our work is paying off. A traveler satisfaction survey was
conducted in late 2011, which shows that travelers recognize
our improvements and are satisfied with our overall arrival
process. Nearly 90 percent of the travelers agreed that CBP
officers are welcoming, provide travelers with the right
information, and provide entry processing within a short and
reasonable time period. CBP is working directly with industry
partners to develop and maintain an ongoing survey process.
CBP closely monitors traveler wait times and strives to
process arrivals quickly and as securely as possible. On a
typical day, CBP processes more than 240,000 incoming
international air passengers, and we expect air travel to
continue its increasing trends. Our current statistics show
that 88 percent of travelers wait less than 45 minutes for CBP
processing and 73 percent of travelers wait less than 30
minutes. Although we have achieved some efficiencies, CBP is
committed to doing better.
The search for efficiencies not only contributes to better
customer service, it helps us work smarter in a tight budget
environment. This is especially important because CBP relies on
user fee collections to fund more than 35 percent of our front-
line CBP officers, and that is about 7,200 CBP officers. With
the fluctuations in travel, that leaves us with a less
predictable source of funding for more than one-third of our
personnel.
We are identifying staffing requirements through a workload
staffing model and evaluating alternative funding strategies.
Now, the workload staffing model employs a data-driven
methodology for identifying staffing requirements at all ports
of entry. It also captures future staffing needs for new and
expanded facilities and technology deployment.
In the area of advanced targeting initiatives----
Senator Landrieu. Tom, try to wrap, if you could. Go ahead.
Take 15 more seconds.
Mr. Winkowski. In the area of advanced targeting
initiatives, we have made great strides. As you have indicated,
our travelers need to feel safe and we need to make sure that
we provide the right oversight from the standpoint of keeping
dangerous people off our airplanes.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So in conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to come here
today and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas S. Winkowski
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, Vice Chairman Lautenberg,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear
before you today to discuss the work of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to secure and facilitate the flow of passengers and
trade into the United States. We have created several programs
specifically for this purpose, and it is my pleasure to share some of
them with you today.
CBP is engaged in a series of business transformation initiatives
to make our inspection processes more effective and efficient. These
initiatives involve evaluating core processes, incorporating technology
enhancements, assessing utilization of law enforcement staffing, and
developing additional automation efforts. Above all, we remain
committed to our multi-layered approach, to include:
--Transforming Our Business Model.--CBP is working hard to
efficiently transform our processes and business models to
optimize our current resources.
--Professionalism and Model Ports.--CBP is revamping our strategies
operationally to promote a more responsive workforce that makes
the arrivals process easier and more welcoming.
--Advanced Targeting Initiatives.--CBP is proactively working with
our security partners to identify security risks and threats
abroad before they reach our borders. Prevention of these
threats is a crucial part of our strategy to ensure travel
remains safe and secure.
BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION
CBP has collaborated with industry partners, airlines, and airport
stakeholders to identify opportunities that will promote travel to the
United States and improve the traveler experience. We continue to
implement new programs that facilitate travelers' arrivals while making
the most effective use of our resources. These programs are discussed
in greater detail below.
Trusted Traveler Programs
Trusted Traveler Programs have been essential to our risk-based
approach to facilitate the flow of travelers into the United States.
They provide expedited immigration, customs, and agriculture processing
upon arrival in the United States for pre-approved, low-risk
participants through the use of secure and exclusive dedicated lanes
and automated kiosks. These programs are predicated on the thorough
vetting of travelers who have voluntarily applied for membership, paid
a fee, and provided personal data (including biographic information,
photos, and fingerprints) to CBP.
CBP officers ensure that comprehensive database checks have been
conducted against terrorist watchlist records, criminal history
records, active wants/warrants; previous customs, immigration, or
agriculture violations; investigatory records; and other law
enforcement records. Participants are vetted every 24 hours to ensure
no new derogatory information has been identified, and are subject to
law enforcement checks every time they use one of the program-dedicated
lanes or kiosks to enter the United States.
Applicants are denied participation if any disqualifying
information is uncovered during the application process, or at any time
during the traveler's membership period. Applicants may also be denied
if they are suspected of being involved in any illicit activity or
present a potential risk for terrorism, criminality, or smuggling.
Currently, almost 1.3 million travelers are enrolled in CBP's four
trusted traveler programs: Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), Free and Secure Trade (FAST), NEXUS, and
Global Entry.
--For travelers at our southern land border with Mexico, SENTRI
provides expedited processing for pre-approved, low-risk
travelers through dedicated commuter lanes. CBP has developed
and distributed a new, enhanced, trusted-traveler card with
increased security features to all SENTRI members. SENTRI cards
are Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)-compliant
documents for entry into the United States by land or sea, and
also provide expedited travel to the United States and Mexico.
--FAST expedites the processing and release of approved commercial
truck drivers making fully qualified trips between the United
States and Canada or to the United States from Mexico.
Commercial trucks using FAST lane processing must be a Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)-approved carrier;
carrying qualifying goods destined for a C-TPAT-approved
importer; be driven by an individual in possession of a valid
FAST-commercial driver card; and have a high-security seal. On
the southern border, manufacturers must also be C-TPAT-approved
in order for shipments to qualify for FAST release.
--NEXUS provides expedited CBP processing for pre-approved, low-risk
travelers at pre-clearance airports, land border, and seaport
crossings between the United States and Canada. NEXUS cards are
WHTI-compliant documents for land and sea travel, as well as
air travel when traveling to and from airports using the NEXUS
program.
--Global Entry allows expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk
air travelers upon arrival in the United States. Global Entry
is available to U.S. citizens and U.S. lawful permanent
residents, Canadian citizens and permanent residents, Dutch
citizens enrolled in the Privium program, Mexican citizens, and
citizens of the United Kingdom, Germany, and Qatar through
limited pilot programs. In addition, CBP has entered into joint
arrangements with South Korea and Panama to allow their
qualifying citizens and permanent residents to participate in
Global Entry.
Global Entry is an example of unprecedented partnership with
private industry, airlines, and airport authorities. Pre-approved, low-
risk air travelers may enter the United States by using automated
kiosks located at one of the 20 selected airports. Global Entry allows
vetted air passengers to clear CBP inspectional processing much faster
than general passenger processing. Global Entry membership now includes
those travelers enrolled in NEXUS and SENTRI, and the program has
surpassed 940,600 eligible users with over 4,000 daily uses. Global
Entry automated kiosks have been used over 2 million times--saving over
42,400 inspectional hours that CBP has reallocated to focus on the
regular traveler queues. With Global Entry, CBP is able to focus
resources on travelers about whom DHS knows the least, therefore
providing overall enhanced screening to the traveling public.
Last month, CBP published the Global Entry Final Rule, which makes
this highly successful program permanent. The rule expands Global Entry
to allow children under the age of 14 to participate, allowing more
families to enjoy the benefits of the program. In 2012, CBP will expand
the number of airports participating in the program to 24 airports.
Collaborative Efforts
Strong partnerships with the travel industry allow CBP to leverage
different customer bases to identify frequent travelers and potential
Global Entry members. We have promoted the Global Entry program using
advertisements, press releases, media events, and partnerships with
airlines and conducted community outreach to raise awareness of the
program. Recognizing the benefits of the program, some travel providers
now reimburse top-tier customers for Global Entry application fees and
we are working with others to expand enrollment.
CBP also continues to work with our stakeholders to improve the
inspection process in ports of entry at airports. This effort includes
implementing new programs like Express Connection and One-Stop. Both of
these programs work cooperatively with the air carriers and airports to
expedite travel--they reduce missed connections, increase passenger
throughput, and enhance the arrival processing experience.
Express Connection is designed to facilitate the processing of
travelers with closely scheduled connecting flights to reduce missed
connections, and is available at 11 of the Nation's busiest airports.
Working closely with participating airlines, CBP dedicates personnel to
identify and direct pre-selected travelers who can use designated
Express Connection primary booths.
Through our One-Stop program, airport operators and airlines
provide a streamlined processing option for those travelers who have no
checked luggage. Dedicated lanes provided by CBP for One-Stop
identified travelers are located at Houston (IAH) and New York City
(JFK) International Airports. CBP is pleased with the initial success
of the Express Connection and One-Stop programs, and is considering
further expansion of each.
Our partners at TSA are applying intelligence-driven, risk-based
screening methods to domestic travel to improve security and expedite
travel for those passengers about whom we know the most. The TSA
Pre3TM initiative broadens the scope of benefits available
to CBP Trusted Travelers by enabling expedited screening at dedicated
lanes within TSA Pre3TM airports. Going forward, CBP and TSA
will continue to work together to strengthen security while
significantly enhancing the travel experience for low-risk travelers.
Automation and Technology
CBP is continually exploring additional automation opportunities
that will provide greater efficiencies in the passenger processing
environment while allowing for a more effective use of existing
resources. Some changes that we have adopted range from new
technologies to eliminating unnecessary paperwork, saving inspection
hours for CBP officers.
The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is a security
enhancement to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) that was developed
pursuant to the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007. ESTA is a fully automated travel authorization system used to
collect information from travelers planning to travel by air or sea to
the United States under the VWP. An approved ESTA application is
mandatory for all VWP travelers prior to commencing travel by air or
sea to the United States. The information submitted by applicants is
screened against appropriate law enforcement databases, including the
terrorist watch list, to determine the eligibility of travelers to
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether such travel
poses a law enforcement or security risk.
Through ESTA, CBP was able to automate the I-94W form, which was
previously used by over 60 percent of travelers arriving by air to the
United States, and eliminate the paper form. The result is 58 percent
faster processing time for travelers under the VWP. This time savings
has resulted in more efficient processing in most airports and has
helped CBP meet the demands of increased passenger volumes. CBP is
currently working with DHS partners to automate the standard I-94 form
used by all other, non-VWP visitors entering the United States.
There have also been many automation improvements in the land
environment through our Land Border Initiative (LBI). Radio frequency
identification (RFID) technology, improved license plate readers, and
the Vehicle Primary Client remain the key to facilitating travel by
allowing traveler information to be pre-positioned for our officers and
automatically queried via law enforcement databases as the vehicle
approaches the primary inspection. Vehicle Primary Client is a next
generation computer upgrade that allowed CBP officers to quickly verify
the validity of travel documents and make determinations regarding the
admissibility of persons. Simultaneously, WHTI increases the security
of U.S. land borders by requiring travelers to present a securely
issued travel document, which can be verified electronically in real-
time, to establish identity and citizenship.
The use of RFID technology and the promotion of new RFID document
options allows for the transition of travelers from less efficient to
more efficient processing methods. Passenger name law enforcement
queries stemming from RFID travel documents are 20 percent faster than
queries conducted with a machine readable document and 60 percent
faster than a manual entry with a paper document such as a birth
certificate. As of February 2012, there are more than 13 million RFID-
enabled documents in the hands of travelers. As part of WHTI, CBP
greatly increased its use of technology in the land border environment;
this technology is now integral to CBP operations, providing clear
security and facilitation benefits.
PROFESSIONALISM AND MODEL PORTS
CBP and our travel industry partners have worked together to
improve processes for welcoming travelers into our country while
maintaining the highest levels of security and professionalism. CBP has
taken a proactive management approach in addressing passenger
processing issues and is constantly working in partnership with airport
authorities, airlines, and the travel industry to identify new ways to
more efficiently facilitate the entry process.
Model Ports
The Model Ports program was created to make the entry process more
streamlined, understandable, and welcoming. The program is in place at
the top 20 airports by volume: Washington-Dulles, Houston (IAH),
Atlanta, Boston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago (ORD), Detroit, Ft.
Lauderdale, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York
(JFK), Orlando, Philadelphia, Sanford (FL), San Juan, San Francisco,
and Seattle.
Some of those best practices of the Model Ports program include the
establishment of the Passenger Service Manager (PSM) position, a key
advocate for promoting traveler satisfaction. The PSM is a uniformed
CBP manager able to: respond to traveler complaints or concerns;
oversee issues related to travelers requiring special processing;
observe overall traveler processing; address issues on site as they
occur; and provide recommendations for improvement of traveler
processing and professionalism. The PSM also provides training to
managers, supervisors, and officers on customer service and
professionalism issues; collects and analyzes reports concerning
professionalism and traveler satisfaction; and promotes public
awareness of the CBP mission through distribution of public information
bulletins, brochures, and comment cards.
There are full-time PSMs stationed at each of the 20 Model Ports.
Photographs and contact information for all PSMs are prominently
displayed for maximum traveler visibility and access. In partnership
with airport authorities and airlines, CBP also implemented the use of
special service representatives to aid in directing travelers to open
CBP primary booths and ensure CBP forms are completed prior to arrival
in the processing area. Under the program, we have also significantly
improved signage that is clear and concise for international travelers.
CBP has installed and implemented audio and video technology in the
passport primary queuing area in order to display CBP's informational
video, ``Welcome to the United States `Simple as 1, 2, 3','' which
presents travelers with step-by-step instructions on what to expect
during CBP processing. The video is subtitled in eight languages and is
seen by over 25 million visitors each year. CBP also partnered with
Walt Disney Corporation to create a video at our Model Ports depicting
images of America that provide a warm welcome to arriving visitors and
resonate with U.S. citizens returning home.
Another example of successful partnership with industry partners
and stakeholders resulted in significant improvements to the facilities
at the Orlando International Airport. A working group that included DHS
agencies, the Port of Orlando, and private sector participants resulted
in improved queuing, streamlined signage, a more welcoming interior
decor, and foreign-language-speaking passenger facilitation. This local
effort is considered a model for ports across the country and we are
looking to highlight similar efforts in the future.
Traveler Satisfaction Survey
As a result of CBP's commitment to improve customer service, CBP
and the DHS Private Sector Office developed and deployed a traveler
satisfaction survey to benchmark passenger satisfaction at the 20 Model
Ports of Entry. The survey was conducted by Medforce Government
Solutions (MGS), under a CBP contract, to evaluate CBP's performance in
achieving Model Port goals.
The traveler satisfaction survey for all 20 Model Ports began in
October 2011 and was completed in November 2011. MGS used personal
digital assistant (PDA) devices to collect data from English-speaking
travelers; travelers speaking other languages were given paper surveys.
The survey findings indicate that:
--Nearly 90 percent of travelers agree that CBP officers are
welcoming;
--Over 90 percent of travelers agree that CBP is providing the right
information to travelers, at the right time and in a hospitable
manner;
--Over 80 percent of travelers agree that CBP is creating a calm,
pleasant Customs waiting area; and
--Nearly 90 percent of travelers feel that the entry processing time
is either short or reasonable.
Travelers have expressed high satisfaction with the way CBP is
managing its entry process and providing timely and friendly customer
service. We are still analyzing the results of this survey and working
directly with industry partners to develop and maintain an ongoing
survey process to maintain a feedback loop with our travelers so that
improvements continue.
Aligned with the customer service survey initiative, CBP
revitalized the comment card program. Comment cards are available in
the CBP areas at airports and can be filled out by travelers wishing to
express their views of CBP processing. Each card is collected and the
results are shared with the ports of entry, and if necessary referred
for additional investigation. CBP has improved the format of the card
made the cards more accessible to the traveling public, provided more
analysis and feedback for the ports of entry, and taken corrective
action where necessary.
Reducing Wait Times
In addition to proven improvements to the traveler experience, we
closely monitor wait times for international travelers. CBP strives to
process arriving travelers, regardless of the port environment, as
quickly as possible while maintaining the highest standards of
security.
Current statistics show that the 88 percent of travelers wait less
than 45 minutes for processing and 73 percent of travelers wait less
than 30 minutes for processing at airports. The national wait time
average in fiscal year 2011 was about 22 minutes.
Although CBP continues to address ways to manage wait times, other
issues affect wait times, including concurrent arrivals that exceed the
capacity of the airport and the need to staff multiple terminals. To
address these challenges, CBP is implementing an aggressive, multi-
pronged mitigation strategy to enhance air passenger facilitation over
the near and mid term. The near term strategy includes:
--More effective use of existing resources;
--Partnerships with carriers and airport authorities on facilitation
measures; and
--Enhanced risk segmentation through increases in trusted traveler
program membership.
In the mid-term, CBP will focus on optimizing front-line staffing
resources and transforming business processes. Critical elements of
this strategy include:
--Transforming and reengineering current business processes;
--Implementing alternative funding strategies to expand services at
requesting locations; and
--Accurately identifying staffing requirements through a rigorous,
audited, workload staffing model.
Our port directors identify peak processing periods well in advance
based on historical data and real time operational information provided
by carriers and airport authorities. With this advanced information,
directors make appropriate operational adjustments, including
restricting annual leave and administrative functions during peak
processing periods, expanding pre-primary roving operations, utilizing
cargo lanes for passenger processing as much as possible, and adjusting
individual schedules and lane assignments.
The airport wait time console is used to report on primary
processing passenger wait times at the top 63 air ports of entry. This
data is based on measurements of time intervals between the arrival of
the aircraft and the processing of the passenger on primary. The wait
time for each arriving passenger is recorded, and aggregates of these
wait times may be obtained based on the individual flight, class of
admission, time of day, or any other data element associated with an
arriving air passenger. CBP reports wait times on our public Web site,
and we continue to refine the reporting.
The airport wait time console real time flightboard utilizes live
data feeds from multiple sources to create a view of passenger arrival
data that allows CBP field operations personnel to make optimal
staffing decisions. By taking into account such factors as aircraft
arrival time, facility constraints, as well as passenger volume and
admission class, CBP field operations management is able to foresee how
changes in any of the elements will require corresponding adjustments
to staffing in order to meet our passenger wait time goals. CBP is
currently testing this program at airports such as JFK and LAX, and we
expect to expand the program to additional airports later this year.
Workload Staffing Model
CBP is also developing a workload staffing model (WSM), employing a
rigorous, data-driven methodology for identifying staffing requirements
at the air, land, and sea ports. The WSM considers all business
processes required of CBPOs, the workload associated with those
business processes, and the true level of effort required to
effectively carry out the mission on a daily basis. The WSM identifies
the suggested personnel necessary to accomplish the critical daily
mission, and it also captures future staffing requirements for new or
enhanced facilities and technology deployments.
Professionalism: Enhanced CBP Officer Training
CBP has also improved its training of CBP officers to ensure the
highest level of professionalism. In 2008, CBP began working on a
comprehensive basic training program for new officers. This new
training program was launched in February 2011. The new curriculum
includes three mandatory components: a 15-day pre-academy, an 89-day
basic academy and a post-academy training program that ends as the
trainee completes his or her probationary period.
The goal of these programs is to produce a professional law
enforcement officer who possesses the skills necessary to effectively
carryout CBP's critical mission. The programs prepare trainees
mentally, physically, and ethically to meet the challenges and demands
of a law enforcement position and equips them with the specific skills
needed to perform their duties with a high level of competence.
Partnership With Brand USA
CBP is committed to the goal of facilitating lawful travel and
fully supports efforts to expand legitimate travel and tourism to the
United States. In support of these efforts, CBP has worked with Brand
USA (formerly the Corporation for Travel Promotion) since it was
established by the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. Brand USA was created
for the purpose of encouraging travelers from all over the world to
visit the United States of America. The public-private marketing entity
was created in 2010 to work in close partnership with the travel
industry maximizing the social and economic benefit of travel in
communities around the country. CBP works closely with Brand USA to
promote CBP programs such as ESTA and Global Entry and to identify ways
of improving the traveler experience at U.S. ports of entry based on
feedback from the customer satisfaction survey.
Proposal To Seek Reimbursement Authority for Outlier Services
CBP believes that providing additional services that are not
currently offered such as service for additional flights, new airports,
or land border crossings and pre-clearance operations are in the best
interest of the traveling public and economic prosperity. The current
statutory limitations on CBP's authority to receive outside funding,
except in narrowly defined instances, have prevented us from receiving
reimbursement from private sector and international, State, and local
partners. In turn, CBP has had to deny requested services or the
provision of services without reimbursement. Therefore, through the
fiscal year 2013 budget request, we are seeking the passage of a
proposal that provides the necessary authority to consider and approve
the provision of inspectional services for full reimbursement at
domestic or international airports, seaports, land border environments
other than user fee facilities currently defined in 19 U.S.C. section
58(b). The underlying objective is to allow CBP to provide additional
services at ports that it otherwise could not provide without
reimbursement.
ADVANCED TARGETING INITIATIVES
CBP has also placed a great emphasis in targeting potential
security and law enforcement threats prior to their arrival in the
United States and specifically, prior to boarding a U.S.-bound flight
through its pre-departure targeting strategy. To accomplish this
strategy, CBP has expanded and reorganized operations at the National
Targeting Centers, enhanced the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP),
increased international partnerships, and participated in new
initiatives such as the U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border plan.
National Targeting Center
The NTC was established in November 2001 in response to the 9/11
attacks to provide advance passenger targeting, research, and
coordination among numerous law enforcement and intelligence agencies
on a 24/7 basis in support of the CBP anti-terrorism mission. Following
the attempted bombing of Northwest flight 253 in December 2009, the NTC
re-engineered its targeting operations with an increased emphasis on
pre-departure targeting and interdiction, outbound targeting, and the
re-vetting of previously issued U.S. visas.
To increase its focus on pre-departure, the NTC not only expanded
its operations significantly, but also accelerated its response time.
The additional workload and time-sensitive analysis required process,
technical, and resource enhancements. As a result, CBP has had to
maximize the effectiveness of advanced technology and information,
intelligence, databases (classified, law enforcement, commercial, and
open-source), domestic and international partnerships, and well-trained
human resources to effectively screen, review, identify, and prioritize
passengers, cargo, and agriculture across all international modes of
transportation, inbound and outbound.
Immigration Advisory Program and Regional Carrier Liaison Groups
The Immigration Advisory Program is a partnership between DHS/CBP,
foreign governments, and commercial air carriers to identify and
prevent high-risk travelers who are likely to be inadmissible into the
United States from boarding U.S.-bound flights. CBP officer teams are
deployed to work with foreign law enforcement and air carriers at key
airports in host countries. IAP teams work collaboratively to identify
high-risk passengers with targeting support from the NTC and/or an
assessment of passengers and their documentation. IAP extends the zone
of security beyond the physical borders; CBP officer presence in
foreign locations provides the on-site capability to question and
assess travelers and serve as a direct liaison with foreign
authorities.
The Regional Carrier Liaison Groups (RCLG), located at airports in
New York (JFK), Miami, and Honolulu, also work closely with carriers to
provide information prior to passenger travel. Using various targeting
methods, they prevent passengers who may be inadmissible, or who
possess fraudulent documents, from traveling to the United States.
Recommendations are made to the carriers regarding suspect travelers.
The work of the IAP and RCLG has resulted in substantial savings
for both carriers and the U.S. Government. The Federal Government saves
costs associated with processing and detention of inadmissible persons,
while carriers can avoid fines associated with bringing improperly
documented aliens.
Preclearance
Preclearance provides for the inspection and clearance of
commercial air passengers and their goods prior to departure from 15
foreign locations in five countries in support of CBP's extended border
strategy. All mission requirements (agriculture, customs, and
immigration) are completed at preclearance locations prior to departure
enabling CBP to prevent inadmissible travelers and prohibited goods
from entering the United States, and to protect U.S. agricultural
infrastructure from foreign pests, disease and global outbreaks.
Preclearance supports CBP's initiative to extend the borders outward
and is part of the DHS strategic plan to deploy technology systems
overseas to detect radiological threats before they leave foreign
territories.
A preclearance inspection is the same inspection an individual
would experience at any United States port of entry, except it is
conducted on foreign territory. As a result, the individual does not
have to undergo a United States Government inspection again upon
arrival in the United States. Instead, the traveler merely arrives at a
United States domestic terminal facility and either connects to a
United States domestic flight or leaves the airport.
Passengers are afforded the benefits of making quick domestic and
international connections and by having their checked luggage
automatically transferred between flights by air carriers without being
claimed. Meanwhile, United States airports enjoy the benefit of reduced
passenger delays in the international arrival area.
CONCLUSION
CBP is a world-class law enforcement agency--every day we are
working to keep air, land, and maritime travel safe and secure, while
providing professional services to our travelers. Air travel has
increased by 3 percent in the past year, requiring more efficient
processing for our travelers. As the industry is expected to grow even
further in the coming year, we are positioned to respond with improved
customer service and greater efficiency while engaging in techniques
that identify threats before they arrive in the United States. We are
holding CBP officers to a higher standard of professionalism and
interpersonal conduct. Further, we will continue to take a proactive
approach and engage in programs and initiatives that enhance security
and expedite the flow of legitimate travel. Through business
transformation, professionalism, and targeting initiatives, CBP is
working to realize our goals and maintain traveler confidence that we
are doing our best to keep air travel safe and secure.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much.
Doug.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. SMITH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
PRIVATE SECTOR OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Landrieu.
The timing of this hearing could not be better. I was
thrilled to hear you mention the President's announcement in
Orlando last month. As important as that announcement and
calling attention to travel and tourism is who is at this
table. We are not just here today as a one-time deal. The four
of us literally talk every single day.
In my role as the Secretary's Assistant Secretary for the
Private Sector, what she looks for me to do is to coordinate
across the entire Department and the interagency how to best
work with the travel industry. As important are the people
sitting behind me: Roger Dow, Airlines for America (A4A), and
all of our partners in the travel industry. We are reaching out
to them and working with them every single day looking for ways
to create better efficiencies, looking at ways to increase
throughput at airports, but to your point, Senator Coats, never
compromising security. We firmly believe we can have both. It
is the standard the President and the Secretary of Homeland
Security hold us to. We can do both. We can facilitate travel
to the highest degree possible and at the same time keep
America safe whether it is for exciting events, Senator, next
week in your hometown, the final four, perhaps we need a
follow-up hearing, Senator Coats, down there in New Orleans for
the final four championships.
Senator Landrieu. Good idea. I should have thought of that.
Mr. Smith. In New Jersey in the work we are doing at Newark
International Airport to expedite travelers through so when
they take those long flights back from Singapore, they are not
standing in lines.
We are committed across the entire Federal enterprise to
continue to raise the bar.
Since we came into office 3 years ago, we have put exciting
programs into place. In fact, we have now through the programs
such as Global Entry, TSA Pre3TM, broken the
million-person mark of people that have those benefits. These
people with those expedited travel benefits are already showing
what can happen at our airports.
What we are doing in Orlando in the Model Ports program--
the lessons learned there, we have been able to take across the
country. I held a field hearing down there about 1 year ago,
brought in 20 stakeholders from Walt Disney World, Universal
Orlando, Gatorland, the airport authority, local members down
there to talk about how we could improve the system, how we
could make the welcoming experience better. Everybody came
together. The achievements we learned there and working it
across the Federal Government and our private-sector partners
has given us the learnings to take across the country to not
just the top 20 airports in the Model Ports program, but where
we are expanding.
There is a lot of work to do and we realize that, but it is
this partnership that I can say has never been stronger. My
partners in the private industry are not shy about reaching out
and calling on a regular basis. But we are not shy about asking
for help, asking for their help, and helping us grow our
expedited traveler programs, helping us think through ways to
better market to consumers.
We are in the security business at DHS. My colleagues, Tom
Winkowski and Administrator Pistole, are the best that there
are. We rely on their counsel on a daily basis. But it is an
integrated team, a team that extends to the United States
Secret Service, to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to the
Coast Guard, and looks at innovative solutions to help keep the
country safe and at the same time support our friends in the
travel industry as they work diligently to grow this incredibly
important driver of our economy.
I know this week you will be talking to some of your
colleagues on the possible expansion on the visa waiver
program. It is a program we watch carefully. As you know, we
have talked with many of your colleagues on areas in that
program. It is an important tool. But there are many tools out
there.
With the time I have left, the one thing I would like to
stress is it is about a partnership. We are committed. We are
putting everything we have against this. Whether it is
Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Salazar, Secretary Bryson in
chairing the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, the President,
we are putting all that we have against it. But it is a
partnership with private industry, with the administration, and
with the Congress. Your colleagues, Senator Blunt and Senator
Klobuchar, in chairing the Travel and Tourism Caucus in the
Senate, have been phenomenal partners with the insights and the
ideas they have given us. Your colleagues over on the House,
Congressman Bonner and Congressman Farr, are equally supportive
in giving us ideas. But that is how we are going to improve.
To your point, Senator Coats, you are right. Budgets are
not growing. They are shrinking and it is why we need to
continue to close ranks, be as creative as we can to work with
what we have. We could always use more. Everybody knows that.
But we are confident that in working closely in these
partnerships with private industry, with the Congress, across
the administration, we will continue to find efficiencies and
support the absolute critical path of growing tourism into this
country.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas A. Smith
Chairman Landrieu, Vice Chairman Lautenberg, Senator Coats, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) current major travel initiatives.
My name is Douglas Smith, and I am the Assistant Secretary for the
Private Sector at DHS. I am the primary advisor to the Secretary on how
DHS impacts the private sector, opportunities for public-private
partnership, and how DHS impacts the economy.
In my capacity as the Assistant Secretary for the Private Sector, I
have served as the Department's representative on interagency working
groups on travel and tourism, such as the Tourism Policy Council and
the recently established Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness.
Additionally, I am the DHS ex-officio member of the U.S. Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board (TTAB), which advises the U.S. Government on
policies and programs that affect the travel and tourism industry. I
also serve on the President's Export Council on travel and tourism
issues
Given the President's recent Executive Order 13597, ``Establishing
Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force on Travel
and Competitiveness,'' and the growth of a number of DHS travel and
tourism-related programs and initiatives, today's hearing is especially
timely.
THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS ON TRAVEL AND TOURISM
At the onset, I want to stress DHS's commitment to the President's
critically important initiative. There is no better area in which to
showcase our dual goal of economic and national security than our work
to foster and facilitate travel to and within the United States. My
testimony will provide a brief overview of DHS support of the larger
U.S. Government effort to foster and facilitate a thriving travel and
tourism industry, the engagement my office has had with our private
sector partners, and the steps DHS is taking to improve the traveler
experience.
Every year tens of millions of tourists from all over the world
travel to see firsthand this great country. DHS plays a primary role in
the facilitation of what amounted to a $134 billion industry in 2010.
We secure passengers and their luggage before they board planes, we
screen travelers as they enter our borders, and we play an important
role in the visa process, among many other responsibilities. This is
why Secretary Napolitano has made the facilitation and security of
travel and tourism a priority for the Department. We are taking
concrete steps at the President's direction, and are working closely
with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, to boost
America's tourism industry so that we can grow our economy and create
more jobs while continuing to secure our country. At DHS we believe the
goals of economic prosperity and national security are fundamentally
intertwined.
At the interagency level, Federal Government collaboration to
foster travel and tourism has never been stronger. President Obama's
Executive order on January 19, 2012, has resulted in a coordinated
interagency effort to streamline the visa issuance process, strengthen
the Visa Waiver Program and trusted traveler programs, provide useful
and accessible travel information online, and develop our country's
first National Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Strategy. Through the
interagency leadership of Secretary of Commerce Bryson and Secretary of
the Interior Salazar, DHS works every day toward these commitments.
I am also proud to say DHS is continuously striving to meaningfully
incorporate and involve the travel and tourism industry in the policy-
making process. Some of the stakeholders we regularly work with include
the U.S. Travel Association, Airports Council International, Airlines
for America, and--because this is a global effort--the International
Air Transport Association (IATA). As Secretary Napolitano's
representative to the TTAB, I work to ensure DHS has a formal,
structured working relationship with the travel industry, engaging
businesses on issues that matter most to industry. When the TTAB
submits recommendations on behalf of industry, we not only share those
perspectives with the appropriate program managers and leadership
within DHS, but we also work with industry to leverage their expertise
and partnership in identifying solutions to their recommendations. We
have worked with businesses to share their best practices on customer
service and queue management, promote DHS programs and initiatives, and
we have even encouraged our ports of entry to engage and work directly
with their industry stakeholders. Through our work with the TTAB and
others, the travel and tourism industry is fully engaged in operations
and policies that impact them. Agency-wide DHS is responsive to their
needs and concerns. We are focused on making America as safe and as
easy as possible to visit, and we view industry as a resource and a
critical partner in this effort.
THE TRAVELER EXPERIENCE
The Department is working at each step of the travel experience to
increase the number of legitimate travelers to the United States and
facilitate their journey and entry in a safe and efficient way. I will
describe examples pre-arrival, on arrival, and while traveling within
the United States.
As potential tourists are making their travel plans, DHS is a part
of the effort to promote the United States as the destination of
choice. In fiscal year 2011, Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
managed the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) fee which
collected over $116 million for the Corporation for Travel Promotion.
ESTA fees are paid by travelers seeking to enter the United States
under the Visa Waiver Program. The corporation, established by the 2010
Travel Promotion Act, is a public-private organization charged with
promoting travel to the United States. The CBP ESTA Program is expected
to collect the same amount, if not more, this fiscal year. My
colleagues at CBP and I are closely engaged in that effort as the
Corporation for Travel Promotion implements its global marketing
strategy ``BrandUSA.'' In addition, as directed by the President's
Executive order, the interagency Task Force on Travel and
Competitiveness, is developing a National Travel and Tourism Strategy
to promote domestic and international travel opportunities to and
throughout the United States.
After foreign tourists decide to travel to the United States, many
must apply for a visa. DHS is currently collaborating with the
Department of State (DoS) to strengthen visa processing, and facilitate
legitimate travel and tourism. Under a new pilot, in select
circumstances, qualified foreign visitors who were interviewed and
thoroughly screened in conjunction with a prior visa application may be
able to renew their visas without undergoing another interview. All
applicants will still undergo thorough screening against inter-agency
databases. However, this initiative will free resources to interview
more first-time applicants. The resulting reduced visa application wait
times are expected to encourage travel and tourism to the United
States, especially among travelers from emerging markets. DHS is
committed to supporting DoS in its goal to increase by 40 percent
nonimmigrant visa processing capacity in China and Brazil specifically.
When visitors arrive at our borders, CBP is improving the arrivals
experience to make it more welcoming. Working with some of the most
recognized brands in the tourism industry, CBP has improved passenger
service training for our front-line officers, streamlined signage at
our ports of entry, and implemented programs to speed passenger traffic
through Federal Inspection Services areas.
In addition to our internal efforts to make the ports of entry more
welcoming, DHS recognizes that each port is unique in its facilities
and the airlines, passengers, and local industry that it serves. For
this reason, we have emphasized the importance of local external
collaboration at each port of entry, where local companies, the airport
authority, and DHS entities can engage in dialogue and work together to
improve the port at the field level. Our first effort launched in
Orlando, where DHS and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority worked
with the local travel and tourism industry to improve the signage and
port facilities. Out of this partnership, DHS was also able to
accommodate a new daily flight from Brazil to Orlando. This flight
currently brings more than 200 tourists to Orlando every day. Local
industry estimates this flight will have a $100 million annual economic
impact. More achievements like this will be accomplished through
collaboration at the local level, when airport, industry, and DHS
entities are able to meet shared challenges and opportunities together.
A cornerstone of the Department's efforts to provide a more
efficient and welcoming experience for travelers entering the country
is Global Entry. This program facilitates expedited clearance for pre-
approved, low-risk travelers through the use of automated kiosks. CBP
now has surpassed 940,600 eligible users enrolled in the Global Entry
program with over 4,000 daily uses. Travelers have used automated
Global Entry kiosks in more than 2 million transactions at 22 airports,
freeing more than 42,400 inspection hours that DHS has re-allocated to
focus on the regular passenger queues. The result is reduced wait times
for all passengers. Global Entry will soon expand to additional
airports, serving approximately 97 percent of international travelers,
and now allows children under 14 to participate for the first time.
Global Entry also benefits from our engagement with business. Working
with credit card companies, hotel companies, and airlines to promote
the program to their most loyal customers has resulted in significantly
increased enrollment volumes.
Within the United States, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) has implemented a new passenger pre-screening
pilot TSA PreCheck (Pre3TM) to facilitate expedited
checkpoint screening at select domestic airports. TSA Pre3TM
is open to any U.S. citizen who is a member of one of CBP's trusted
traveler programs, such as Global Entry, SENTRI, or NEXUS at
participating airports and airlines. While this program is currently
only available to U.S. citizens on domestic flights, TSA
Pre3TM allows TSA to better allocate limited resources and
focus on higher risk passengers, further streamlining the travel
experience.
The examples above illustrate how DHS is working to foster and
facilitate a thriving travel and tourism industry, while maintaining
the highest security standards, across the entire tourism experience--
from pre-trip planning, to domestic travel. DHS continues to welcome
the input and engagement of private sector and congressional
stakeholders, as well as the traveling public to pursue our mission in
an increasingly innovative, efficient, and effective way.
CONCLUSION
Chairman Landrieu, Vice Chairman Lautenberg, Senator Coats, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you again for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of Homeland
Security. DHS is committed to the whole-of-government effort to support
a thriving travel and tourism industry so significant to our economy
while maintaining the highest standards of security. I thank the
subcommittee for its support of the Department's efforts.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you so much, Doug. I really
sincerely appreciate your enthusiasm and your focus and the
administration's focus on this because it is a significant part
of our responsibility to keep the country secure but also to
grow jobs, and this is a very important part of our economy.
I am going to turn this over to my vice chair and the good
hands of my ranking member, and Mr. Donahue, if you will
proceed. I am going to go early for the vote and then come
back. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAVID T. DONAHUE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR VISA SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Donahue. Good morning, Vice Chairman Lautenberg, fellow
Hoosier, Ranking Member Coats, and Senator Murkowski. Lots of
Hoosiers in the room today.
Thank you for calling this important hearing today. My
testimony will focus on the State Department's role in
facilitating legitimate travel of international visitors to the
United States as a part of the administrations' broader
initiatives as outlined in Executive Order 13597.
I have also submitted my full written statement to be
entered into the record.
Streamlining access to U.S. Visa Services will complement
our collective efforts to capture a greater share of the global
tourism market. The visa application process is a small but
important component of this effort. In the last year, more than
62 million foreign visitors entered the United States according
to the Department of Commerce. About 60 percent of travelers
entered legally without visas, another 20 percent on previously
issued visas, and only about 12 percent on visas obtained just
before their travel.
The Executive order directs the State Department to
increase visa adjudication capacity in China and Brazil by 40
percent and to ensure that consular officers interview 80
percent of applicants worldwide within 3 weeks of submitting
their applications. I am pleased to testify today that we are
meeting this challenge without compromising the security of our
Nation's borders or the safety of our fellow citizens.
In fiscal year 2011, consular officers adjudicated 17
percent more non-immigrant visas than the previous year. The
growing demand for non-immigrant visas in China and Brazil
alone is astonishing. In China, consular officers processed
more than 1 million non-immigrant visa applications last year;
in Brazil, more than 800,000 applications, which was a 42-
percent increase from the year before.
In line with the Executive order to increase our visa
application capacity, we are adding over 100 visa adjudicators
this year and next in China and Brazil, both Foreign Service
officers and new hires through a pilot limited non-career
appointment program that targets applicants who already speak
Mandarin and Portuguese. We expect the first group of these
special hires to arrive at post in China and Brazil in the next
couple of weeks.
We have reduced and are maintaining short wait times in
Brazil and China while processing 64 percent more cases in
Brazil and 34 percent more cases in China. And today our wait
times in China are all under 8 days, and in Brazil we have 35
days in Sao Paulo despite huge increases in visa processing, 21
days in Brasilia, and 14 days in Recife, and Rio de Janeiro. We
are working to push those numbers down. They work Saturday in
Sao Paulo to get another 1,500 to come up to Disney World and
other places they want to come in the United States.
I want to assure you that we are planning and preparing to
handle the growing demand for visas from fast-growing
economies. We are expanding our facilities, adding a total of
48 new interview windows throughout China and 19 in Brazil. We
are assessing the feasibility of opening more consulates in
Brazil and China. Our teams were recently on the ground in
these countries to assess the new consulate locations. Of
course, we need the cooperation of the host governments of
those countries to carry this through.
We are continually looking for more efficient ways to
improve the applicant's experience particularly since a trip to
the Embassy is often the foreign visitors first impression of
the United States.
With DHS concurrence on January 19, 2012, the State
Department and DHS initiated a 2-year pilot program to
streamline visa processing for low-risk applicants based on
terms and conditions agreed between our agencies and
implemented in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality
Act requirements. The pilot program permits officers to waive
interviews for certain categories of qualified visa applicants.
This program is focused mainly on visa renewal applicants and
is in the process of being implemented at some of our busiest
overseas posts, including Brazil, China, Mexico, India, and
Russia. We are working with our partners in the U.S. Government
to consider additional countries for membership in the visa
waiver program.
In addition to our ongoing efforts to streamline the visa
application process, the State Department will continue working
to promote travel in the United States through a cadre of
economic and commercial officers, as well as our public and
cultural affairs officers who are identifying key audiences and
ensuring the message about travel to the United States reach
them in the most appropriate context, formats, and languages.
As President Obama has said, we will always protect our
borders, our shores, and our tourist destinations from people
who want to do us harm, but we want to get more international
tourists coming to America. And there is no reason we cannot do
both. The State Department is firmly committed to supporting
the President's travel and tourism initiatives, opening the
door to new jobs and exports. We have a priority to make it a
priority to increase our capacity while maintaining strict
security standards. Every visa adjudication is a national
security decision.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This concludes my testimony today, and I will be pleased to
take your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David T. Donahue
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, it is a distinct honor to appear before you to
share the accomplishments of my colleagues in the Department of State's
Bureau of Consular Affairs, and our efforts to facilitate the
legitimate travel of millions of tourists, business people, students,
and other visitors to the United States.
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S ROLE IN TRAVEL AND TOURISM PROMOTION
The nonimmigrant visa application process is a small but important
component of the combined effort to attract more overseas travelers to
the United States. In fiscal year 2011, more than 62 million
international visitors entered the United States, according to the
Department of Commerce. Around 60 to 65 percent enter legally without
visas (Canadians and Visa Waiver Program travelers); most others enter
with multiple entry nonimmigrant visas issued in prior years. Only
about 12 percent of travelers obtained new nonimmigrant visas just
before travel. Streamlining access to U.S. visa services will
complement the administration's effort to capture a greater share of
the global travel and tourism market, a multifaceted effort extending
far beyond improving our visa adjudication capacity.
In partnership with the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness
and the Corporation for Travel Promotion, the Department of State is
playing a key role in promoting increased international travel to the
United States. In addition to our ongoing efforts to streamline the
nonimmigrant application process, we actively promote travel to the
United States through our cadre of more than 1,200 economic and
commercial officers working to establish and maintain new patterns of
international economic cooperation. We promote America as a destination
for overseas visitors through our public and cultural affairs officers
who are identifying key audiences and ensuring that messages about
travel to the United States reach them in the most appropriate
contexts, formats, and languages.
The Department of State looks forward to working with the Tourism
Policy Council and the Corporation for Travel Promotion to encourage
new and repeat travelers to the United States.
RESPONDING TO INCREASING WORLDWIDE DEMAND FOR U.S. VISAS
We at the Department of State are dedicated to the protection of
our borders, and have no higher priority than the safety of our fellow
citizens. At the same time, we are committed to facilitating legitimate
travel, and providing prompt and courteous service. For the Bureau of
Consular Affairs, the challenge is to meet the increasing worldwide
demand for U.S. visas without compromising the security of our Nation's
borders. I am pleased to testify that we are meeting this challenge
head on.
Consular officers adjudicated 8.8 million nonimmigrant visa
applications and issued more than 7.5 million U.S. visas in fiscal year
2011, an increase of more than 16 percent over the previous year, when
6.4 million visas were issued. We have seen tremendous increases in
demand for visas in some of the world's fastest growing economies. We
are issuing as many visas as we did in 2000, even though nine more
countries have joined the Visa Waiver Program since then.
According to the Department of Commerce, international visitors
contributed $134 billion to the U.S. economy in 2010, supporting more
than a million jobs. More international travel means more spending on
airlines, tours, hotels, services, and export purchases, all of which
mean more American jobs. Not only do international tourists, business
visitors, and students boost our economy, but these visitors also leave
our country with a better understanding of American culture and values.
The greatest growth in travel comes from the world's fastest
growing economies, including China and Brazil, where we have seen
demand for U.S. visas increase at a dramatic pace. In fiscal year 2011,
we processed approximately 1 million nonimmigrant visas in China, and
more than 800,000 nonimmigrant visas in Brazil. This represented a 34-
percent increase in processing for China over the previous fiscal year,
and a 42-percent increase in processing for Brazil during the same
period, an accomplishment in meeting workload demand that would be hard
to match, even in the private sector. And, we issue nonimmigrant visas
to almost 90 percent of Chinese applicants, and to over 96 percent of
Brazilian applicants.
In the first 4 months of fiscal year 2012 alone, consular officers
in China processed 33 percent more nonimmigrant visa applications, and
consular officers in Brazil handled 62 percent more over the same time
period in fiscal year 2011. Although we have taken several steps to
meet this growing demand since 2010, we are continuing to implement
additional measures to streamline the nonimmigrant visa application
process. In fact, we recently submitted a plan to President Obama
outlining the steps we will take in 2012 to increase our capacity in
Brazil and China by 40 percent, and to ensure that consular officers
interview 80 percent of nonimmigrant applicants worldwide within 3
weeks of submitting their applications--goals the President directed us
to achieve through Executive Order 13597. I would like to update you on
the details of these efforts.
MEETING DEMAND, ESPECIALLY IN CHINA AND BRAZIL
The Department of State is keeping pace with growing demand for
visas, and continues to dedicate more personnel and resources to visa
adjudication, focusing on embassies and consulates with the greatest
resource needs. Specifically, we are committed to increasing
nonimmigrant visa adjudication capacity by 40 percent in 2012 in both
China and Brazil, two countries where we have seen the greatest
increase in visa demand:
--The Department is adding over 100 visa adjudicators this year and
next in China and Brazil. A number of these new adjudicators
are being hired through a pilot program that targets applicants
who already speak Mandarin or Portuguese. We expect the first
group of these special hires to arrive at posts in China and
Brazil by April 2012. A second group will follow in summer
2012.
--Some posts in China and Brazil are operating double shifts to
maximize use of the facilities. Working bilaterally with host
governments, the Department is also working to physically
expand and improve our visa-processing facilities to allow for
even more visa applicant interviews.
--The Department is using many different tools to expand capacity,
including advanced technology to maximize efficiency and
improve security-related screening. By consolidating some of
the non-security-related consular functions, we are increasing
capacity at our embassies and consulates.
The results of these efforts are already evident. The staffing
increases and internal efficiency measures have all but eliminated
backlogs in China, and have significantly reduced the backlog of cases
in Brazil, where wait times have come down well below the previous
highs of more than 100 days, to as low as a week or less at some posts.
As of today, average interview wait times for nonimmigrant visas at our
Embassy and our consulates in Brazil are below 30 days, and a week or
less at our posts in China.
Since 2005, consular officer staffing has doubled in Brazil. Since
fiscal year 2008, we have sent more than 185 officers and 57 support
staff to Brazil on temporary assignments to meet short-term staffing
needs, providing an additional 5,702 days of service. Our consulate in
Sao Paulo began extended interview hours in August, and other Brazilian
posts are expected to follow. Sao Paulo increased from 2,000 interviews
per day to 3,000 per day. The U.S. Consulate General in Rio increased
from 1,000 interviews per day to 2,000 interviews per day. We hosted
two ``Super Saturday'' events at consular posts across Brazil,
adjudicating almost 8,000 visa applications in those 2 days, and
consular officers in Brasilia adjudicated hundreds of visas during two
Brazilian holidays in November.
We are working to expand and remodel our consular facilities as
permitted by the Chinese and Brazilian governments, so that we can
interview more visa applicants on a daily basis. In September, a team
from the Department participated in a 2-week site survey to improve and
expand existing consular facilities in Brazil, and another team
traveled to China in January 2012. We are adding a total of 48 new
interview windows throughout China and 19 in Brazil. This expansion,
which will extend into 2013, will increase capacity by more than 60
percent in China and more than 30 percent in Brazil.
In addition, we are assessing the feasibility of establishing more
visa-issuing locations in Brazil and China.
The Department is utilizing limited non-career appointments (LNA)
to hire visa adjudicators with essential language skills in Mandarin or
Portuguese. LNA hires meet the strict qualifications of foreign service
officers, including security and background checks. They enter service
speaking fluent Mandarin or Portuguese, allowing them to begin work as
soon as they have completed our intensive consular training program.
They are appointed for 1-year periods for a total of no more than 5
consecutive years, and have the same privileges and responsibilities as
other consular adjudicators. We plan to hire over 50 LNAs over the next
2 years. Every 10 LNAs could potentially adjudicate 150,000 more visas
per year.
We also prioritize groups of travelers, such as students and
business visitors. Wait times for student visa interview appointments
worldwide are less than 15 days. We prioritize student visa
appointments because of the tremendous intellectual, social, and
economic benefits foreign students provide to the U.S. economy.
According to the Department of Commerce, international students
contributed nearly $20 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2009-2010
academic year. All U.S. embassies and consulates have established
procedures to expedite appointments for business travelers. U.S.
officials work closely with American Chambers of Commerce in more than
100 countries to streamline the visa process for business travelers.
We use advanced technology to maximize efficiency and improve
security-related screening. Our worldwide Global Support Strategy (GSS)
contract makes interview appointment scheduling transparent and
consistent. It also eliminates the user-pay scheduling programs that
exist in many countries. In order to create additional capacity, GSS
moves some non-security-related consular functions off-site. By
shifting non-security functions out of the consular section, it frees
our staff to pay more attention to security concerns. GSS is already in
place in many countries.
We have worked to reduce or eliminate paper from all aspects of
visa processing, winning awards for our green initiatives. Our
nonimmigrant visa application is now completed and submitted online,
and we are piloting a Web-based immigrant visa application.
THE ROLE OF SECURITY HAS NOT DIMINISHED
Security remains our primary mission, since every visa decision is
a national security decision. We have an intensive visa screening
process incorporating personal interviews with multiple biographic and
biometric checks, all supported by a sophisticated global information
technology network, which shares data with other U.S. Government
national security agencies in real time. We continue to work with the
law enforcement and intelligence communities to ensure that our
officers have the latest information on whether an applicant poses a
threat. Around the world, at 222 visa-issuing embassies and consulates,
a highly trained corps of consular officers and support staff process
millions of visa applications each year, facilitating legitimate travel
while protecting our borders.
We instruct our staff that their highest priority must be to
protect the United States and its citizens. The officers are also
trained to be courteous, respectful, knowledgeable, and efficient. We
ensure that these principles are core tenets of our training regimen
for new consular officers and visa adjudicators. Our visa adjudication
courses feature in-depth interviewing and name-checking technique
training, fraud prevention, and the use of automated systems.
Throughout their careers, consular officers receive continuing
instruction in all of these disciplines to ensure they integrate the
latest regulations and technologies into their visa adjudication
decisions. Our aim is to keep the visa process secure, efficient, and
as simple as possible for all those who wish to visit our great Nation.
INTERVIEWS
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally requires our
consular officers to interview in person all first-time visa applicants
aged 14 through 79, but gives consular officers authority to waive
interviews for diplomatic and official applicants from foreign
governments and, in limited circumstances, some repeat applicants. The
INA also allows the Secretary of State to waive interviews in certain
situations.
Among the provisions in the Department's fiscal year 2012 budget
was a request that the Department explore alternative measures to meet
the personal interview requirement, such as video visa interviewing. We
appreciate Senator Landrieu's interest in this topic, which we have
also explored at length. We concluded that video visa interviewing is
simply not a viable option. We have piloted this technology and have
found it does not meet our strict security requirements, is costly, and
is less efficient than in-person interviews. Use of this technology
requires off-site facilities manned by American personnel with security
clearances, and therefore subject to costly physical security and data-
protection requirements.
Permission to open such facilities and the legal status of
employees could be an issue in some countries. We found that moving
applicants to and from the camera location, and limiting the length of
the interview, is more challenging at an off-site video facility,
thereby reducing the overall number of interviews conducted.
Consular officers are trained to use all of their senses to spot
potential fraud or threats that might not be as readily observable over
a two-dimensional video link. Much like the final in-person interview
before hiring a new employee, if there is any concern about a visa
applicant, an in-person interview is the best way to resolve the case.
We are continually looking for more efficient ways to improve the
applicant's experience, without compromising security, particularly
since a trip to the Embassy is often a foreign visitor's first
impression of the United States. One way to accomplish this, among
other things, is to decrease the number of people in the waiting room.
Enhanced security screening in effect since September 11 makes it
possible to eliminate interviews for certain very limited categories of
applicants, without compromising border security requirements.
With DHS concurrence, on January 19, 2012, the Departments of State
and Homeland Security initiated a 2-year pilot program to streamline
visa processing for low-risk applicants, based on terms and conditions
agreed between our agencies and implemented in accordance with INA
requirements. Under the pilot program, consular officers may waive
interviews for certain categories of qualified nonimmigrant visa
applicants worldwide who are renewing their visas within 48 months of
the expiration of their previously held visa, and within the same
classification as the previous visa (i.e., a B1/B2 applicant must apply
for another B1/B2 visa). Consular officers also may waive the interview
and fingerprint collection requirement for certain qualified
nonimmigrant visa applicants holding Brazilian passports worldwide who
are younger than 16 years old or 66 years of age and older, so long as
the required thorough screening against biographic-based, immigration,
law enforcement, and intelligence databases raises no concerns.
Officers will only exercise this waiver authority after a careful
review of the application, and a thorough screening of the applicant
against inter-agency databases, and in alignment with appropriate
programmatic quality control measures.
This new policy will make it much easier for many tourists,
particularly Chinese travelers, to renew their visas, helping to free
up over 100,000 interview appointments for travelers applying for visas
for the first time. That increase in tourism could support as many as
1,500 travel and tourism-related jobs. For Brazilian applicants, the
program will permit consular officers to more effectively spend their
time and resources evaluating higher risk visa applicants and other
applicants who require interviews. The pilot program has been
implemented in China and is in the process of being implemented at some
of our busiest overseas posts, including Brazil, Mexico, India, and
Russia.
RECIPROCITY
The Immigration and Nationality Act also requires us to set visa
validity based on the validity of visas issued to U.S. citizens. We
coordinate these decisions with the Department of Homeland Security.
Right now, the Chinese generally issue Americans visas valid for 1 year
or less. U.S. Ambassador to China Locke regularly addresses the issue
of visa validity with the Chinese Government, with the goal of
extending visa validity for American travelers from 12 months to 2 or
more years, so that we can reciprocate and issue longer validity visas
for Chinese leisure and business travelers.
The Department does not act alone when it comes to decisions about
visa validity; we must obtain approval from the Department of Homeland
Security prior to increasing any period of visa validity.
In addition to granting reciprocal treatment to U.S. citizens
seeking visas to visit China, it has been the administration's position
that the Chinese Government also must make significant progress in
issuing travel documentation to thousands of Chinese nationals in the
United States under final deportation orders.
VISA WAIVER PROGRAM
We are working with our partners in the U.S. Government to consider
additional countries for membership in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP),
which is administered by the Department of Homeland Security. The
specific requirements for VWP membership are set forth in law and are
quite strict; these statutory requirements help to make VWP the secure
program that it is. The Secretary of State recently nominated Taiwan to
join the VWP and the Department of Homeland Security has begun the
review process for its admission to the program. We support S. 2046,
the Visa Waiver Program Enhanced Security and Reform Act, currently
being considered in the Senate, which would enhance and strengthen the
VWP.
CONCLUSION
We believe that promotion of legitimate travel, trade, and
educational exchanges are not in conflict with our border security
agenda, but rather further that agenda and U.S. interests in the long
term.
Visa adjudication requires good judgment, insight into cultural
practices, and knowledge of immigration law. Visa adjudication is
essential to protecting the safety of our citizens, legal permanent
residents, and those who visit our country.
Our global presence, foreign policy mission, and personnel
structure give us singular advantages in executing the visa function
throughout the world. Our authorities and responsibilities enable us to
provide a global perspective to the visa process and its impact on U.S.
national interests. The issuance and refusal of visas has a direct
impact on our foreign relations as well as our economy. The Department
of State is in a position to anticipate and weigh all those factors,
while ensuring border security as our first priority. We will continue
to staff up, build, and innovate to ensure that America continues to be
a secure and welcoming country.
At the same time, as President Obama has said, ``We will always
protect our borders and our shores and our tourist destinations from
people who want to do us harm. But we also want to get more
international tourists coming to America. And there's no reason why we
can't do both.'' The Department of State is firmly committed to
supporting the President's travel and tourism initiatives, opening the
door to new jobs and exports. More international visitors to America
means more revenue for our cities and States, and we are making it
easier for tourists from other countries to experience all that America
has to offer. We have made it a priority to increase our capacity while
maintaining our strict security standards, and we will continue to
reduce wait times and facilitate increasing numbers of legitimate
travelers to the United States.
This concludes my testimony today. I will be pleased to take your
questions.
NEWARK LIBERTY AIRPORT: STAFFING
Senator Lautenberg [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Mr. Winkowski, according to the reports that we get from
Newark Liberty Airport, arriving passengers are experiencing
long wait times at Customs due to inadequate staffing, and I
think you confirmed that in your remarks. With the busy summer
travel approaching, there are concerns about whether or not
these times will continue to grow. And it is fairly simple, as
I see it, if we can get a commitment, Mr. Winkowski, that you
commit to working with me and with us to boost the staffing at
Newark. Can we count on that?
Mr. Winkowski. I think there are several issues with
Newark. When you look at the staffing of last year versus this
year, they have had a decrease in on-board staffing of three
people. Now, that is not to say that the number that they have
is the right number, and I think that is your point, Senator.
We are committed to work with the port authority, certainly
your office, as well as the airlines.
We face a number of challenges, and one of the challenges
that I believe Senator Coats raised is the co-issue of peaking
from the standpoint of aircraft coming in at the same time,
maxing out facilities.
I think where we are heading with this is really in three
areas, and I think we need to look at what we are doing from a
standpoint of transforming our whole process. I do not believe
that the whole process is based on more people. Certainly in
some cases, that would be accurate. But we have to make sure
that we continue to capitalize on the whole issue of
transforming what we are doing in the entire continuum of
travel and clearing international passengers.
So a number of areas. Global Entry. We need to drive up
that number. We have a big group of travelers that come in that
are very, very low-risk, and we need to get them into the
Global Entry system so we can take that group of travelers, get
them out of the line, get them over to a bank of kiosks, and
walk out the door.
The other area is the elimination of these forms that we
have. So, for example, when we put the ESTA system up, we were
able to eliminate the I-94W. That saves a lot of time. We are
working very, very hard in eliminating the I-94, and we
anticipate being able to do that by this year and doing other
initiatives----
Senator Lautenberg. I would ask that you put this in the
form a report because the question, as it was posed, was
developed by my people and the facts that govern there that
there was a shortage of staff.
Now, I do not know whether we can alter arrival times for
aircraft. The airplanes want to arrive on a schedule that is
most convenient for them and for certainly their passengers.
So if you would, sir, because the time is so limited, and I
would like to ask Mr. Pistole a question, if I can.
Mr. Winkowski. Okay.
[The information follows:]
Staffing and Wait Times at Newark Liberty International Airport
Based on the volume of inbound international passengers, Newark
Liberty International Airport (EWR) is the fourth busiest international
airport in the United States.
Over the last 3 fiscal years, wait times at EWR have risen along
with those at most major international airports. From first quarter of
fiscal year 2009 to first quarter of fiscal year 2012, EWR's average
wait time and the overall national average wait time increased by
approximately 27 percent. Increasing wait times can be attributed to a
number of challenges, including:
--Dramatic return of passenger volume after the global economic
downturn. Fiscal year 2011 saw 95 million passengers and crew
processed at CBP's international airports--the highest total on
record.
--Expanding facilities and mission requirements that impact the
capacity of CBP officer resources.
EWR wait times track closely to--and slightly below--the national
average:
--National average wait time (first fiscal year 2012) = 21.7 minutes.
--EWR average wait time (first quarter fiscal year 2012) = 21.2
minutes.
EWR's peak arrival time for flights and passengers is the 3 p.m.
hour. Average wait time during that hour (first quarter fiscal year
2012) = 30.0 minutes. Most recently, EWR wait times have decreased as
CBP implements its wait time mitigation strategy, which includes:
--More precisely aligning staffing to daily workload, including using
an automated real-time scheduling tool. EWR maximizes the
staffing of its inspection booths in anticipation of peak
arrival periods.
--Limiting leave usage, administrative functions and training during
peak arrival times.
--Working with air carriers, airport authorities, the trade
community, and others on facilitation measures such as Express
Connect and One Stop. These programs expedite travel, reduce
missed connections, increase passenger throughput, and enhance
the arrival processing experience.
--Increasing participation in Global Entry, one of CBP's Trusted
Traveler Programs to increase the number of pre-vetted
travelers to allow CBP to focus finite resources on those
individuals that may present a higher risk. Travelers using
Global Entry kiosks significantly reduced wait times for CBP
processing. Wait times are also subsequently reduced for the
non-members remaining in the general queue.
Most EWR passengers do not experience long waits for CBP
processing. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2012:
--Over 75 percent waited less than 30 minutes; and
--99.5 percent of arriving passengers waited less than 90 minutes.
NEWARK LIBERTY AIRPORT BREACHES
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Your report was excellent.
Last year there was an unusually high number of breaches at
Newark Liberty. At my request, DHS is in the process of
completing an investigation of these breaches. What steps can
you suggest to us here now that will help identify the problems
and get them fully resolved? We should have even in that
relatively harmless breach of the secure area--we, I think, had
something like 160,000 people tied up in one place or another,
really unfair. So what can we do?
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Senator.
There are two aspects to this. One is what the initial
breach is and then the second is what is our response to that
breach. So do we need to shut down an entire checkpoint in a
terminal as a result of whatever that breach may have been? So
we have reviewed our standard operating procedures for that and
assessed what is the best approach. As you know, we have new
leadership in there at Newark that is addressing some of the
issues that have, I believe, led to some of those, whether they
are isolated--I do not believe they are systemic issues, but
they cause a lot of concern because of the down time associated
and the loss of productivity and efficiency. And so those are
the things that we are trying to address.
Senator Lautenberg. I am going to call on Senator Coats.
But it is a question I want to get back to.
Senator Coats.
I-94 REPLACEMENT: COST-BENEFIT
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I will be
brief because I think I am going to have to run out and catch
this vote.
But in talking about effectiveness, I am sure you are
deluged with new ideas, new technology, and new equipment. And
I guess my question goes to the point of how do you assess vis-
a-vis the cost-benefit of a new piece of equipment that might,
say, replace this I-94? There must be some electronic means you
are talking about or something to that effect. Particularly at
a time of constrained budgets--I get visited by a number of
groups saying I have got the next best thing here to solve the
problem. And if you would only buy a thousand of them and
implement them across the country, why, we could expedite
screening.
Could both you and Administrator Pistole talk a little bit
about where we are from the standpoint of the use of new
technology that might help us and are there some things that we
should focus in on as we consider your budgets?
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Coats, I am going to go ahead
and vote, and if you will----
Senator Coats. I will be happy to do it.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you all. We will adjourn for just
some minutes and be back.
Mr. Winkowski. Maybe I can take the first crack at that,
Senator.
I think with every program that we have in CBP, we look at
it from the standpoint of how can we be more efficient and
reduce costs. So you take, for example, the issue of the I-94
and the I-94W. So the I-94W is for visa waiver countries. It is
a little form that everybody signs off. We have to stamp it and
sign it and cut it and hand it out. It adds tremendous time to
the process. At the same time, we have advance passenger
information that we have on that particular passenger coming
into the United States through a lot of good funding from this
subcommittee. Thank you very much. And we also have outbound
information. So we are able to match up who came in from a visa
waiver country and when did they leave. They do not need to
submit that particular form and send it down to a processing
center for it to be keyed into a system. That is done. We have
saved millions and millions of dollars on that.
The I-94 is for non-visa waiver countries. It is the bulk
of the forms that we have. And we spend about $15 million per
year inputting that information in the system, as well as
storing it. So we are very quickly at the point where we get
the same advance information coming in. We know that a
passenger came in and we know that a passenger left to go back
home and we can match that up and do not need that form. So
that is going to save us $15 million and become much more
efficient.
So Global Entry--you can take the same analysis of what it
costs us to process a passenger on primary who is low-risk, who
is going to be sent through the system, and send him over to a
kiosk for the Global Entry system.
So as we continue to transform our organization--because I
agree with you. It is not all about additional positions. I
think our workload staffing model will show in some areas that
there perhaps is a need for additional positions in certain
areas, but overall, we cannot come up with a plan that says we
are going to keep business as usual but increase our budget.
Those days are behind us. So all these efficiencies that we
have that we are working on are saving us millions of dollars.
Senator Coats [presiding]. Good.
Administrator.
Mr. Pistole. Senator, so what we look at in TSA, the bottom
line, is what is our return on investment. How can we reduce
risk, mitigate risk through strategic investment such as what
we did after the attempted bombing on Christmas Day 2009 where
the subcommittee and obviously Congress invested hundreds of
millions of dollars in the advanced imaging technology machines
to give us the best opportunity to detect the nonmetallic
device, the bomb, that we saw on Christmas Day? So that is a
strategic type of investment that helps us reduce risk.
I think a lot of the talk about the future, as we look at
what some people describe as the checkpoint of the future,
which different groups and associations, especially the
International Air Travel Association (IATA) have looked at, is
trying to consolidate different detection capabilities into
either a single piece of equipment or something that minimizes
the intrusiveness, if you will, of the detection capabilities.
So we are always looking for that next best idea that helps us
detect devices that could be catastrophic on an aircraft, but
it has to be, obviously, at a good price and able to deploy in
an efficient, effective manner.
AVIATION SECURITY PASSENGER FEE INCREASE
Senator Coats. I think it is important that you keep us
advised of this type of thing. Obviously, if there is some new
technological breakthrough that helps us with our staffing
situation and so forth, I mean, it is certainly worth looking
at. But at a time of budget constraints, it is going to be
difficult to provide the funding for it unless it really
offsets some expenditures elsewhere to help pay for that.
I was not going to get into this subject, but I want to
keep you here until the chairman gets back. So let me get to a
more controversial subject.
The President's budget proposed a significant increase in
the transportation fee paid by passengers. They made some
adjustments. No longer is it by leg--it is by each trip. I do
not believe that has been submitted yet for our consideration.
One, do you have any idea as to when the administration might
submit that? And two, can you give us your take on that
proposal? As you know, it has not been increased in a
considerable number of years. On the other hand, imposing what
to a lot of passengers seems like a new tax--what is the
justification for it? Just give us some download on that
particular issue.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Senator.
Of course, the idea behind it is that the users of the
service, the beneficiaries of that security, should have some
responsibility to help pay for that. So, as opposed to somebody
who never travels at all, a U.S. taxpayer, they still have a
burden of paying for that security even though they never use
the service. So that is the general construct behind it.
And as you noted, it has not been raised since the
enactment of the fee going back to 2001-2002. And so, in the
President's budget, it is simply a recognition that there is a
cost to security and that the cost can be provided for by the
users of that security. So what the budget looks at is an
incremental increase going from that $2.50 per-segment fee up
to a $5 one-way maximum fee in 2013 and then incremental
increases beyond that.
So recognize there is controversy around it and it really
becomes a question of, as that fee is used, can it reduce the
general taxpayer's burden for the transportation security
responsibilities? It also has provisions, as you know, in it
that would also reduce the overall deficit, which is also
something that is looked at as an obligation for the
administration at this time.
Senator Coats. Relative to the timeframe in terms of which
it would be introduced, any information----
Mr. Pistole. I do not have any specifics on that. I will
have to get back with you on that.
Senator Coats. Okay.
I think what I am going to do, given the prerogative of
being the chair, with no one here able to raise any objection--
what I might do--I would like to let you go, but I know the
chairman probably has some--why don't we just do this? Why
don't we just take a temporary hold? I think she will be back
at any moment. Why don't we have the subcommittee reconvene
upon the arrival of the chairman. The time clock is probably
ticking down. But I know they need my vote. So they will
probably hold it open.
Mr. Donahue, I did not realize you were a Hoosier also. So
welcome to the club, and we will all be sitting on the edge of
our chair Friday night.
So we will just do a temporary hold here until the chairman
returns. And I thank all of you for your testimony, and we will
be back with you very shortly.
AIRPORT SCREENING: PILOTS AND FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
Senator Landrieu [presiding]. Thank you all so much for
your patience as we juggle these schedules.
And I understand that Senators Coats and Lautenberg got
their questions in. So let me begin with mine, and we are
expecting them to return or some of them to return and we will
continue.
Let me ask Administrator Pistole. Airline pilots and flight
crews are subject to extensive background checks. So to me it
makes sense to allow these vital employees expedited access
through airport screening checkpoints. Now, I see them as they
move past me in the line, which is most appropriate, and they
move to the head of the line, but they still go through all the
screenings required, including belts, shoes, buckles, et
cetera.
I understand we are testing a program at seven airports
where pilots can go through but not flight attendants. How was
the decision made for pilots and not flight attendants? Are the
security screenings for them different, and if so, how? And
what could we do to include flight attendants in that pilot,
and then when can we expand it to all pilots and flight
attendants hopefully safely?
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have, of course,
for a while had some modified screening procedures in for both
pilots and flight attendants, which is less onerous than for
the general traveling public. But what we are doing under this
Known Crewmember initiative is recognizing that starting with
the pilots, they are the most trusted person on the aircraft.
Almost 29,000 times per day, they get us from point A to point
B safely, and it is what is really in their hands, the
aircraft, that is a challenge.
So recognizing that they are the most trusted, we wanted to
start someplace and so, in association with A4A and the Pilots
Association, have been doing this initiative to see if this
will work on a wide-scale basis. So we have been at the seven
airports. There are three others that started. We just reached
agreement to expand that more broadly around the country, maybe
another 20 airports or so. And the whole idea from the start
was let us start with pilots and then we will look at flight
attendants once we make sure that the pilot system is working,
recognizing that the flight attendants are, as you note,
trusted and key components of the flight crew.
Senator Landrieu. I am assuming the flight attendants have
requested this of you.
Mr. Pistole. They have. We have had several meetings over
the last year, and I have been, I think, pretty clear about
wanting to do this as a pilot initiative with the pilots to
start off and then once that happened, make a decision as it
relates to the flight attendants.
Senator Landrieu. I just want to again remind everyone that
it will be, I guess, 11 years this September that this industry
has been topsy-turvy. And 11 years of someone's career is a
pretty long time to be going through these steps. And I think
our pilots and our flight attendants have been more than
patient as we try to figure this out. This is not 2 years. This
is not 3 years. It is not even 5 years. I mean, it is almost
one-half of a 20-year career. So I just do not think we have,
in my view, a lot of time.
Again, we do not want to compromise security, but using
just common sense with the screening that I am certain goes on
before a pilot can get a pilot badge now post 9/11--we
unfortunately learned the lesson the hard way. But I am certain
that that screening--and we will hear more about it from the
flight attendants that are testifying this morning--have been
in place for flight attendants now, very tough screening for
them, that they are as much a part of this experience. The less
haggard they are, the less frustrated they are, both pilots and
flight attendants, trying to do the job that we have asked them
to do, that they want to do, the better.
So I wanted just to get that on the record, and I am glad
that you are working on it.
Let me just stop there.
PRECHECK PROGRAM
Senator Landrieu. Because I was not here for the questions,
I want to make sure I do not double-ask, and I see Senator
Murkowski back for hers.
Let me ask on the PreCheck (Pre3TM) program. I
applaud your efforts to move away from a one-size-fits-all
screening approach to a more risk-based approach. Last year you
launched Pre3TM. You talked about it in your
testimony. The screening benefits include no longer removing
shoes. You do not have to put your laptop, your jacket, your
belt, liquid containers from carry-on luggage.
Pre3TM is currently at 11 airports, scheduled to
expand to 35.
I understand that we have about 48 major airports. Is that
true? Is that the number? What do you say?
Mr. Pistole. By the end of the year, we will be in 35.
Senator Landrieu. Thirty-five, but how many major airports
are there in the United States?
Mr. Pistole. Oh, there are 28 category Xs, yes the largest
airports.
Senator Landrieu. Twenty-eight big, big airports, but how
many overall airports? About 400?
Mr. Pistole. Four hundred and fifty, approximately.
Senator Landrieu. So while these pilots are important, you
can understand that it is just a small number, although we are
focusing on the larger ones. Currently, the Pre3TM
eligibility is limited to high-mileage frequent flyers and U.S.
citizens. Less than 6,000 passengers are screened daily through
a Pre3TM. When you consider that 1.7 million
passengers travel each day, but yet only 6,000 have been
prechecked, can you give us an update and what your potential
expectations are? Will we ever get up to one-third of our
travelers prechecked or 20 percent of our travelers prechecked,
I mean, based on your assessments so far?
Mr. Pistole. The goal is to expand the Pre3TM
program as broadly as possible as quickly as possible while
making sure that we are maintaining the best possible security.
By expanding to the 35 largest airports, in many respects we
will obviously capture a much greater portion of the population
than we are today. The addition of additional populations such
as members of the military at Reagan National Airport yesterday
will help expand that. We are looking at other groups and
working with industry to see how we can come up with--rapidly
expanding while maintaining the best possible security.
Senator Landrieu. Let me ask this--probably lots of good
people are frequent flyers, but there might be some bad people
that are frequent flyers. Are we automatically clearing all
frequent flyers?
Mr. Pistole. No.
Senator Landrieu. And are the standards for frequent flyers
different by airlines? And give us some indication that there
is another screen other than that you might fly frequently to
sort of get access to this program.
Mr. Pistole. Sure. Of course, we are not publishing the
exact standards that we are using or the vetting we are doing
because we do not want terrorists to game the system. But
obviously anybody who an airline would deem qualified to be
considered--the very first check, of course, is against the
terrorist screening database to make sure that there is not a
terrorist trying to game the system and somebody who is just
trying to rack up a lot of miles to get that possible benefit.
We also do some things that I would be glad to go into a
closed setting to talk about in some more detail in terms of
that vetting.
But suffice to say that it is simply a starting point for
us with the more elite frequent flyers, recognizing that if
they have a long history of travel, the odds are that they are
not as likely to be a terrorist, but we always will keep random
and unpredictable screening as part of that. So somebody may go
into Pre3TM. I was in Miami yesterday and Reagan
National yesterday, and saw Pre3TM in operation. And
there are those who may qualify and they may have gone through
several times recently, but just for purposes of randomness, we
will say, ``Okay, no, you need to go through the regular
screening.'' So the whole idea is to have multiple layers of
security and then facilitate the safe, efficient travel for
those whom we make that assessment on. So there is, again, more
detail I would be glad to go into.
COORDINATION WITH AIRLINES AIRPORTS AND TSA OR CUSTOMS
Senator Landrieu. I have one more question and then I will
turn it over to Senator Murkowski, and then we will probably
move to our second panel.
But Mr. Smith, I was so happy to hear your level of
enthusiasm and your focus on coordination because as you
properly stated, the goals of safe and secure but comfortable
and pleasurable travel, which is so important to this industry
and to our economy, not just for visitors but in the global
economy that we have been entering now for the last 15 to 20
years--it is going to get the demands of screening and
communications, even though technology sort of minimizes the
need in some instances. But there is nothing like a face-to-
face meeting or a face-to-face visit no matter how virtual the
Internet has become. So I think this is just crucial to our
world in the future.
Can you talk for just 1 more minute about some of the
successes that you have specifically had to give us some ideas
about the coordination between the airlines, the airports, and
TSA or Customs in reducing wait times, reducing travel lines,
or any feedback that you are getting from the travelers and any
sort of success that you could share specifically?
Mr. Smith. Absolutely, and thank you for that.
I will tie to what you just asked Administrator Pistole.
How will we increase numbers? It is the partnership with the
carriers. The carriers were instrumental. When we took Global
Entry from an initial pilot and said we want to dramatically
expand those numbers, my lawyers would yell at me if I told you
which carrier. Let us just suffice it to say a very large
carrier. Their CEO took this on as his personal mission to
partner with us to help explain to the traveling public the
availability of this program.
We are doing that same thing with Pre3TM,
working very closely with U.S. travel to coordinate messaging
to the traveling public directly. We are not in the marketing
business. We are in the keeping the planes safe business. They
are in the marketing business. It is this partnership. It is
why we have seen the jump in the number of Global Entry
applications since John expanded TSA Pre3TM, in that
first week, a several hundred percent increase in applications.
So we are seeing concrete examples.
In Orlando on wait times, working closely with the airport
authority there, we set up an ambassadors program. So when a
new flight, which we were able to add through new efficiencies
into Orlando resulting in conservatively a $100 million impact
to that economy flies in, they are greeted with native
Portuguese speakers. So they welcome them into the Federal
Inspection Services section that Tom's people have to manage in
native Portuguese. It makes them more comfortable. It helps
them speed through the process but once again a partnership,
freeing up CBP front-line officers to do what they need to do
to keep us safe while working with the airport partners to help
increase efficiencies. So people are welcomed. We move through
more briskly, but we keep them safe at the same time.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
AIRPORT SCREENING: INDIVIDUALS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your comments this morning.
We pay a lot of attention to what is going on within the
aviation sector because people in my State have to fly, and a
lot of times it is very small planes going through very small
communities through another small community to get to a medium-
sized community to get to a community of size, maybe 26,000.
But what we see oftentimes is a growing frustration because
TSA, in order to be effective, needs to have a one-size-fits-
all approach, and that is oftentimes clearly not understood
when you are in a regional fishing hub like Dillingham or
Bethel and you see a dozen people from TSA who are monitoring
you going through this tiny, little airport where there is not
only no room for the passengers once they have gone through
screening, it is a system that they look at and just say we are
not quite sure why we are going through all that we are going
through. And as their representative here in Congress, I have
to explain to them it is all about safety and it does not make
any difference whether you are in Bethel or whether you are in
Baton Rouge. We are talking about safety here. But there are
some very legitimate concerns that come from this type of an
approach.
The first thing I would like to bring up with you,
Administrator, is the procedures for those who either have
special needs or issues, use of prosthetics. I know you are
very familiar with the situation in Alaska. One of our members
of the Alaska State House of Representatives was in Seattle,
has had breast cancer and mastectomy and had a prosthesis in
place and was going to be subjected to a pat-down that she felt
was invasive based on a prior experience, and she refused. And
the story is that she then decided that she was not going to
fly back to work in Juneau, but our capital is on a island
which required her to drive from Seattle through Canada, up
north across the border, down to a point where she could get on
a ferry to get into Juneau to go to work. It was a 3-day
process but that was how she dealt with it.
She has really taken this up as a very significant issue to
try to speak out and make sure that there is a level of
sensitivity that goes with the screening process. And she has
introduced several bills in the legislature there, one that
would require signage warnings that speak to travelers of the
possibility of what she considers to be very invasive pat-
downs.
So I guess the question to you this morning--and I brought
this up with the Secretary as well--is what have you done. What
is happening within the agencies that demonstrates that in fact
we are responding to these issues in a way that can help
mitigate or alleviate what are clearly some very psychological
effects of some pretty invasive screenings? I would hope that
you would speak to not only the issue of signage in direct
response to Representative Cissna's concern but any other ways
that you are choosing to deal with this to help our passengers
with more special needs.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Senator. You raise a number of very
important points.
The comment about the one-size-fits-all, I agree that has
served us in the past, but we are moving from that and have
already testified about it in terms of this Pre3TM,
in terms of changing the policy for children age 12 and under.
We are doing an initiative this week to start on Monday with
older individuals, age 75 and older, that look at alternate
screening for them, allowing them to keep their shoes on, a
light jacket. There are about 60,000 folks age 75 and older
every day that travel. The same thing on the young side, about
60,000 children age 12 and under. So the whole idea is, How can
we differentiate on the basis of what the intelligence, the
threats tell us about who may be a possible threat.
The individuals with special needs, whether it is external
medical devices or prostheses or whatever the particular
situation, have been a challenge for TSA over the years,
clearly. In December, we launched what we call TSA Cares, which
is a number that anybody with special needs can call ahead of
time, ideally 48-72 hours before they would arrive at an
airport, to ask questions such as, ``Okay, here is my
situation. How can I make sure that I am afforded good security
but in the most professional, respectful way?'' And we have had
tens of thousands of people call that number since we stood
that up in the last several months where we give advice. We
obviously encourage people to look at our Web site.
The fact is that we are trying everything possible to work
with individuals who have those special needs in a way that
respects their privacy and the whole aspect of their dignity,
and we have not done a good job in some situations.
We have a complaint line where people call in, and 85
percent of those calls are simply requests for information as
opposed to actual complaints. So we monitor that.
We try to put as much information as we can out, and then
we will work with individuals. So it is something that--we have
also met with dozens of special interest groups that have
similar situations to try to educate the traveling public and
those they represent, and these groups represent tens of
millions of people who travel either frequently or
occasionally. But it is a daily challenge for us dealing with
the 1.7-1.8 million people.
CARGO SCREENING
Senator Murkowski. And I understand that. I also recognize
that oftentimes you can look to that Web site because we have
directed people there, having gone to the call line. But
oftentimes you read that and then you go through the line, and
it is what it is. You are dealing with a TSA personnel that you
are and they may or they may not treat you with that level of
respect and understanding that you had hoped. Of course, this
then leads to the problems.
I want to bring up just one more just side issue to this,
but it speaks to the sensitivity that I think is important.
In Alaska, in many parts of the State, the native women
wear a traditional kuspuck. It is like a jacket that has double
pockets. And I was wearing a kuspuck and I was told that you
have got to remove your kuspuck because it is a little bit
bulky in front. It is not a little bit bulky. You can go like
this and the bulk is gone.
Let us just say I had a conversation with some of the folks
there at TSA asking them how they dealt with the fact that this
is native, traditional garb. Many of the women coming through
wear this. And how is it handled? And the response that I got
was less than satisfactory. It is something that I have
intended to follow up with because I want to make sure that
regardless of the part of the country that you are in, that
there is a level of sensitivity, a level of discretion that is
provided given the region that you are in. And as of this point
in time, I am not convinced that we are seeing that to the
fullest extent.
Madam Chairman, I know that we want to move to the second
panel. If I may just ask one brief question, and this relates
to cargo screening.
You mentioned the passenger bag screening, but you are
attempting to get to that point where 100 percent of the cargo
coming through has been screened. But again, we are dealing
with a situation in Alaska where much of our goods, the gallon
of milk that you buy at the grocery store is coming in on the
aircraft there that also provides for passengers as well. It is
the number one complaint outside of the price of fuel that I am
hearing in our smaller communities. I was in the community of
Yakutat about 3-4 weeks ago and was told that the price of milk
in the store--they said about one-half of the price that you
are paying is an add-on because of TSA's security screening. I
think that there was an exaggeration to that amount, but it is
something that we are looking at very, very critically.
So what I would ask is that we continue to have some
conversation about the cargo screening in, again, parts of the
country where the situation on the ground is just a little bit
different because it takes a community and a region that is
already facing exorbitant costs because of transportation costs
and adding to the cost of living because of these TSA security
fees that are imposed on a per-weight charge. So I would like
to speak with whoever it is within your Departments here that
can work with us a little bit more on this issue.
Mr. Pistole. I will be glad to follow up with you on that,
Senator. Obviously, we are trying to address--we have completed
the 100-percent cargo requirement that Congress put on us for
domestic, and we are working on the international aspect of
that for later this year, hopefully. But it is something that
we know terrorists have tried to exploit cargo, the Yuma cargo
plot from October 2010. So we are mindful of that. But at the
same time, we need to make sure that we are facilitating the
free movement of people and goods with the best security. So
that is that dynamic and that challenge. I would be glad to
follow up with you.
If I could make one other point, in terms of the staffing
at some of these small airports and Anchorage, I would be glad
to have an offline conversation with you about some
opportunities that we are looking at at the smallest airports
in terms of improving the efficiencies there.
Senator Murkowski. Good. I noted that you said that you
wanted to work with individual airports on initiatives that
they may have. So we will be happy to talk with you about that.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Just like there are going to be special requirements for
the major hubs where millions and millions of passengers land
and take off every day, there is going to have to be some
approach that is custom-designed for them. Then for the
middling airports of middle size--New Orleans would be a good
example. We are not a hub, but we see a lot of people coming
and going every day. And then you have got your very rural
airports--and Alaska, Montana, Idaho come to mind--that need a
different approach. This is 10 years, almost 11 years. We want
to see some of these custom approaches and we will be pushing.
One final question to Mr. Donahue, and then we are going to
get to the next panel. I would like you all to stay to listen
to the next panel. And I appreciate the time you have given,
but it is important.
The President's January announcement on tourism said that
his goal is to expedite the visa issuance for visitors.
Particularly, he mentioned Brazil and China, very important
countries for us in terms of trade, technology sharing, et
cetera.
How long does it currently take our Government, the State
Department, to issue visas to travelers from these two
countries on average? Brazil and China. Conversely, how long
does it take Brazil and China to issue visas to us? If you have
that information, I would like you to put it into the record
this morning.
Also, what steps has the State Department taken to reduce
interview wait times, processing times, and travel distance to
consulates in these countries?
We go down to our local office to get a passport, and for
us in New Orleans, it is just a little bit of time. Maybe for
Alaska, it is a little bit different. But if you think about
China and Brazil, how large those countries are, there could be
lots of travel time to the consulates.
So what is the answer to the first and second question,
please?
Mr. Donahue. Thank you, Senator.
In China today to get an appointment, the longest you wait
is 6 days.
Senator Landrieu. Six days.
Mr. Donahue. Or 8 days. I am sorry. In Guangzhou it is 8
days.
Senator Landrieu. To get an appointment.
Mr. Donahue. To get an appointment.
And the visas are usually issued in most cases in about 3
days from then. You will receive the visa delivered to your
home. There are cases that require additional security checks.
Those can take 2-3 weeks, but that is a small number of the
total.
Senator Landrieu. And do people have to come there in
person?
Mr. Donahue. And that is what we have been working on with
our colleagues at DHS. First-time applicants, according to the
law, are required to come in and apply in person. On renewal
applicants, we have extended the time from 1 year to 4 years in
the Executive order that the President announced, so that if
your visa--and this is particularly important in China where
they only have 1-year visas. If your visa has expired within
the last 4 years, we will review that case, see if there is any
information that makes it possible that we have concerns, look
at all the information we have from the person's prior travel
from our partners at DHS, and if we see no indicators that
there might be a reason of concern, the person can send that
in, does not have to travel to one of the five consular offices
in China.
And we are doing the same in Brazil. And also in Brazil, we
have a special program that we are trying as part of this pilot
where children under age 16 years and adults age 66 and over
can send in their applications, and then DHS is helping us with
the biometric part of that. But it is very important the first
time. That is when we set the identity of that person with
their biometrics.
As I mentioned, we sent teams out in the last couple months
to both China and Brazil to look at new locations to get close
to them. We have four visa-issuing posts in Brazil and five in
China, and we are looking at other alternatives.
Senator Landrieu. The Foreign Operations bill gave the
State Department video conferencing capability or authorization
to use video conferencing and doubled the Chinese tourism
validity from 1-2 years. Why has the State Department not used
these new authorizations?
Mr. Donahue. On the video conferencing, we have done a
pilot of video conferencing. We do not believe it meets the
security standards. As I mentioned, we do need an interview,
for instance, to set the identity of that person, so we collect
the biometric and we have the interview, and we have an
American that we trust say that that is the person that gave us
those biometrics. That is the same biometric that is used by my
colleagues as they arrive in the United States, and having that
done in person is very important.
In addition, if we do feel that we need an interview with a
person, it is the three-dimensional interview. It is that
person being there, watching how they come up to the window,
how they react to other people in the room. We do not believe
that we could do a good security review of that person by video
conference.
Senator Landrieu. What about the 2 year?
Mr. Donahue. The 2 year. According to the Immigration and
Nationality Act, visa reciprocity must be based, to the extent
possible, on what the other country grants to Americans. Some
Americans going to China are granted up to 1 year. Many are
granted much less. Our Ambassador Locke in China has been
talking to the Chinese Government about this issue. We would
like to extend it to 2 years or more with agreement from our
colleagues from DHS, but we need the reciprocal agreement from
the Chinese.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. It has been a very excellent
panel. Thank you so much, and if you all do not mind staying
for the next 30 minutes to hear from the private sector, which
is very important to hear from them about some of their
successes as well as some of their challenges.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. John S. Pistole
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
TSA'S PRECHECK PROGRAM
Question. Are you planning to expand the program beyond elite
fliers and Global Entry members? If so, what is the Transportation
Security Administration's timeline and what risk-based criteria will be
used for expanding PreCheck (Pre3TM) eligibility beyond the
scope of the current pilot testing?
Answer. By the end of calendar year 2012, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) plans to bring TSA Pre3TM to a
total of six airlines and over 30 of the Nation's busiest airports. In
addition to certain eligible frequent flyers and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection Trusted Travelers, TSA is conducting a proof of
concept at Washington-Reagan National Airport (DCA) to incorporate
members of the armed services into the expedited passenger screening
model. This proof of concept aims to expand upon the existing expedited
screening procedures for members of the military in uniform, which is
required pursuant to ``Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the
Armed Forces Act'' (Public Law No. 112-086), and would allow members of
the military who are not in uniform or traveling on official orders (as
required under the recently enacted law) to take part in TSA
Pre3TM. In addition, TSA is currently partnering with the
Department of Defense (DOD) to examine how DOD may provide TSA a list
of TSA Pre3TM-eligible Active Duty personnel. This approach
would allow TSA's Secure Flight program to automate identification of
these travelers as TSA Pre3TM-eligible. Accordingly, this
will enhance our ability to offer DOD members TSA Pre3TM at
all of our TSA Pre3TM sites.
Additionally, TSA has met the requirements of the recently enacted
``Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act,''
Public Law No. 112-86. TSA's long-standing policies for troops include
the following expedited procedures in airport checkpoints nationwide:
--United States service personnel in uniform with proper ID, whether
or not traveling on official orders, are not required to remove
their shoes or boots unless they alarm our technology.
--Family members can obtain gate passes to accompany departing troops
or meet their loved ones when they come home.
--TSA also expedites screening for Honor Flight veterans, and
partners with the Department of Defense (DOD) to expedite
screening for wounded warriors.
Question. How many participants are necessary for the program to be
a success?
Answer. TSA has established a goal for fiscal year 2013 to double
the number of passengers who are eligible to participate in TSA
Pre3TM and other risk-based security initiatives. Based on
our aggressive plan to continue to add additional large airports with
heavy passenger volumes, as well as additional air carriers, we are
extremely confident in our ability to successfully meet that goal. This
will allow us to assess further expansion of TSA Pre3TM to
airports, air carriers, and low-risk populations. TSA will not measure
success only by the number of participants but also based on factors
such as passenger satisfaction.
Currently, more than 90 percent of TSA Pre3TM passengers
surveyed are highly satisfied with the expedited screening experience.
Question. Are you simply trusting that frequent fliers are not
terrorists? What are you doing to prevent terrorists from ``learning
their way around'' these new security measures?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration employs random,
unpredictable security measures at any time. Therefore, no traveler is
guaranteed to receive expedited screening every time they travel.
Additional information on countermeasures is Sensitive Security
Information and may be provided upon request.
Question. Pre3TM is available to any U.S. citizen who is
a member of one of Customs and Border Protection's trusted traveler
programs, such as Global Entry. Charles Barclay from the American
Association of Airport Executives points out in his written testimony
that some two-thirds of the American public is currently ineligible for
participation in Global Entry because they don't hold a valid passport.
What is the agency doing to ensure that all interested Americans are
able to apply for and--if eligible--participate in the program?
Answer. In addition to the currently participating airlines,
American Airlines and Delta Air Lines, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is expanding TSA Pre3TM to include
frequent flyers from additional airlines by the end of calendar year
2012. Interested individuals may apply to become a member of a U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Trusted Traveler program, and opt
in to become eligible for TSA Pre3TM. For U.S. citizens who
do not have a valid passport and who are not frequent flyers, the
process to obtain a passport is available through the U.S. Department
of State's Web site, http://travel.state.gov. As part of the ongoing
partnership across the Department of Homeland Security, TSA is closely
partnering with CBP to provide additional enrollment opportunities to
apply for membership in a CBP Trusted Traveler program. Current members
of CBP's Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS Trusted Traveler programs are
automatically eligible to participate in TSA Pre3TM.
Question. Last year Congress appropriated $10 million for TSA to
implement Pre3TM. Are you properly resourced to expand this
program?
Answer. Yes. The current TSA Pre3TM approach leverages
existing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Trusted Traveler programs
in conjunction with Secure Flight prescreening processes and
infrastructure.
Question. Will investments in risk-based related programs result in
net savings to TSA programs in the future? When should we expect those
savings to be realized?
Answer. The overarching goal of risk-based security is to improve
security by enabling the Transportation Security Administration to
better focus resources on those passengers who could pose the greatest
risk--including those on terrorist watch lists--while providing
expedited screening, and perhaps a better travel experience, to those
considered our low-risk, trusted travelers. Other factors, such as cost
efficiency and passenger satisfaction, may increase as a result of
these approaches, but those consequences are incidental outputs rather
than intended outcomes.
Question. Based on the ``proof of concept'' pilot testing, what has
been the average time savings for screening Pre3TM
passengers compared to other passengers?
Answer. TSA Pre3TM expedited passenger screening has
been operational in a proof of concept manner within a small number of
airports for only a limited amount of time. Preliminary results related
to higher throughput and average screening time appear promising, but
it is too soon to draw system-wide conclusions. In the interim,
customer satisfaction data from both TSA (captured via airport kiosks
and customer contact center inquiries) and the airlines demonstrate
high levels of satisfaction with the expedited screening experience.
Question. Has TSA conducted surveys of Pre3TM
participants? If so, what has the feedback been? Have any areas for
improvement been identified? If so, what are they and what is TSA doing
to evaluate and implement these suggestions?
Answer. As of late March 2012, over 645,000 TSA Pre3TM
boarding passes were scanned at selected TSA airport checkpoints,
enabling expedited screening for known travelers who opted in to
participate. Customer satisfaction data from both TSA (captured via
airport kiosks and customer contact center inquiries) and the airlines
demonstrate high levels of satisfaction with the expedited screening
experience. As a result of the feedback, TSA updated the public Web
site with checkpoint specifics for each airport offering TSA
Pre3TM and worked with airlines and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to make enrollment/opt in instructions and other
communication messages even more clear. The feedback also revealed the
need for intensive marketing and other materials during the first few
days of a new launch to inform individuals how to become eligible for
TSA Pre3TM.
Question. What metrics are you putting into place to judge the
success of the Pre3TM program?
Answer. The overarching goal of risk-based security is to improve
security by enabling the Transportation Security Administration to
better focus resources on passengers who are either unknown risk or
high risk. Key indicators of success include security effectiveness;
growth in passenger participation (new opt-ins/enrollments); checkpoint
throughput capacity growth; completion rates for workforce training;
passenger satisfaction rates as measured by kiosks and call center
data; and the ongoing capability to bring additional airlines and
populations into the process in a seamless manner as measured by
successful execution of the expansion plan. Specific information on
security effectiveness metrics is sensitive security information and
may be provided upon request.
EXPEDITED SCREENING FOR MILITARY MEMBERS
Question. What is your timeline for expanding this program
nationwide? Will this expansion occur within the timeframe required by
Public Law 112-86, the Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the
Armed Forces Act?
Answer. TSA has met the requirements of the recently enacted
``Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act,''
Public Law No. 112-86. TSA's long-standing policies for troops include
the following expedited procedures in airport checkpoints nationwide:
--United States service personnel in uniform with proper ID, whether
traveling on official orders or not, are not required to remove
their shoes or boots unless they alarm our technology;
--Family members can obtain gate passes to accompany departing troops
or meet their loved ones when they come home; and
--TSA also expedites screening for Honor Flight veterans, and
partners with the Department of Defense (DOD) to expedite
screening for wounded warriors.
In late March 2012, TSA initiated a proof of concept at Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport to screen Active Duty members of the
U.S. military through the TSA Pre3TM expedited passenger
screening lanes. Active Duty servicemembers, including National Guard
and Reserves on Active Duty, are eligible through presentation of a
valid DOD-issued Common Access Card (CAC) at checkpoints enabled with
DOD CAC readers.
Based on the outcome from the proof of concept, and the intention
of moving away from a military ID card-based model and toward a list-
based boarding pass issuance model, eligible servicemembers will be
issued known traveler numbers by DOD for use when traveling, consistent
with other Pre3TM populations. TSA and DOD believe this
approach will best enable eligible servicemembers to receive expedited
screening at all Pre3TM airports without the installation of
additional hardware and software required for the CAC based pilot. TSA
and DOD will collaboratively determine next steps and associated
timelines for screening Active Duty members of the military through TSA
Pre3TM lanes.
Question. How does TSA guard against someone like Major Hassan, the
Fort Hood shooter, from having expedited screening?
Answer. Information on countermeasures is sensitive security
information and may be provided upon request. As we have always stated,
the Transportation Security Administration may employ random,
unpredictable security measures at any time. Therefore, no traveler is
always guaranteed to receive expedited screening every time they
travel.
EXPEDITED SCREENING FOR PILOTS AND FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
Question. Airline pilots and flight crews are subject to extensive
background checks, so it makes sense to allow these employees expedited
access through airport screening checkpoints. In fact, the 9/11 Act
required TSA to begin implementing such a system. In response to that
requirement, you have been testing a program at seven airports where
airline pilots can forgo physical screening if they show proper ID that
is verified by a central database.
What is your plan to expand this program to additional locations
and what are the resource impacts of doing so?
Answer. The Known Crewmember (KCM) pilot is a result of Government
and industry partnership. As a condition of the program, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is provided, at no cost to
the Government, the necessary hardware and software to operate the
system. All equipment, software, and other costs were paid by industry,
and no additional staffing was required for KCM at the seven pilot
airports. TSA and industry are discussing expanding the program.
Question. The 9/11 Act requires an expedited screening process for
pilots and cabin crew members. Are you planning to adjust the system so
that flight attendants can participate in this program and what is your
timeline for doing so?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
currently in discussions with industry to expand Known Crewmember (KCM)
to additional airports for uniformed pilot crew members. TSA has been
studying all aspects of adding flight attendants to KCM for several
months. Airlines have been notified that they must be prepared to make
the necessary system updates to include flight attendant crew members
if TSA decides to include them in KCM. TSA expects to make a final
determination on adding flight attendants by late summer of 2012.
Question. Please provide a comparison of the background checks
pilots go through compared to flight attendants. Are the checks for all
crew members the same? If not, please explain the differences. Please
include the additional checks pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officer
(FFDO) program go through.
Answer. The types and degree of background checks are identical for
all crew members. Checks include identity validation, fingerprint based
criminal history records checks, continuous TSA vetting, and name
checks against TSA watch lists by airlines.
FFDO background checks include results from criminal history
records check; employment history check; credit history check; and,
personal interviews, fromreferences provided by the candidate.
CHECKED BAGGAGE FEES
Question. Administrator Pistole, last year Secretary Napolitano
testified that TSA incurs an annual cost of $259 million to screen
increased volumes of carry-on baggage caused by the airlines charging
for the first checked bag. Your agency has confirmed that those costs
remain the same today. The baggage fees are generating billions of
dollars in annual revenues for the airlines, and yet they are not
required to compensate TSA for these increased costs. To address this,
last year I introduced legislation called the Fair Airline Industry
Revenue (FAIR) Act to increase security fees on airlines that charge
passengers for their first checked bag.
What are the impacts of the airline checked baggage fees on
passenger volume in general, on security, and the travel and tourism
industry overall?
Answer. In general, the imposition of checked baggage fees by air
carriers on the traveling public does not appear to have negatively
impacted air travel volume. From 2009 through 2011, Department of
Transportation statistics show that air carriers have collected over $8
billion in baggage fees from passengers, while passenger volume has
increased by 3.7 percent.
TSA security operations have been impacted by the imposition of air
carrier checked baggage fees as we are experiencing an increase of
volume in carry-on items at our checkpoints. TSA is seeing a notable
change in checkpoint requirements and processing times since
introduction of the checked baggage fees. To sustain checkpoint
passenger throughput, TSA has adjusted operations to better manage an
increased volume of carry-on effects. TSA estimates it costs
approximately $260 million in annual additional resources to sustain
current throughput rates given the increased volume of checkpoint
processing.
TSA BEHAVIOR DETECTION--ASSESSOR PROGRAM
Question. In fiscal year 2012, Congress included funding for 145
additional behavior detection officers, bringing the total to over
3,100 TSA-wide. You are currently running pilots at airports in Boston
and Detroit where TSA behavior detection officers have increased
interaction with passengers at the checkpoint. Some have termed this as
a ``chat-down.''
Has this effort been an effective security layer?
Answer. The purpose of the Assessor enhanced behavior detection
pilot program is to evaluate the impact of enhanced behavior detection
training and assessment on security effectiveness. The goal is to
develop an enhanced program that utilizes a wide range of behavior
analysis tools to identify potential threats while improving screening
efficiencies and the passenger experience. This new capability builds
upon the strengths of the Screening of Passengers by Observation
Techniques (SPOT) program, wherein an April 2011 study conducted by the
American Institutes for Research (AIR), under the sponsorship of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T) indicated that the SPOT program was significantly
more effective than random screening: travelers carrying dangerous/
prohibited items or resulting in a law enforcement arrest were nine
times more likely to be identified using SPOT as compared to random
referral screening. The Assessor also fits within the Transportation
Security Administration's (TSA) risk-based security model. Like SPOT,
the Assessor enhanced behavior detection program focuses on applying
behavior detection resources on individuals displaying suspicious
indicators.
TSA is currently collecting data at these pilot sites to evaluate
the effect of enhanced behavior detection on security effectiveness,
efficiency, passenger satisfaction, cost, and industry vitality.
Preliminary data reveals support for the pilot; however, additional
data is required (and being collected) to provide a complete analysis
of the value of this new layer.
Question. Will it be expanded to Pre3TM lanes?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
currently collecting data at these pilot sites to evaluate the effect
of Assessor on security effectiveness, efficiency, passenger
satisfaction, cost, and industry vitality. Should the results be
favorable, TSA will begin expansion of this skill to its behavior
detection officer workforce beginning in 2012. TSA is currently
exploring implementing a new enhanced behavior detection proof of
concept (PoC) for Boston Logan International Airport and Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport. This PoC combines
Assessor skills with Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques
(SPOT) program operations. By melding the best practices of both the
SPOT program and the Assessor proof of concept together, this new
option represents the next step toward defining the optimal behavior
analysis capability for TSA's risk-based security objectives.
Question. Please describe the steps TSA has taken to address the
concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office.
Answer. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed an
audit of the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT)
program in May 2011. Eleven recommendations resulted from this audit
and are outlined below with the status of each:
--GAO recommended that an independent panel of experts review the
methodology of the Department of Homeland Security Science and
Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) validation study to determine
whether the methodology is comprehensive enough to validate the
program. DHS S&T completed an independent peer review of the
study's methodology in June 2011. This panel review resulted in
support of the methodology as a whole. This recommendation was
closed in December 2011.
--GAO recommended that a comprehensive risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis be conducted to determine the effective
deployment of SPOT with a comparison to other security
screening programs. TSA has developed a risk and cost analysis
framework, which has been applied to several different physical
countermeasures such as advanced imaging technology and x-ray.
Based on its internal validation processes, TSA is refining the
framework and data in order to complete the risk and cost
analysis work for behavior detection officers (BDOs). The
behavior detection capability serves as a routing function to
channel higher risk passengers toward additional screening. TSA
is conducting ongoing analysis to understand the cost-
effectiveness thresholds for alternative concepts of operation.
TSA is working with DHS S&T to develop more definitive data on
the probability of detection (P(d)) and probability of
encounter (P(e)) of BDOs. In 2011, DHS S&T issued a report
validating that BDOs provide effectiveness significantly better
than random, but that study was not designed to elicit a
precise probability of detection. TSA continues to gather
operational data pointing to P(d) and P(e) and works with DHS
S&T to further meaningfully quantify P(d) in non-operational
evaluations. These recommendations remain open.
--GAO recommended that the SPOT program revise its strategic plan by
incorporating risk assessment, identifying cost and resources,
linking it to other related TSA strategic documents, describing
how SPOT is integrated and implemented with TSA's other layers
of aviation security, and providing guidance on how to
effectively link the roles, responsibilities and capabilities
of Federal, State, and local officials providing program
support. TSA is finalizing a SPOT strategic plan, which
includes strategic goals for fiscal years 2012 and 2013,
detailed action plans, and resource requirements to achieve
each strategic goal. Recently, the SPOT Program Management
Office was moved from the Office of Security Operations to the
Office of Security Capabilities (OSC). The SPOT strategic plan
is being revised to align with OSC goals and objectives. TSA
expects to complete the SPOT strategic plan by the end of the
second quarter of fiscal year 2012. This recommendation remains
open.
--GAO recommended studying the feasibility of using airport
checkpoint-surveillance video recordings of individuals
transiting checkpoints, and who were later charged with or
pleaded guilty to terrorism-related offenses, to enhance its
understanding of terrorist behaviors in the airport checkpoint
environment. On June 10, 2011, TSA completed a field survey to
determine closed-circuit television (CCTV) capability at
individual airports, including the presence of CCTV systems,
the retention time of checkpoint surveillance footage, and the
quality of video recordings. The feasibility study will be
completed by the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2012
at which time TSA will request that GAO close the
recommendation. This recommendation remains open.
--GAO recommended that guidance be provided in the SPOT standard
operating procedure (SOP) or other TSA directive to BDOs, or
other TSA personnel, on inputting data into the Transportation
Information Sharing System (TISS) and set milestones and a
timeframe for deploying TISS access to SPOT airports so that
TSA and intelligence community entities have information from
all SPOT law enforcement officer (LEO) referrals readily
available to assist in ``connecting the dots'' and identifying
potential terror plots. All airport operations with SPOT have
appropriate training and access to report into TISS. This was
included in the most recent SPOT SOP. This recommendation has
been closed.
--GAO recommended to implement the steps called for in the TSA Office
of Security Operations business plan to develop a standardized
process for allowing BDOs or other designated airport officials
to send information to TSA's Transportation Security Operations
Center (TSOC) about passengers whose behavior indicates that
they may pose a threat to security, and provide guidance on how
designated TSA officials are to receive information back from
the TSOC, and GAO also recommended that all of the databases
available to the TSOC be utilized when running passengers who
rise to the level of a LEO referral against intelligence and
criminal databases. On March 5, 2012, an update was provided to
GAO. TSA believes that efforts it has made in the last 2 years
address the issue identified by GAO; specifically, the advent
of Secure Flight and the increased LEO response rate to
referrals. A letter to GAO emphasizing these points is being
drafted. It will also include a discussion concerning why it is
not possible to access certain law enforcement databases for
this purpose. These recommendations remain open.
--GAO recommended establishing a plan that includes objectives,
milestones, and timeframes to develop outcome-oriented
performance measures to help refine the current methods used by
BDOs for identifying individuals who may pose a risk to the
aviation system. TSA is establishing a panel of experts in
behavior analysis, performance measures, and predictive
analysis to review current metrics and identify additional
outcome based performance metrics. The panel is expected to
stand up in the third quarter of fiscal year, but this date may
be influenced by budget restrictions. To mitigate this issue,
the program office created its own internal working group that
met for the first time during the week of February 6, 2012.
This internal working group included experts from the field,
and other internal supporting program offices to discuss
current metrics, establish new metrics, and identify gaps and
future needs. The internal working group will be working to
align TSA's performance outcome-oriented goals with TSA's
Behavior Detection Analysis Division Strategic Plan. In
addition to the internal working group, TSA will also be
aligning research and development to these outcome-based
performance metrics. The plan as described will be completed by
the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2012 at which time
TSA will request that GAO close the recommendation. This
recommendation remains open.
--GAO recommended establishing controls to help ensure completeness,
accuracy, authorization, and validity of data collected during
SPOT screening. The SPOT Performance Management Information
System (PMIS) was demonstrated to GAO at which time they agreed
to close this recommendation. This recommendation has been
closed.
--GAO recommended establishing timeframes and milestones for its plan
to systematically conduct evaluations of the SPOT training
program on a periodic basis. The DHS S&T sponsored a
comprehensive job analysis for the BDO position that was
completed in 2010. Based on these findings, the Office of
Training Workforce and Engagement (OTWE) completed a training
task analysis (TTA) that will be periodically evaluated and
updated. This document provides analysis on the training gaps
that exist based on the current training curricula and what is
required of the BDO position. This recommendation is open and
has been requested closed.
ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY
Question. Following the failed attempt to blow up Northwest flight
253 on Christmas Day in 2009, the Department accelerated its request to
field advanced imaging technology machines to detect both metallic and
non-metallic threats. Congress has supported your requests and has
funded 1,250 of these units through fiscal year 2012. Funding for the
first 500 machines was included in the Recovery Act followed by 500
additional machines in fiscal year 2011. The last 250 were funded in
the fiscal year 2012 DHS Appropriations Act. Approximately 640 of the
1,250 have been fielded, just over half.
Your budget indicates that a total of 1,800 AIT machines are
needed. There is no money in your request to go beyond the current
level of 1,250.
Are you planning to meet the 1,800 requirement in future years?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
reviewing the current full operational capability for advanced imaging
technology (AIT) units. The initial estimate of 1,800 may change based
on TSA's risk-based security initiatives, potential reductions in
processing times, and qualification of new and innovative AIT
solutions.
TSA has acquired two different types of AIT machines. Both serve
the same purpose, but one is made with a technology called millimeter
wave and the other is made with a technology called backscatter. There
are approximately 250 backscatter machines fielded at airports today
and 390 millimeter wave machines. The millimeter wave machines have
been upgraded with software called automated target recognition which
automatically displays a cartoon outline of the passenger instead of a
real image. This was a major advancement in terms of passenger privacy.
The backscatter machines still require a human operator to view the
passenger's real image.
TSA has acquired two different types of AIT machines. Both serve
the same purpose, but one is made with a technology called millimeter
wave and the other is made with a technology called backscatter. There
are approximately 250 backscatter machines fielded at airports today
and 390 millimeter wave machines. The millimeter wave machines have
been upgraded with software called automated target recognition which
automatically displays a cartoon outline of the passenger instead of a
real image.
This was a major advancement in terms of passenger privacy. The
backscatter machines still require a human operator to view the
passenger's real image.
Question. Can you tell the subcommittee when the backscatter
machines will be upgraded with the automated target recognition
software?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is working
with all advanced imaging technology (AIT) system vendors to ensure the
implementation of automated target recognition (ATR) software. TSA has
successfully tested, upgraded, and implemented ATR on all deployed
millimeter wave AIT systems. TSA's backscatter AIT vendor has had
difficulty in meeting the ATR requirements; because of that delay,
airport testing will not commence until spring 2012. Airport testing
and system evaluations, along with other assessments and system
upgrades, will take approximately 240 days to complete; therefore, TSA
expects to have ATR on 100 percent of AIT units by spring 2013.
AVIATION SECURITY CAPITAL FUND
Question. Of the $250 million available from the Aviation Security
Capital Fund (ASCF) for fiscal year 2012, how much does the agency
intend to use for EDS equipment procurement?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration plans to utilize
approximately $146.3 million of the fiscal year 2012 ASCF for
explosives detection systems equipment procurement. Related equipment
installation costs of approximately $50.2 million will also be funded
from the ASCF. These estimates may change based on requirements
determined as a result of ongoing field evaluations and airport
readiness.
Question. How much will be dedicated for airport terminal upgrades?
Answer. In fiscal year 2012, the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) plans to utilize approximately $53.5 million for
facility modifications at airports. As part of TSA's recapitalization
efforts, $40.2 million will be awarded for facility modifications and
$12.3 million will be dedicated to facility modifications associated
with new in-line checked baggage inspection systems. Additionally, $1.0
million will be used to upgrade existing checked baggage inspection
systems to comply with current TSA standards. These estimates may
change based on requirements determined as a result of ongoing field
evaluations and airport readiness.
Question. How much in Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF)
resources do you propose to use for explosives detection systems
equipment purchases in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. In fiscal year 2013, the Transportation Security
Administration plans to utilize approximately $183.9 million of the
ASCF to purchase explosives detection systems equipment. Installation
costs of about $37.8 million and facility modifications totaling about
$28.3 million will also be funded from the ASCF. These estimates may
change based on the requirements confirmed as a result of on-going
field evaluations and airport readiness.
Question. What impact will the use of ASCF resources for equipment
rather than airport modifications have on efforts to upgrade baggage
screening systems at airports in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013?
Answer. The large increases in funding for explosives detection
systems in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other recent
appropriations helped the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
complete nearly all airport facility modification projects for category
X and I airports. TSA continues to encourage airports to submit
applications for in-line baggage screening systems; however, an in-line
system or facility modification is not always an optimal solution for
an airport. Optimal solutions for airports include both stand-alone
systems and in-line systems which vary on an airport-by-airport basis;
therefore, not all airports require an in-line system. Additionally,
TSA has found that many smaller airports either do not have their share
of funding to support a facility modification or have not expressed
interest. As a result, there are few applications to fund facility
modifications and the overall requirement is small.
TSA plans to fund two facility modifications for which it received
applications using the fiscal year 2012 Aviation Security Capital Fund:
Bellingham International Airport and Greenville-Spartanburg
International Airport. TSA also plans to use a combination of mandatory
and discretionary funds to award five other transactional agreements
for facility modifications associated with in-line Checked Baggage
Inspection Systems (CBIS) during fiscal year 2012. All requested
facility modification projects that satisfied the criteria outlined in
TSA's Program Guidelines and Design Standards for CBIS were funded in
fiscal year 2012.
At this time, TSA has received a small number of airport
applications for consideration for funding the construction of an in-
line CBIS in fiscal year 2013. TSA will review applications received
and prioritize the requirements within the framework of its risk-based
prioritization process which considers requirement factors such as
equipment for growth and critical operational projects needed to remain
compliant with screening mandates.
Additionally, as part of TSA's efforts to recapitalize the aging
equipment in its fleet, some airports may be identified where the
replacement of existing baggage screening equipment with an in-line
system can be justified by project costs and operational efficiencies.
Question. What are you doing to ensure that adequate funding is
available for airport facility modifications necessary to accommodate
new explosives detection systems (EDS) equipment?
Answer. The large increases in funding for explosives detection
systems in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other recent
appropriations helped the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
complete nearly all airport facility modification projects and shift
its focus to the recapitalization of its aging fleet. TSA's plans
include funding for facility modifications required to replace existing
equipment with new explosives detection systems and explosives trace
detection units on a one-for-one basis. Additionally, as airport
screening areas are identified where the replacement of existing
equipment with optimal systems can be justified by project costs and
operational efficiencies, funds will be budgeted to support those
projects. TSA continues to encourage airports to apply for funds to
assist in the construction of in-line checked baggage inspection
systems. TSA will review applications and prioritize the requirements
within the program framework of its risk-based prioritization process,
which considers requirement factors such as equipment for growth and
critical operational projects needed to remain compliant with screening
mandates.
SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR AIRPORT EMPLOYEES
Question. Please describe screening and access control procedures
that are in place to prevent airport employees from bringing dangerous
items into sensitive areas like tarmacs or aircraft cargo holds.
What are the current screening protocols for airport employees?
Answer. Airport employees are subjected to multiple levels of
security screening measures, as follows:
--Background checks are completed on all airport employees, and the
same employees are continually vetted against various
databases. Also, many airports have installed biometric
scanning devices, which are used to screen airport employees
before they are allowed to enter the secured or sterile areas.
--In addition, multiple physical security layers are in place to
prevent airport employees from bringing dangerous items into
sensitive areas. Many of the layers are implemented in a random
and unpredictable manner. These include:
--TSA screens airport employees holding sterile area or secure
identification display area badges who access the sterile
area via the security screening checkpoint in the same
manner as enplaning passengers.
--Transportation security officers (TSOs) periodically conduct
Playbook activities, which consist of airport employee
screening at access points leading directly into the
secured (tarmac) or sterile (terminal) areas. This
screening may take place in or around the airport terminal
or at access points on the airport perimeter and may
include a physical search of an airport employee's bags.
--Transportation security inspectors (TSIs) conduct various
inspections and tests in and around tarmacs, baggage areas,
and aircraft. These tests include verifying that employees
have visible and accurate ID media. TSIs routinely conduct
inspections of aircraft operators, such as verifying that
aircraft cargo holds have been swept for prohibited items
before loading new baggage or freight. TSIs' presence acts
as a deterrent and represents an additional layer of
security.
Question. What are the respective roles of airport security
officials and the TSA?
Answer. Airport operators are required per 49 C.F.R. 1542.3(a) to
designate one or more airport security coordinators (ASC). ASCs
generally serve as the airport operator's primary point of contact for
security-related activity and communications with the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA).
Airport operators are responsible for submitting an Airport
Security Program (ASP) to the responsible TSA Federal Security Director
(FSD) for approval. The ASP's approval is contingent on the FSD or
designated TSA official determining the document complies with all
content requirements as specified in 49 C.F.R. part 1542. Procedures
for access and movement control within the secured areas and air
operations area (AOAs) are required elements of an ASP. At the
discretion of the airport operator, the ASP may also contain more
restrictive requirements for entry to the sterile, secured, or air
operations areas than those baseline requirements identified in 49
C.F.R. 1542. TSA officials regularly meet with airport officials and
aircraft operators to discuss and fine tune security procedures.
Airport operators with a complete ASP are responsible for providing
secure identification display area (SIDA) training classes, which are a
prerequisite to an employee's receipt of SIDA access media. The
training classes must include proper access procedures for entry to the
airport access-controlled areas to include the sterile area, SIDA, and
AOA, per 49 C.F.R. 1542.213. TSA screens airport employees holding
sterile area or SIDA who access the sterile area via the security
screening checkpoint in the same manner as enplaning passengers. TSA
also conducts Playbook security screening of individuals accessing
sensitive areas of the airport via doors and airport perimeter vehicle
gates located away from passenger security screening checkpoints.
Finally, airport law enforcement officers (LEOs) at several
airports have deployed sophisticated surveillance systems that alert
LEO dispatchers when a sensitive area's access door is opened. In those
cases where an access door is opened and a determination is made that
the individual was improperly bypassing security checkpoint screening
while carrying a bag or similar item, the airport police frequently
issues the individual a citation and suspends the individual's sterile
area/SIDA access media. The incident is also reported to the TSA for
further investigation.
Question. What resources do you dedicate to this effort?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has
allocated 1,654 full time equivalent (FTE) transportation security
officers (TSO) in fiscal year 2012 to the Playbook program.
From April 1, 2011-March 31, 2012, Playbook has screened 3,325,472
employees at 162 airports that conduct Playbook. The total number of
hours spent screening employees was 826,015 hours for the past 12
months.
A national cadre of 710 transportation security inspectors-aviation
(TSIs-aviation) monitors, tests, and inspects airport compliance of
established regulations, such as access control issues, Airport
Security Program implementation, and other security regulations.
Question. In 2008, an independent study on airport employee
screening concluded that random screening was just as effective as 100-
percent screening. 100 percent screening of airport employees was
deemed cost-prohibitive. Do you conduct random screening today at the
levels evaluated in the independent study?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) does
conduct screening of airport employees on a random and unpredictable
basis. Such screening activities are conducted in accordance with the
Playbook standard operating procedures (formerly Aviation Direct Access
Screening Program) and include screening of employees and/or their
property and vehicles at locations such as direct access points,
screening checkpoints, and vehicle SIDA gates. The number of plays
scheduled that include airport employee screening is left to local
Federal Security Director (FSD) discretion based on the individual
layout and operating conditions of the airport. Airports with more
direct access points and vehicle gates will require a greater number of
plays targeted at employee screening. While the 2008 Office of
Inspector General study did not include a benchmark percentage for
screening employees, FSDs are expected to make risk-based and
intelligence-driven decisions on the proper amount of plays scheduled
to ensure that employee screening is an effective deterrent.
SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Question. Based on the new requirements in the FAA re-authorization
bill, how will TSA compare costs of Federal screening versus private
contractor screening? Will imputed costs not accounted for in TSA's
budget be used as part of the comparison? If imputed costs are
included, is there a possibility that TSA could end up spending more
for airport security through an SPP contract than the amount it
estimated as necessary for Federal screening?
Answer. Currently, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
develops a range of cost estimates for Federal screening, which shows
multiple assumptions. TSA examines the impact to its budget and the
long-term imputed retirement costs using Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) guidance. It is possible that TSA could be compelled to request
additional funds from Congress or reduce Federal resources if a
Screening Partnership Program (SPP) contract were more expensive than
Federal screening.
Question. How many applications or notices of application has TSA
received since the FAA authorization bill was signed into law? How many
SPP applications has TSA received in the past 2 years?
Answer. Since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law No. 112-95) was signed
into law on February 14, 2012, TSA has received two new Screening
Partnership Program (SPP) applications from the Sacramento
International Airport and the Orlando-Sanford International Airport.
These applications follow the format prescribed by the recently enacted
FAA law.
TSA also received two requests for reconsideration, which were
submitted under section 830(d) Reconsideration of Applications Pending
as of January 1, 2011, from Orlando-Sanford and Glacier Park
International Airports.
In the last 2 years, TSA received applications from Missoula
International Airport and Springfield-Branson Regional Airport during
2010; the Orlando-Sanford International Airport (two applications),
Bert Mooney Airport, and West Yellowstone Airport during 2011; and the
Sacramento International Airport (old and new applications), the
Glacier Park Airport (request for reconsideration), and the Orlando-
Sanford Airport (request for reconsideration and new application)
during 2012.
Question. What areas does the Transportation Security
Administration investigate when an application is filed under the SPP?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) considers
many areas when determining whether to accept an application. The
primary areas evaluated are cost and security effectiveness, including
the impact to the overall TSA security network. Specifically and at a
minimum, TSA will look at indicators and measures that relate to an
airport's security performance, workforce structure/dynamic,
organizational interrelation, cost, and other location specific
factors.
Question. What is the size of TSA procurement staff processing
Screening Partnership Program (SPP) applications? Will the expected
increase in SPP applications and statutorily mandated deadline require
additions to TSA's procurement staff processing those applications?
Answer. Currently, there are six full-time SPP Office personnel and
four full-time Office of Acquisition personnel who process SPP
applications, with legal review provided by the Office of Chief
Counsel. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is evaluating
the TSA procurement staffing needs following the enactment of the
Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
(Public Law No. 112-95).
Question. TSA is now required by law to inform a contractor
precisely what was deficient in their application. Does this
requirement pose a security risk in that TSA will have to divulge SSI
or information vital to TSA's mission of aviation security?
Answer. Since the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law No. 112-95) was signed into law on
February 14, 2012, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
required to provide the airport operator, not a contractor, the
findings that served as the basis for the denial and the results of any
cost or security analysis conducted in considering the application. TSA
is evaluating the requirement to provide reports on denied
applications. Should TSA deny any application for security-related
reasons, it will provide the airport operator with appropriate
information in accordance with the FAA law, while ensuring the
protection of such information.
KNOWN CREWMEMBER PROGRAM
Question. TSA's Known Crewmember initiative allows pilots to forego
regular screening procedures if they show two forms of verifiable ID,
but flight attendants are not eligible to participate in the program.
Would you respond to the proposal to expand enrollment in the Known
Crewmember Program to members of the cabin crew?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
currently in discussions with industry to expand Known Crewmember (KCM)
to additional airports for uniformed pilot crew members. TSA has been
studying all aspects of adding flight attendants to KCM for several
months. Airlines have been notified that they must be prepared to make
the necessary system updates to include flight attendant crew members
if TSA decides to include them in KCM. TSA expects to make a final
determination on adding flight attendants by late summer of 2012.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
RISK-BASED PASSENGER SCREENING (TSA PRECHECK PROGRAM)
Question. All aviation passengers are pre-screened through TSA's
Secure Flight database. CBP's ``trusted traveler'' programs--Global
Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS--which provide eligibility for TSA PreCheck
(Pre3TM) not only require a criminal and law enforcement
background check but charge a fee for enrollment. What, if any,
additional background checks/fees are paid by ``frequent flyers''
qualifying for the TSA Pre3TM program which allow them to be
determined ``less risky'' travelers?
Answer. First and foremost, all travelers, including frequent
flyers and travelers enrolled in U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP) Global Entry program, are always first screened by Secure Flight
against the U.S. Government's consolidated terrorist watch list
maintained by the Federal Government. At present, certain frequent
flyers that opt into TSA Pre3TM, as well as Global Entry
members, may be eligible for expedited screening in a TSA
Pre3TM lane. To enroll in a CBP Trusted Traveler program,
and to renew every 5 years, travelers must provide extensive biographic
and biometric information to CBP and US-VISIT, submit to terrorism,
criminal, immigration, agriculture, customs violation, and other
checks. Applicants must also complete a CBP officer interview of travel
history. There is a $100 fee for enrollment in Global Entry, which is
valid for 5 years. Frequent flyer eligibility criteria and prescreening
analysis factors, including comparisons to the CBP Trusted Traveler
population, are sensitive security information and may be provided upon
request.
Question. Will vacation/occasional air travelers and families who
do not fly over 50,000 miles a year or meet a similar ``frequent
flyer'' threshold ever have the opportunity to take advantage of
expedited screening (i.e., TSA Pre3TM)? Or, will their only
route into the program be to qualify and pay to enroll in one of CBP's
``trusted traveler'' programs?
Answer. For non-frequent flyers, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's Trusted Traveler programs, such as Global Entry, are the
best method for becoming eligible for expedited screening in a TSA
Pre3TM lane.
Furthermore, although they may choose not to pursue expedited
screening, non-TSA Pre3TM passengers are benefiting from
modifications to the standard screening process.
As one example, effective in August 2011, TSA deployed nationwide
revised screening procedures for children 12 and under. This change
dramatically reduced, but did not fully eliminate, the number of pat-
downs for this population. As of mid-March, TSA is currently testing
similarly revised protocols for adults appearing at least 75 years old.
Assuming the pilot demonstrates nationwide viability, TSA will
adjust the screening procedures in the standard lane for this older
population. Each time TSA uses intelligence information and a risk-
based approach to modify standard screening lane procedures like this,
our officers are able to focus on the more likely adversaries, while
also improving the passenger experience through reduced divestiture and
touch rates.
Question. Mr. Pistole, you have publicly claimed that TSA's move
from a one-size-fits-all to a risk-based model in airline passenger
screening in recent years saves your agency money. Could you please
quantify those savings for us and where they are being achieved?
Answer. The overarching goal of risk-based security is to improve
security by enabling the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
to better focus resources on passengers who pose either an unknown risk
or high risk. As one example, in August 2011, TSA deployed revised
screening procedures for children 12 and under. These procedures are
informed by intelligence and risk analysis. This risk-based adjustment
dramatically reduced, but did not fully eliminate, the number of pat-
downs for this population. Time previously spent conducting such
actions is now available for officers to focus on more likely
adversaries. This is a re-focusing of resources, better aligning them
with risk, not an overall reduction in net resources required.
Question. What reduction in wait times is Pre3TM having
so far, both for enrollees and those travelers not eligible?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) records
all incidents when wait times of 20 minutes or more occur. A review of
that data reflects no increase for the airports where Pre3TM
has been implemented. Otherwise, TSA Pre3TM expedited
passenger screening has been operational in a proof of concept manner
within a small number of airports for only a limited amount of time. It
is too soon to draw system-wide conclusions about throughput, screening
time, and wait time. In the interim, customer satisfaction data from
both TSA (captured via airport kiosks and customer contact center
inquiries) and the airlines demonstrate high levels of satisfaction
with the expedited screening experience.
Question. What is your long-range vision for the Pre3TM
program?
Answer. By the end of calendar year 2012, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) is aiming to partner with a total of six
airlines to bring TSA Pre3TM to over 30 of the Nation's
busiest airports. Additional known traveler populations, such as
members of the armed services and growing enrollments within U.S.
Customs and Border Protection's Global Entry program, will be
incorporated in a manner that reduces risk, positively impacting
checkpoint efficiency, passenger experience, and workforce
satisfaction.
TSA Pre3TM is only one part of TSA's long-term vision to
deliver the most effective security in the most efficient manner. TSA
Pre3TM combines with other approaches such as real-time
threat assessment capabilities (including enhanced behavior detection
and security technology), and enhanced prescreening (via Secure Flight)
to provide benefits across the aviation security spectrum. In the long
term, TSA's intelligence-driven, risk-based security efforts will, on a
growing basis, enable TSA officers to focus security screening
processes and technology on higher risk travelers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
CANINE EXPLOSIVES DETECTION
Question. Director Pistole: As you point out in your budget
request, and I quote: ``Explosives detection canine teams are proven
and reliable resources in the detection of explosives and are a key
component in a balanced counter-sabotage program.'' My concern is that
despite these claims your budget proposes cutting over $2,000,000 from
the National Explosive Detection Canine Training Program. Canine
detection teams are non-invasive, visible, and cost-effective assets
that, unlike a body scanner, can be moved throughout our transportation
infrastructure in minutes. I understand the need for as tight a budget
as possible but I have serious concerns about this proposed cut, given
the importance of canines in the explosives detection enterprise.
Considering this, what level of funding is TSA dedicating to
research on the breeding, training, deployment and use of canine
detection teams in the transportation system?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's)
National Explosives Detection Canine Training Program is comprised of
operational entities and does not engage in research. Recognizing the
importance of research in the canine field, TSA has partnered with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science & Technology (S&T) to
determine possible behavioral, physiological, and genetic indicators of
successful explosives detection dogs.
The contractual commitments with DHS S&T are set out in the
following table:
CONTRACTS FUNDED BY S&T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Description 2011 2012 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Texas (started in fiscal year 2010 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000
with 4 option years)...........................
Dog Genetics, LLC (Started in fiscal year 2010 288,447 288,587 269,460 277,865
with 4 option years)...........................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 638,447 638,587 619,460 627,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. At your current levels, are category X and category 1
airports fully supported by passenger screening canines? What about our
smaller airports? If not, what is TSA's timetable for providing canine
coverage?
Answer. Current allocations only provide coverage at 30 airports, a
mix of category X and category 1 airports. There is no plan to expand
beyond the 120 passenger screening canines currently authorized.
__________
Questions Submitted to Thomas S. Winkowski
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
CBP WAIT TIMES AND STAFFING
Question. International arrivals at U.S. gateway airports are
projected to rise anywhere from 5 to 26 percent this summer compared to
last year. To cite just one example, Dallas-Fort Worth Airport projects
an increase of 10.5 percent during peak hours.
This increase in travel is a positive for the U.S. economy, but it
will quickly become a problem if there aren't enough CBP officers at
the airports to process visitors efficiently.
In light of these projections and the fact that a number of these
airports already appear to be understaffed, why is it that CBP is not
seeking funds in fiscal year 2013 for additional CBP officers? And does
your request take into account the forecasted growth in demand?
Over the past 10 years, CBP has put in place an automated passenger
processing system. Given these improvements, what is the estimate of
how much time it takes a CBP officer to process an average person
during the primary inspection?
How much faster can a U.S. citizen be processed if they are a
member of a known traveler program such as Global Entry?
The U.S. Travel Association has suggested a target processing time
of 30 minutes for international visitors, but reported delays in some
instances up to 3 hours.
Answer. CBP has developed a workload staffing model that serves as
the primary decision-support tool for identifying staffing requirements
at air, land, and sea ports. A congressional report that outlines the
model is currently being drafted and cleared within DHS. Through the
workload staffing model, CBP is able to identify that additional
officers would help maintain and improve processing times. While the
fiscal year 2013 President's budget does not request additional
officers, it does continue to support programs and technology
investments that give CBP officers the data and tools to process people
and cargo faster. Additionally, the 2013 budget includes proposed
legislation that would allow CBP to enter into agreements with
corporations, non-Federal Government agencies and interested parties
for the reimbursement of inspection services that are not currently
offered by CBP, such as service for additional flights and new
airports. Current statutory limitations on CBP's authority to receive
outside funding, except in narrowly defined instances, have prevented
CBP from receiving reimbursement from private sector and international,
State, and local partners. This has resulted in the denial of the
requested services or the provision of services without reimbursement.
The average processing times during a primary inspection are as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger type Air \1\ Land \1\ Sea \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Citizens (USCs)................................... 1.0 .............. 0.5
Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs)............................... 2.0 .............. 1.0
Non-Resident Aliens............................................. 3.0 .............. 3.0
Canadian Nationals (pre-clearance).............................. 1.2--1.9 .............. ..............
Passenger Vehicles.............................................. .............. 0.93 ..............
Passenger Vehicles at Dedicated Commuter Lanes.................. .............. 0.25 ..............
Bus Passengers.................................................. .............. 1.00 ..............
Pedestrians..................................................... .............. 0.25 ..............
Train Passengers................................................ .............. 0.25 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Minutes used as unit of measure.
U.S. citizens can clear the Global Entry kiosk in an average of 40
seconds, 20 seconds faster than a regular primary inspection. Global
Entry travelers also experience a notable time savings by not having to
wait in line to be processed by an officer. Global Entry travelers
rarely encounter a line for the kiosks.
Question. Does CBP have a target processing time and, if so, what
is it?
Answer. CBP strives to process arriving travelers as quickly as
possible while maintaining the highest standards of security. CBP
closely monitors wait times and works with field managers to implement
facilitative passenger programs and innovative strategies to mitigate
wait times. Current statistics indicate that 88 percent of
international air travelers wait less than 45 minutes for processing.
In fact, 73 percent of international air travelers wait less than 30
minutes for CBP processing.
CBP is working with airport authorities to document the entire
processing time of passengers, including time entering the facility,
time spent waiting for baggage and other elements of the passenger
experience.
Question. How often does the agency meet that target?
Answer. CBP is working with airport authorities to document the
entire processing time of passengers, including time entering the
facility, time spent waiting for baggage and other elements of the
passenger experience.
Current statistics indicate that 88 percent of international air
travelers wait less than 45 minutes for processing. In fact, 73 percent
of international air travelers wait less than 30 minutes for CBP
processing.
To enhance air passenger facilitation over the near and mid terms,
CBP is implementing an aggressive, multi-pronged mitigation strategy.
This strategy is comprised of three key elements:
--effective use of existing resources;
--partnerships with carriers and airport authorities on facilitation
measures; and
--enhanced risk segmentation through increases in trusted traveler
membership.
Question. Please explain the staffing workload alignment tool
(SWAT) and whether you believe it can improve performance in this area.
Answer. The staffing workload alignment tool (SWAT) is a scheduling
tool that has the potential to improve staffing decisions and,
therefore, assist in the speedy inspection of international arrivals.
CBP developed SWAT at JFK International Airport to handle the unique
staffing challenges at JFK--five independent international arrival
facilities with each fluctuating daily peaks--to optimally deploy
personnel resources. An enhancement of the SWAT is the airport wait
time console real time flightboard, which utilizes live data feeds from
multiple sources to create a view of passenger arrival data, thereby
allowing port personnel to make optimal staff scheduling decisions. By
taking into account factors such as aircraft arrival time, facility
constraints, passenger volume and passenger admission classifications,
port managers are able to make real-time adjustments to staffing in
order to minimize passenger wait times. The real time flightboard is
currently being used at JFK International Airport and has proven
effective. It is now being tested at Los Angeles International Airport
to determine its effectiveness at airports other than JFK International
Airport.
TARGETING HIGH-RISK PASSENGERS
Question. In the fiscal year 2012 DHS Appropriations Act, Congress
provided additional funding for operations at the National Targeting
Center of nearly $5 million, as well as an additional $10 million in
funding for CBP's Automated Targeting Systems. Can you tell us how
those funds are being used and how these enhancements will help
facilitate international travel and improve passenger processing at air
ports of entry?
Answer. The additional $5.0 million in funding will support
requisite staffing levels at the National Targeting Center-Passenger
(NTC-P) by funding the salaries for staff that have been reassigned to
the NTC-P from field locations.
CBP will use the additional $10 million in funding for the
Automated Targeting System (ATS) to improve passenger and cargo
targeting efforts, by augmenting existing entity resolution; developing
visualization tools; applying predictive modeling and machine learning
capabilities; and continuing work on its visa overstay and document
validation initiatives. Notably, recognizing the public's sensitivity
to advanced screening procedures, all of the aforementioned
enhancements will be made with consideration given to the privacy,
civil rights, and civil liberties of passengers. By investing in the
improved exploitation of available law enforcement and intelligence
information, CBP will be able to refine its targeting efforts on the
most high-risk travelers, conveyances, and cargo shipments, thus
allowing greater facilitation of legitimate trade and travel.
CBP will employ a three-phased approach to improve entity
resolution: name matching, data augmentation, and the use of a variety
of name matching routines, algorithms and models to continually assess
the utility of existing and new routines to result in the most
efficient and accurate encounter dispositions.
Data visualization is an integral component of data analysis or the
process of looking at and summarizing data with the intent to extract
useful information and develop conclusion or inferences and recognize
patterns or anomalies. Development of visualization capabilities will
allow CBP to communicate relevant information to analysts clearly and
effectively through graphical means.
Data-driven modeling is an important complement to rules-based
targeting since models can identify anomalies and patterns that would
escape traditional methodologies, as well as highlight subtle features
and combinations of features that are predictive of future behavior.
CBP will develop and operationalize analytical and predictive models to
detect patterns in data by taking advantage of all available data in a
parallel manner. Additionally, CBP will employ machine learning models
that incorporate new findings and evolve and learn in real time.
CBP continues to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) and US-VISIT to automate identification of visa overstays in the
United States. An automated system will allow users to perform real
time checks of classified databases, implement rules in a timely and
cost-efficient manner, and classify and prioritize overstays by risk.
Document validation will provide CBP the capability to verify the
accuracy of the travel document information provided by air carriers
for each traveler arriving in and departing from the United States
prior to boarding.
These efforts will facilitate legitimate travel in ways that may
not be readily apparent at the ports of entry. Improved entity
resolution will reduce the number of secondary referrals since fewer
false positives will be promoted to the hot lists because of better
automated vetting. Link analysis and visualization tools will provide a
graphical representation of relationships among travelers, their
documents and other travel information. This type of information
representation (as opposed to reading and integrating information from
documents) will allow analysts to make faster and more informed
decisions.
Question. How does your fiscal year 2013 budget request enhance
CBP's targeting operations and capabilities? Do you think that these
programs need additional resources, particularly for the critical
operations and maintenance?
Answer. CBP is requesting additional funding of $69.7 million to
address resource requirements for Automated Targeting System (ATS)
maintenance and enhancements, in addition to supporting and augmenting
targeting staff within the Office of Intelligence and Investigative
Liaison (OIIL). The OIIL targeting staff identifies, develops,
implements, and refines various methods of targeting and responding to
security-related operational and real-time events involving people,
goods, and conveyances entering and exiting the United States.
The additional funding of $31 million for ATS operations and
maintenance and the enhancement of $38.7 million for targeting system
and staff will sufficiently fund CBP's targeting requirements in fiscal
year 2013, and will provide CBP with the ability to update targeting
rules in real time--allowing CBP to attain a true 24/7 targeting
capability to better support CBP front-line personnel.
MODEL PORTS OF ENTRY
Question. Given its success at the 20 airports in which it
operates, the Model Ports of Entry program seems to be something that
should be expanded to all international airports.
What impediments are there to expanding the Model Ports program? If
it is an issue of funding, has consideration been given to increasing
the ESTA fee or to modifying how the $14 fee is divided?
Answer. Congress approved a one-time appropriation of $40 million
in fiscal year 2008 for CBP to establish the Model Ports program. The
$40 million was used to deploy required equipment, monitors, signage,
CBP officers and CBP officer overtime to the largest 20 international
airports by volume of visitors. No additional funds for expansion are
available at this time.
The current ESTA fee is comprised of two separate and distinct
amounts ($10 and $4), both of which are authorized under The Travel
Promotion Act of 2009. The act established the Corporation for Travel
Promotion (now Brand USA) to communicate U.S. entry policies and
otherwise promote leisure, business and scholarly travel to the United
States. Brand USA is funded from the collection of a $10 fee assessed
on travelers from visa waiver countries in the completion of a form
under the DHS requirement for the Electronic System of Travel
Authorization (ESTA). The $10 fee has a sunset date which prohibits its
collection for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2015. Under
current law, this fee cannot be used for the Model Ports program.
Additionally, the $10 fee has a current sunset date which prohibits its
collection for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2015. A fee
to recover the costs of operating ESTA was authorized by the act and
set by regulation in order to recover the ``full costs of providing and
administering'' ESTA. These fees may only be used to pay the costs to
administer ESTA.
Question. I understand that every Model Port has a Passenger
Service Manager who responds to traveler complaints or concerns,
oversees issues related to travelers requiring special processing,
observes the overall traveler processing procedure, and generally
serves as a liaison between the traveler, the airport, and CBP. This
seems like something which should be in place at every international
airport.
How much does it cost annually at the 20 airports and do the
airports share in the cost?
Answer. The main cost is for the Passenger Service Manager (PSM)
who is a supervisory CBP officer who is allocated from the port's
managerial staff. Since the PSM program leverages existing personnel,
the incremental costs are limited to training and reporting. The annual
incremental cost incurred by CBP for the 40 PSMs nationwide is
$3,000,000. The airports do not share in the cost of the CBP PSM
program.
Question. Are there plans to expand these positions to other
airports? If not, why not?
Answer. CBP has already expanded the PSM program to two land border
ports of entry--Blaine, Washington, and Brownsville, Texas. We will
assess opportunities to further expand the program on a case-by-case
basis.
Question. How much does installing and maintaining improved
signage, including welcome/informational videos, cost per airport?
Answer. The cost of improved signage varies. CBP, through its
printing and graphics office, prints Model Ports signage, which
includes way finder signs and queue identification signs (U.S. citizen,
crew, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, etc). The cost is
approximately $1,615 per airport.
The cost of welcome/informational videos varies as well. The cost
of video production can be between $30,000 and $75,000 depending on the
type of service required (new video production, video editing and
updating, etc).
CBP CUSTOMER SERVICE
Question. The subcommittee understands the CBP officers' primary
duty is security and ensuring that the individual before them is
eligible for entry into the country. However, that officer is also the
first impression the traveler has of America and Americans.
I understand that CBP has a process in place to collect feedback
from travelers on their entry experience through the use of comment
cards at each airport.
How does CBP currently use the travelers' comments to improve
customer service?
Answer. CBP conducted a Traveler Satisfaction Survey at the 20
Model Ports between October 12 and November 18, 2011.
The Traveler Satisfaction Survey was conducted to obtain feedback
from the traveling public on CBP's Model Ports program and traveler
experience. The survey was designed to evaluate CBP's performance in
achieving the goals of the Model Ports program:
--Ensure that passengers entering the United States are welcomed by
CBP officers who treat them with respect and understanding;
--Provide the right information to help travelers, at the right time
and in a hospitable manner;
--Create a calm and pleasant CBP area; and
--Streamline the CBP process.
The survey findings indicate that:
--Nearly 90 percent of travelers responded that the entry process
made them feel welcomed;
--More than 90 percent of travelers responded that CBP officers were
welcoming, professional, helpful, efficient, and communicative;
--More than 80 percent of travelers responded that the inspection
area was welcoming; and
--Nearly 90 percent of travelers surveyed felt that the entry process
time was either short or reasonable with three-quarters of
travelers getting through in 15 minutes or less at the model
airports.
CBP is using this information to make further improvements to the
passenger process and will conduct a follow-up traveler satisfaction
survey as part of the continuing effort in evaluating valuable traveler
feedback and further improving the traveler experience.
Question. I understand the travel industry recommended that CBP
officers begin by greeting all arriving visitors with a simple
``Welcome to the United States.'' Is that something you could adopt?
Are CBP officers trained to begin the inspection process with any
particular greeting?
Answer. CBP conducts professionalism musters at the local ports on
a recurring basis. Creating a welcoming environment and experience is a
theme that is woven into all CBP professionalism musters. CBP officers
are trained to greet the traveling public with the appropriate greeting
for the time of day and conclude the traveler transaction with
``Welcome to the United States'' or ``Welcome home'' as appropriate.
VISA WAIVER PROGRAM
Question. The President recently issued an Executive order which
calls for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to ``increase
efforts to expand the Visa Waiver Program and travel by nationals of
Visa Waiver Program participants.'' Currently 36 countries participate
in the program, all of whom are required to share counterterrorism and
law enforcement information with the United States and demonstrate low
visa refusal and overstay rates, in exchange for visa-free travel by
their citizens to America.
Can you discuss what efforts you expect to undertake to implement
this mandate and how can Congress help with your efforts?
Answer. DHS is pursuing four courses of action to support expanding
the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and travel by nationals of VWP countries:
--Given the security and economic benefits of the VWP to the United
States and the program's important role in strengthening
international partnerships, DHS has long supported a carefully
managed expansion of the VWP to select countries that meet the
statutory requirements and are willing and able to enter into a
close security relationship with the United States. DHS, in
concert with its interagency partners, stands ready to work
with Congress to support legislative efforts that would allow
DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to designate
additional countries that meet the statutory and policy
requirements for participation in the VWP;
--DHS is reviewing Taiwan for designation in the VWP and has begun
its statutorily required assessment of Taiwan. On the basis of
this assessment, the Secretary of Homeland Security will make a
determination on Taiwan's VWP candidacy;
--Under current VWP requirements as set out in INA section 217,
relatively few additional countries qualify at present
designation under the program. DHS will work with foreign
governments to fulfill the legal requirements for VWP
designation in advance of full eligibility; and
--DHS will support efforts led by the Departments of Commerce and
Interior to craft a National Travel & Tourism Strategy to
promote domestic and international travel opportunities
throughout the United States.
GLOBAL ENTRY
Question. I understand that CBP's Global Entry program has over 1
million individuals enrolled in the program, and President Obama
recently announced the program will expand to four additional airports
this year.
Can you tell us how this automated program will help reduce wait
times for travelers?
Answer. There are over a million trusted travelers with Global
Entry benefits (including NEXUS and SENTRI members who are eligible for
Global Entry benefits), with over 300,000 individuals directly enrolled
in Global Entry. Program members do not have to wait in the general
queues to be processed by a CBP primary officer, but instead proceed
directly to self-service, automated kiosks. Use of kiosks reduces a
trusted travelers wait time by over 70 percent (an estimated 7 minutes
on average). In addition, having fewer people in the queues to be
processed by CBP primary officers decreases wait times for the general
traveling public.
Question. What are the plans to expand Global Entry to other
airports this fiscal year?
Answer. Global Entry is currently available at 24 U.S. airports as
well as six preclearance sites in Canada. CBP intends to expand the
program to additional sites this year based on volume and frequent
traveler data.
Question. Are funds requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget to
expand Global Entry to other airports? If so, how much? What is the
estimated per airport cost to expand Global Entry?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget does not request additional
funds to expand Global Entry to other airports; however, base
appropriated dollars will be applied to planned future expansions.
Global Entry kiosks cost approximately $24,000 each. On average, five
kiosks are needed to expand the program to a new site. In addition,
funding is needed for cabling, installation, and workstations and
equipment for enrollment centers. Roughly, it would cost between
$200,000-$250,000 to get a new airport established with Global Entry.
This figure does not include the cost of training the officers. The
ongoing operations and maintenance of Global Entry is funded through
fees that were set to cover the costs of the program.
Question. Currently, individuals wishing to enroll in Global Entry
must travel to a participating airport. For instance, the nearest
participating airport to residents of New Orleans is Houston--a 6-hour
drive. What consideration is being given to expanding enrollment
centers in locations other than participating airports? What are the
costs and requirements--in terms of personnel, technology, etc--
associated with establishing an enrollment location?
Answer. CBP currently is analyzing the possibility of alternative
enrollment centers.
As part of this analysis, CBP is evaluating the costs and
requirements associated with this option and others.
Question. As interest and demand for Global Entry increase, is
consideration being given to establishing enrollment locations at non-
Global Entry airports--perhaps as pilot programs in which enrollment
opportunities would be made available at specific times (in order to
limit the time a CBP officer would be taken away from their other
duties at a given location)? Please explain the costs and benefits of
such a pilot.
Answer. CBP is considering establishing enrollment locations at
non-Global Entry airports. This requires the acquisition of additional
equipment which is necessary to conduct the enrollments. CBP estimates
that equipment costs and set up of offsite enrollment locations would
average between $250,000-$300,000 per location. Having enrollment
centers in non-Global Entry airports would benefit the public, as they
would have more enrollment location options.
Question. How does CBP's Global Entry program help TSA with its
registered traveler program known as Pre3TM? Can you
leverage CBP's existing technology infrastructure to make TSA's program
a success?
Answer. U.S. citizens participating in CBP's trusted traveler
programs (Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI) are automatically qualified
to participate in TSA Pre3TM.
Membership in one of CBP's programs is the only way someone can
participate in the TSA program currently without being invited by an
airline or qualified through a TSA pilot. The Global Online Enrollment
System (GOES) is the system utilized to apply for trusted traveler
programs. CBP and TSA are reviewing technology infrastructure to
identify options for direct participation in TSA Pre3TM
through enrollment in GOES, while leveraging the established trusted
traveler vetting process to ensure the integrity of the program.
Collaboration between CBP and TSA serves as a force multiplier,
utilizing established technology and procedures within the CBP process
as the backbone to support and increase participation in the programs.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
CROSS-BORDER PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE
Question. Mr. Winkowski, Vermont used to have cross-border Amtrak
service along the old Montrealer line between Washington, DC, and
Montreal, Quebec. Rail access to Montreal went away in 1995, though,
when St. Albans, Vermont, became the terminus for Amtrak's new
Vermonter train.
The State of Vermont is very interested in reestablishing Amtrak
service to Montreal--and our Governor, Peter Shumlin, has made it one
of his administration's top priorities.
One of the major obstacles to cross-border travel today is CBP
passenger screening. While I am pleased to see cross-border train
travel included in the recently announced bilateral Beyond the Border
initiative with Canada, over the past few years DHS has prepared a
number of reports on this topic. Unfortunately, instead of
contemplating how it could happen, these reports have only recycled the
same tired and worn line that ``it can't be done.''
With other trains already operating across the Northern border in
New York State and Washington State, I know it can be done. Vermont and
Quebec are working closely together to orchestrate the creation of a
preclearance facility in Montreal that would benefit both the existing
Adirondack service in New York and an expanded Vermonter service to
Montreal.
We need help and support from CBP to make it happen.
Will you continue working with me, the State of Vermont, Amtrak,
the State Department, the Quebec Government, and the Canadian National
Government to construct a preclearance facility in Montreal for
passenger trains?
Answer. I am pleased to report that the Beyond the Border
initiative is providing the pathway for CBP to overcome the primary
obstacle inhibiting full preclearance processing of passengers trains
in Canada, by providing a forum for discussion of an expanded
preclearance agreement to allow for rail. DHS is actively discussing
the requirements of such an agreement with its counterpart, Public
Safety Canada. Per the Beyond the Border Action Plan, we anticipate
having a negotiated agreement by the end of this calendar year. CBP has
also already provided preliminary concurrence to Amtrak on a dual-use
CBP/Canada Border Services Agency facility concept design at the
Montreal Rail Station as a step forward to support potential future
discussions on preclearance expansion for rail, and Amtrak has
indicated a business decision to eliminate the intermediate stops on
any scheduled routes that would be precleared into the United States.
While CBP is committed to continuing its review of the feasibility
of expanding passenger rail preclearance in Canada, certain conditions
will need to be in place before expansion can take place, including a
signed bilateral agreement between the two nations, and the existence
of sufficient infrastructure, funding, resources, and staffing.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
CARGO SCREENING
Question. With respect to TSA compliance with the 9/11 Act
requirement to screen all air cargo bound for the United States, we
have monitored what CBP has done using its automated targeting system
(ATS) to identify high-risk cargo being shipped on consignment aircraft
and have been impressed with the results of that program. It was our
understanding that TSA was working with CBP on using this technology to
enhance passenger safety on international flights until such time as
other contemplated screening technologies fully compliant with 9/11 Act
requirements have been developed. Can you tell me the status of these
efforts and if there are practical alternatives to using the ATS to
target air cargo before departure? Finally, what resources are required
to achieve the goal of screening air cargo on international passenger
flights?
Answer. TSA and CBP have been working together since 2009 to
explore the use of CBP's automated targeting system (ATS) to target
high-risk cargo for screening. Currently, ATS is being leveraged
through the joint TSA/CBP Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot to
explore the feasibility of collecting pre-departure information on
international inbound air cargo and assessing its risk. Participants
engaged in the pilot include express, all-cargo, passenger, and heavy
all-cargo aircraft operators. The ACAS pilot procedures will align with
TSA's risk-based strategy to achieve 100 percent screening of
international inbound air cargo transported on passenger aircraft.
In February 2012, TSA released proposed amendments to TSA carrier
standard security programs for industry comment. In addition to
incorporating the ``Trusted Shipper'' concept and requiring 100 percent
screening of international inbound air cargo transported on passenger
aircraft by December 2012, the proposed amendments provide carriers
incentives to submit data through ACAS as soon as possible..
The ACAS pilot provides TSA and CBP the ability to assess the
resources that will be required for full program implementation. Costs
will include both the modifications to the ATS, as well as personnel
resources to man CBP's National Targeting Center--Cargo. Implementation
of 100 percent screening of international inbound cargo transported on
passenger aircraft also requires additional resources for overseas
inspection, as well as implementation of TSA's National Cargo Security
Program (NCSP) recognition process. The NCSP process establishes a
mechanism for bilateral discussions with countries that employ similar
or commensurate security measures within the air cargo and mail supply
chains in order to recognize those requirements that meet or exceed TSA
security requirements.
GLOBAL ENTRY PROGRAM
Question. What is the long-range vision for Global Entry? Will CBP
see the most significant impact when 15 percent of the international
traveling public is enrolled, when 20 percent is enrolled, or some
higher percent is enrolled?
Answer. Over the long term, CBP will expand Global Entry to
additional airports and to additional nationalities. As more people
enroll in the program and usage increases, CBP will be able to redeploy
a higher percentage of resources to process those travelers not
enrolled in the program. CBP is seeing, on average, 3-5 percent of the
eligible traffic (international crossings) using Global Entry kiosks at
the locations where the program is operational. We are currently
initiating modeling efforts to assess the impact on service levels. As
each airport has different physical infrastructure and different air
passenger traffic composition, the modeling will necessarily be port
specific.
Question. Would CBP like to see all primary processing eventually
handled in an automated fashion with minimal officers involved--and
instead have officers working on targeting and staffing secondary
inspection?
Answer. CBP is exploring ways to better automate the existing
primary process and to fully maximize the law enforcement capabilities
of the CBP officer cadre. Toward that end, CBP is looking at potential
technologies and changes to its business processes to allow primary
officers to focus on conducting effective interviews and enforcement
inspections. CBP will strive to accomplish the appropriate balance
between automation, targeting, and officer interaction with each
traveler.
Question. Today, what is the average processing time for a traveler
being inspected by an officer? What is the average processing time for
a traveler using a Global Entry kiosk?
Answer. The average processing time by an officer during primary
inspection at airports is 1 minute for U.S. citizens, 2 minutes for
lawful permanent residents, 3 minutes for nonresident aliens and 1.2 to
1.9 minutes for Canadian nationals at preclearance locations. On
average, Global Entry members (U.S. citizens) can process through the
kiosks in 40 seconds.
TARGETING IN THE PASSENGER ENVIRONMENT
Question. Congress provided additional funds to CBP in fiscal year
2012 for the automated targeting systems and overall for targeting
activities. How are those funds being spent? What improvements are
being made to the targeting systems?
Answer. Congress provided additional funding in fiscal year 2012 of
$5.0 million for the National Targeting Center-Passenger and $10
million for the automated targeting system (ATS).
The additional $5.0 million in funding will support requisite
staffing levels at the National Targeting Center-Passenger (NTC-P) by
funding the salaries for staff that have been reassigned to the NTC-P
from field locations.
CBP will use the additional $10 million in funding for ATS to
improve passenger and cargo targeting efforts, by augmenting existing
entity resolution; developing visualization tools; applying predictive
modeling and machine learning capabilities; and continuing work on its
visa overstay and document validation initiatives. Notably, recognizing
the public's sensitivity response to advanced screening procedures, all
of the aforementioned enhancements will be made with consideration to
the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of passengers.
Additionally, through investments to improve access to available law
enforcement and intelligence information, CBP will be able to refine
its targeting efforts on the most high-risk travelers, conveyances, and
cargo shipments, thus allowing greater facilitation of legitimate trade
and travel.
CBP will employ a three-phased approach to improve entity
resolution: name matching, data augmentation, and the use of a variety
of name-matching routines, algorithms, and models to continually assess
the utility of existing and new routines to result in the most
efficient and accurate encounter dispositions.
Data visualization is an integral component of data analysis or the
process of looking at and summarizing data with the intent to extract
useful information and develop a conclusion or inferences and recognize
patterns or anomalies. Development of visualization capabilities will
allow CBP to communicate relevant information to analysts clearly and
effectively through graphical means.
Data-driven modeling is an important complement to rules-based
targeting since models can identify anomalies and patterns that would
escape traditional methodologies, as well as highlight subtle features
and combinations of features that are predictive of future behavior.
CBP will develop and operationalize analytical and predictive models to
detect patterns in data by taking advantage of all available data in a
parallel manner. Additionally, CBP will employ machine learning models
that incorporate new findings and evolve and learn in real time.
CBP continues working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) and US-VISIT to automate identification of visa overstays in the
United States. An automated system will allow users to perform real
time checks of classified databases, implement rules in a timely and
cost-efficient manner, and classify and prioritize overstays by risk.
Document validation will provide CBP the capability to verify the
accuracy of the travel document information provided by air carriers
for each traveler arriving in and departing from the United States
prior to boarding.
I-94 FORM AUTOMATION
Question. What is the current status of automating the I-94
nonimmigrant admissions form that non-visa waiver country travelers
fill out on the airplane?
Answer. Currently, we are considering and actively discussing the
automation of the I-94 nonimmigrant admissions form that non-visa
waiver country travelers complete on the airplane.
Question. What kind of processing efficiencies do you foresee once
the I-94 form is fully automated?
Answer. CBP expects it may see a 20- to 30-second reduction in
processing time for each passenger requiring an I-94 if the I-94 form
is fully automated. The reduced processing times may result in
approximately $19.1 million a year in officer efficiency savings.
Potentially, there could be a savings of up to $15 million a year in
contract costs if the need for data entry and storage of the paper form
I-94 are eliminated.
Question. Are there any plans to automate the customs declaration
form as well?
Answer. CBP is currently exploring the possibility of automating
the customs declaration form.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION
Question. The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 created a $10 fee to be
paid by non-U.S. travelers staying in the United States less than 90
days. The proceeds of this fee are assisting in paying for an
advertising campaign to promote international travel to the United
States. However, CBP levied an additional $4 fee on top of the $10 fee
for processing. How does CBP justify such a huge processing charge
equal to 40 percent of this fee in this instance? CBP already has in
place a significant apparatus to collect from the airlines a myriad of
other fees imposed on international passengers arriving in the United
States. Why did the addition of this $10 fee necessitate such high
processing costs?
Answer. While both fees are authorized under The Travel Promotion
Act of 2009, the statute treats the $10 and $4 fees separately. The act
established the Corporation for Travel Promotion (now Brand USA) to
communicate U.S. entry policies and otherwise promote leisure,
business, and scholarly travel to the United States. Brand USA is
funded from the collection of a $10 fee assessed on travelers from visa
waiver countries. The $10 fee has a sunset date which prohibits its
collection for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2015. The act
also required the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a fee in
``an amount that will at least ensure recovery of the full costs of
providing and administering'' ESTA. CBP determined that fee to be $4 by
completing a fee analysis study of the costs involved in administering
the ESTA program. ESTA is a fee-funded program and CBP does not receive
appropriated dollars for its operation.
Question. What have been the results of the ad campaign paid for by
this fee to promote international travel to the United States?
Answer. Brand USA launched its advertising and marketing campaign
at the International Pow-Wow Convention on April 23, in Los Angeles,
California. As Brand USA is a public-private partnership, CBP has no
jurisdiction over the advertising campaign.
__________
Questions Submitted to Douglas A. Smith
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Much of the focus of this hearing has been on how the
Federal Government can make air travel more efficient and convenient
without sacrificing security. However, cooperation with private sector
stakeholders is critical for this to happen. What responsibilities do
private sector stakeholders have to grow these programs and make them
successful?
Answer. Private sector stakeholders are crucial participants in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) effort to better facilitate
secure travel and tourism, and there are a number of formal and
informal channels through which they can lend their expertise and
engage on all travel and tourism issues.
At the national level, industry representatives are welcome to
apply for membership on the Secretary of Commerce's U.S. Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board (TTAB) and the President appoints members from
industry to the President's Export Council (PEC). These boards
represent their industry by advising at the Cabinet and Presidential
levels, respectively, on emerging travel and tourism issues. Their
participation assists the Federal Government in fostering a thriving
travel and tourism industry.
In addition, industry representatives can play a role by working
with DHS at the regional and local levels. Local level partnerships are
important because the challenges that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
face at each port are unique. Facility layout and size differ greatly
from airport to airport; the airlines, cities, and travelers they serve
vary; and airports are managed differently. Industry representatives
should feel empowered to connect with CBP and TSA at their airport to
better understand these issues and see how they can collaborate. For
example, businesses are currently providing expertise in design, queue
management, customer service, and other areas at airports in Orlando,
Florida, and Las Vegas, Nevada. The DHS Private Sector Office is able
to help businesses establish a relationship with their local airport.
Industry representatives can also play a role in many other
important ways.
The air travel experience is broader than just customs or
screening. Ground transportation to the airport, airport parking,
rental cars, airline reservations, hotel reservations, and many other
facets impact the traveler's experience. Businesses can recognize how
their operations fit into the entire journey of each traveler and
engage with the Government on these issues. For example, CBP and TSA do
not own or even control the appearance of the port facilities, the
inflow of arriving planes and passengers, or the delivery time of
checked airline baggage. Dialogue and collaboration among all parties,
especially airport authorities and airlines, is crucial to successful
partnerships. We recognize that the entire travel experience has many
layers and interconnecting parts. DHS is committed to using that
understanding to facilitate secure travel and tourism.
Additionally, industry has the customer base and outreach
capabilities to effectively market initiatives and programs such as
Global Entry and TSA Pre3TM. Companies can help by enrolling
their frequent flyer employees in these programs and informing their
customers. CBP saw the largest increases in applications following
promotions by credit cards, airlines, hotels, and other companies to
frequently traveling customers. The DHS Private Sector Office, CBP, and
TSA are ready to assist companies or organizations if they wish to
promote these programs to their employees and customers.
DHS is committed to continuing dialogue and collaboration with all
stakeholders to improve the travel experience without sacrificing
security. The Department is grateful for the willingness of industry to
learn more about the challenges and opportunities we face as well as
their efforts to help strengthen and improve our initiatives and
programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
COLLABORATION WITH AIRPORT AUTHORITIES
Question. Can you explain what funds were invested in the
collaborative effort between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and the Greater Orlando Airport Authority by DHS and how much by the
Orlando Airport? What specific improvements were made that allowed an
additional flight to be accommodated by Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and the airport?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not
contribute any funds to the collaborative effort. The U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) Assistant Port Director at Orlando
International Airport (MCO) worked with the Greater Orlando Aviation
Authority, which operates MCO, to establish a collaborative effort of
regular meetings and workgroups with local travel and tourism industry
stakeholders. The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority invested over
$500,000 in port facilities in the beginning of 2011. In addition, the
local public and private sector contributed $100,000 toward facility
enhancements and $11,250 in in-kind services to the port including
suggested way-finding signage and decor. The CBP Assistant Port
Director and the Passenger Service Manager joined the community
workgroup to provide input on the developments.
The working group was able to accommodate the additional flight
from Brazil to Orlando through cooperation among the community, local
congressional delegation, and DHS to quickly address staffing
challenges and adjust CBP operations. Local industry stakeholders
believe the flight will have a significant economic impact on the
region.
Question. Are there other collaborations currently under
consideration with other airport authorities?
Answer. Yes. In the coming months, the Private Sector Office (PSO),
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) are planning to organize the next meetings in
upcoming airports launching TSA PreCheck (Pre3TM).
DHS continues to work with airline associations and airports to
deploy TSA Pre3TM as they become ready to implement. By the
end of calendar year 2012 we plan to add 30 airports, for a total of 35
TSA Pre3TM airports throughout the country. Orlando
International Airport, the first to be highlighted by PSO, and industry
partners are also collaborating to share their success with the wider
travel and tourism industry. At the U.S. Travel Association Board
Meeting on March 23, 2012, the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority and
Universal Studios gave a presentation to approximately 100 industry
leaders on their efforts to improve the atmosphere at the port and how
other airports and businesses can start their own local initiative.
CBP launched the Model Ports initiative in 2006 to present a warmer
welcome to travelers and provide a more intuitive process by improving
signage, communications, and using technology to facilitate entry. The
PSO effort at the Model Ports, which now comprise 20 airports, connects
and informs local air port of entry stakeholders--including DHS, the
airport authority, other private-sector representatives, and community
partners--of the role they can play in creating a more welcoming
atmosphere. These efforts often leverage and highlight the strong
collaboration already built by local entities. DHS looks forward to
continuing to foster this kind of local-level collaboration with
industry and other stakeholders of the ports of entry.
NATIONAL TRAVEL AND TOURISM STRATEGY
Question. Since the President announced the creation of the Task
Force on Travel and Competitiveness and the President's Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board, what is the status of developing the National
Travel and Tourism Strategy?
Answer. The Department of Commerce and the Department of the
Interior continue to lead DHS and other interagency partners on the
Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness in writing the National Travel
and Tourism Strategy. The Task Force published a Federal Register
Notice for public comment and received substantial and thoughtful input
from the travel and tourism industry and other stakeholders. As the
lead agencies, the Departments of Commerce and Interior are best
positioned to answer specific questions regarding the current status of
the strategy.
__________
Questions Submitted to David T. Donahue
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
VISA ISSUANCE
Question. In the President's January announcement on tourism, he
said one of his goals is to expedite the visa issuance process for
visitors from Brazil and China. This is important, but we want to
ensure our citizens are receiving similar courtesy if they travel
overseas.
How long does it currently take our Government to issue visas to
travelers from these two countries, on average? Conversely, how long
does it take Brazil and China to issue visas to U.S. travelers?
Answer. On April 3, 2012, all posts in China had interview
appointment wait times of less than 1 week. In Brazil, interview wait
times varied from 7 days in Rio de Janeiro and Brasilia, to 15 days and
35 days in Recife and Sao Paulo, respectively. These wait times
represent average wait times at these posts for the last 2 months.
Following the interview, on average, visa-processing posts in China and
Brazil issue visas to qualified applicants in less than 3 days. Those
renewing visas who meet the eligibility criteria for an interview
waiver can expect to receive their visas in approximately 5 business
days. Approximately 2 to 4 percent of B1/B2 applicants in Brazil, and 6
percent of applicants in China who overcome INA section 214(b) must
still undergo security-related administrative processing, which may
extend the period from adjudication to issuance (if ultimately found to
be fully qualified) to 2 weeks or more.
China.--Chinese consular officials state that they issue visas to
U.S. citizen travelers in 1 or 2 business days, though State frequently
receives anecdotal reports from non-official U.S. citizen travelers of
longer wait times. U.S. citizens who submit applications via mail
usually receive their passports with visas in 2 weeks; however, some
U.S. citizen applicants have complained of months-long delays.
Brazil.--The Department has received complaints from the U.S.
citizen business community regarding Brazil's visa requirements for
business travelers. Brazil applies a distinction between a short-term
business visit and a short-term working visit. Under this distinction,
a U.S. company sending staff to Brazil to install equipment or
software, resolve specific problems, train local staff or work on a
short-term specific project is required to obtain a temporary work visa
rather than a temporary business visa. A temporary work visa requires
approval from the Labor Ministry, a process which the U.S. citizen
business community notes can take up to 6 months. The United States
issues qualified short-term overseas business travelers a B1 visa,
which does not require a labor certification.
Question. These are high-growth economies where America is
competing with other developed countries to attract tourism dollars.
U.S. consular services in these key markets have lagged behind those of
England, Germany, France, and Japan in accommodating that demand.
What steps has the State Department taken to reduce interview wait
times, processing times, and travel distances to consulates in these
countries?
Answer. Demand for U.S. visas in countries such as Brazil and China
are at all-time highs and the State Department is taking a number of
new and innovative steps to meet this demand. In the first 6 months of
fiscal year 2012 alone, consular officers in China processed 44 percent
more nonimmigrant visa applications, and consular officers in Brazil
handled 58 percent more as compared to the same time period in fiscal
year 2011. We issue nonimmigrant visas to almost 90 percent of Chinese
applicants, and to over 96 percent of Brazilian applicants.
In order to build our capacity to meet the increasing demand, we
are working to expand the physical infrastructure of our consular
sections in Brazil and China as well as building a deeper staffing pool
to adjudicate these visas. Our extensive planning on both fronts will
give us the capacity to exceed projected growth. The additional space
and staff will allow us to process more visas with reduced wait times.
Each of our posts throughout Mission China has significant
renovation or expansion projects underway. Shanghai and Chengdu are
expanding in their current facilities and will add additional
adjudicating windows by spring 2013. Beijing is renovating the previous
consular facility to reopen for public use by this summer. Guangzhou
will move to a new consulate compound in April 2013, doubling its
capacity, and we are considering a possible relocation of the consular
section in Shenyang that would allow for expansion at this rapidly
growing post. In Brazil, we will begin renovation projects at all four
consulates in spring 2012. These projects increase the capacity of
entryways and security screening, enlarge waiting rooms, add interview
windows where possible, and improve foot traffic to shorten the amount
of time applicants spend in the section. Additional windows for all
four projects will be operational by December 2012.
The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) is planning for staffing
increases to fill these new facilities and is adding more than 100 visa
adjudicators this year and next in China and Brazil. A number of these
new adjudicators are being hired through a pilot program that targets
applicants who already speak Mandarin or Portuguese and will be
arriving at posts through spring and summer of 2012. We are building a
register of language-qualified potential employees that can be hired
and deployed in response to changes in demand and as facility projects
are completed and adjudicating windows are built. Some posts in China
and Brazil have expanded their hours of operation to maximize use of
staff and facilities.
For Brazil, Congress has received our official notification that we
can begin the process to open two new consulates in Belo Horizonte and
Porto Alegre, expanding our visa interview capacity to those
metropolitan cities. These new facilities will help to reduce travel
times for many applicants residing in those regions.
The visa interview pilot program is an additional step taken,
worldwide, to further reduce applicant travel to U.S. embassies and
consulates. Under the pilot program, consular officers may waive
interviews for certain categories of qualified nonimmigrant visa
applicants worldwide who are renewing their visas within 48 months of
the expiration of their previously held visa, and within the same
classification as the previous visa (i.e., a B1/B2 applicant applying
for another B1/B2 visa). This new policy will make it much easier for
many tourists to renew their visas, helping to free up as many as
100,000 interview appointments in China alone for first-time travelers.
This program is also in place at many of our overseas posts, including
Mexico, India, and Russia.
Under the pilot program, consular officers also may waive the
interview and fingerprint collection requirement for certain qualified
nonimmigrant visa applicants holding Brazilian passports worldwide who
are younger than 16 years old or 66 years of age and older, so long as
the required, thorough screening against biographic-based, immigration,
law enforcement, and intelligence databases raises no concerns.
The Department of State is dedicated to the protection of our
borders, and has no higher priority than the safety of our fellow
citizens. At the same time, we are committed to facilitating legitimate
travel, and providing prompt and courteous service. State will continue
to monitor visa adjudications and visa interview wait times to measure
success in our programs and adjust our planning for the future.
Question. One possibility to expedite the issuance of visas and
ameliorate lengthy travel distances to consulates for prospective
visitors would be for the State Department to conduct interviews in
remote parts of countries which do not have easy access to consular
posts. Videoconferencing technology is another potential solution to
address these challenges. However, I understand the State Department
does not currently plan to move ahead with remote visa interviews.
Why? Is it cost-prohibitive? Are there security concerns?
Answer. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally
requires our consular officers to interview in-person all first-time
visa applicants aged 14 through 79, but gives consular officers
authority to waive interviews for diplomatic and official applicants
from foreign governments and, in limited circumstances, some applicants
renewing their visas. The INA also allows the Secretary of State to
waive interviews in certain situations.
Among the provisions in State's fiscal year 2012 budget was a
request that the Department explore alternative measures to meet the
personal interview requirement, such as video visa interviewing. We
have piloted this technology and have found it does not meet our strict
security requirements. It is costly and less efficient than in-person
interviews. Our conclusions are based on the following observations and
results of our pilot:
--Use of this technology requires off-site facilities manned by
American personnel with security clearances, and therefore
subject to costly physical security and data-protection
requirements.
--Permission to open such facilities and the legal status of
employees could be an issue in some countries, particularly
China. We found that moving applicants to and from the camera
location and limiting the length of the interview is more
challenging at an off-site video facility, thereby reducing the
overall number of interviews conducted.
--Video interviewing presents unacceptable vulnerabilities. Consular
officers are trained to use all of their senses to spot
potential fraud or threats that might not be as readily
observable over a two-dimensional video link.
We are continually looking for more efficient ways to improve the
applicant's experience, without compromising security, particularly
since a trip to the Embassy is often a foreign visitor's first
impression of the United States. One way to accomplish this, among
other things, is to decrease the number of people in the waiting room.
Enhanced security screening in effect since September 11 makes it
possible to eliminate interviews for certain very limited categories of
applicants, without compromising border security requirements. This
factor is why the Departments of State and Homeland Security have
pursued secure, streamlining measures such as an Interview Waiver Pilot
program to reduce the opportunity cost for those legitimate travelers
who have been interviewed and vetted through a comprehensive, multi-
layer process.
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
Question. Under section 2(b) of the President's January 19,
Executive order on travel and tourism, he directed development of an
implementation plan by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security
within 60 days.
As it has been approximately 60 days since he issued that order,
has the implementation plan been prepared?
Please describe the major highlights of the implementation plan and
whether there are any items which require action by this subcommittee
as we write the fiscal year 2013 homeland security bill.
Answer. Yes, the implementation plan was submitted to the President
on March 19, 2012. State and DHS are committed to the facilitation of
legitimate travel and tourism. This priority is a vital national
interest that keeps our borders secure, while generating jobs and
revenue critical to our economic growth and vitality.
Section 2(b) of the Executive order lays out the following four
goals:
--(i) Increase nonimmigrant visa processing capacity in China and
Brazil by 40 percent over the coming year;
--(ii) Ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are
interviewed within 3 weeks of receipt of application;
--(iii) Increase efforts to expand the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and
travel by nationals of VWP participants; and
--(iv) Expand reciprocal recognition programs for expedited travel,
such as the Global Entry program.
These four are whole-of-government goals, but for planning and
implementation purposes, State will lead on goals (i) and (ii) and DHS
will lead on goals (iii) and (iv).
State will increase staffing at our highest volume posts by:
--Increasing overall visa adjudicating positions in Brazil and China
by 98 in 2012; and
--Hiring additional consular adjudicators with Portuguese and Chinese
language ability via limited non-career appointments (LNAs).
State will increase the efficiency of its consular sections in
China and Brazil by:
--Expanding interviewing hours in China and Brazil; and
--Implementing the Global Support Strategy (GSS) in Brazil and China
as soon as feasible. GSS replaces the current patchwork of
contractor-provided visa support services at overseas posts
(e.g., call centers, appointment scheduling, and document
delivery) with a single contract and comprehensive process for
logistical arrangements preceding the actual adjudication
process.
State will expand existing facilities and explore possibilities for
additional visa-processing facilities in China and Brazil. We will:
--Remodel and renovate existing facilities, including adding 48
interview windows in China and 19 in Brazil;
--Expand existing facilities in China;
--Expand service hours and introduce multiple shifts where
appropriate; and
--Assess the feasibility of establishing new visa-adjudicating
locations.
State will implement the program to waive interviews for low-risk
applicants, as described in the Executive order:
--Expand the eligibility for renewal of nonimmigrant visas for
certain categories of applicants without interview from 1 to 4
years since expiration of the previous visa; and
--Streamline processing for certain Brazilian applicants younger than
16 years old and 66 years of age and older.
State will further improve its capacity to process visa
applications in 2012 and beyond. As noted above, State is increasing
staff, taking measures to increase efficiency, expanding facilities,
implementing a pilot program to streamline processing for low-risk visa
applicants (including the waiver of interviews for certain low-risk
applicants), and monitoring progress to achieve these goals. These
initiatives include an increase in visa adjudication staff by 50
percent in China and 130 percent in Brazil, resulting in capacity to
adjudicate an additional 1.5 million adjudications per year by the end
of 2012. The additional staff will permit us to introduce longer
interview hours and they will work in expanded facilities. State is
confident that the capacity- and efficiency-building measures described
in this document, combined with further refinement of data collection,
will allow it to meet the benchmark to increase visa interview capacity
in Brazil and China 40 percent while also meeting its target of
interviewing 80 percent of visa applicants worldwide within 3 weeks
from when an application is submitted.
TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES: FROM A VISA WAIVER PROGRAM COUNTRY VS. A
NON-VISA WAIVER PROGRAM COUNTRY
Question. One of the concerns I hear from constituents is how long
it takes them to get a visa to travel to another country. At the same
time, we are trying to expedite the issuance of visas for travel to
this country.
If someone wanted to travel to the United States from a Visa Waiver
Program country--like England or France--they do not have to get a
visa.
Please describe what steps they must take to come here. What forms
do they need to fill out and how much do they cost?
What about travelers to the United States from a non-Visa Waiver
Program country--like Brazil or China?
What steps do they have to take and how long does it take?
Answer. The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows foreign nationals from
certain countries to travel to the United States for business or
pleasure, for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa.
Travelers admitted under the VWP must agree to waive their rights to
review or appeal, as explained in the Waiver of Rights section of the
Application screen. All passengers traveling under the VWP are required
to have an approved Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)
prior to traveling to the United States by air or sea. The program is
administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Mandated by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), ESTA adds another layer of security that allows
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine whether an
individual is eligible to travel to the United States under the VWP and
whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk.
Travelers should submit their ESTA applications at least 72 hours
prior to travel. However, not all travel is planned in advance and
applications for last minute or emergency travel are accommodated.
To apply for ESTA, travelers need to complete an application at the
ESTA Web site (https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov). Travelers must provide
biographic information, passport data, credit card information for the
required fees, and answer VWP eligibility questions. The traveler
receives an application number that can be used to track their ESTA
application. CBP queries the traveler's information against the
appropriate data bases to determine if the traveler is eligible for the
VWP or if they provide a security or law enforcement threat to the
United States.
Once the traveler's data has been screened he or she will receive
one of three responses:
--Authorization Approved.--Travel is authorized and the authorization
is valid for 2 years and any number of trips in the period,
unless there is a change in status--for example, name change,
marriage, VWP eligibility, or passport expiration;
--Authorization Pending.--An immediate determination could not be
made and that the traveler should check back in 72 hours; or
--Travel Not Authorized.--The traveler is not eligible to travel the
United States under the VWP and is advised to visit the U.S.
Department of State Web site for additional information about
applying for a visa.
All applicants requesting an electronic travel authorization are
charged a $4 processing fee. If an application is approved and the
traveler receives authorization to travel to the United States under
the VWP, an additional $10 fee will be charged in accordance with the
Travel Promotion Act of 2009.
For a national of a non-visa waiver country to apply for a visa, a
potential traveler would follow these steps:
--Complete a visa application (form DS-160) online;
--Schedule an interview appointment at a U.S. Embassy or consulate.
Scheduling procedures vary in each country. Wait times to
obtain an appointment at each Embassy or consulate are
available on the Bureau of Consular Affairs Web site at http://
travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wait/wait_4638.html, and are updated
weekly;
--Pay the visa processing fee of $140 (increasing to $160 on April
13, 2012). Payment procedures vary in each country. In some
countries, applicants can also submit digital fingerprints at
an applicant service center any time prior to their interview
date. If not, those digital fingerprints are taken at the
appointment; and
--On the day of his/her interview appointment, visit the Embassy or
consulate, to have his/her fingerprints taken (if not taken
before), and appear before a United States consular officer,
who has reviewed the application and security check results,
for an interview. (In some instances, the officer may waive the
interview for a qualified applicant renewing a visa.) The
applicant must provide a valid passport, photo, and receipt for
payment. Other forms or documents may be necessary depending on
the type of visa and purpose of travel. Once cleared, the visa
is printed, affixed in the passport, and returned to the
applicant, usually through a courier service or express mail.
More than 70 percent of applicants worldwide obtain appointments in
less than 3 weeks, and as we outlined in our written testimony, the
Department has dedicated considerable resources to improve that figure.
Approved visas are generally returned to applicants within 1 to 3 days.
A very small number of cases may require additional processing, usually
for security, legal, or administrative reasons.
Applicants for some visa categories, such as student or temporary
employment, must meet additional requirements before making a visa
application. For example, temporary workers generally require approved
petitions filed through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Students must be accepted by an approved educational institution,
receive a confirmation form from the school (form I-20) and pay a fee
to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program prior to their visa
interview.
Question. At the hearing, one of the witnesses on the second panel
raised concerns about the inability of the State Department to issue
visas to foreign visitors to trade shows held in the United States and
the loss of revenues related to those shows.
Please respond to these concerns.
Are there steps international visitors can take to improve their
visa applications, including submitting them within a certain
timeframe?
Answer. The Department of State understands the important economic
benefits of foreign visitors at U.S. trade shows, particularly those
from fast-growing economies who require visas to enter the United
States. Large numbers of foreign attendees come to the United States
without visas, either from Canada or the 36 countries participating in
the Visa Waiver Program. In other countries, our embassies and
consulates issue visas to many thousands of qualified trade show
visitors and exhibitors each year.
While Department of State visa statistics do not capture issuance
and refusal rates specifically for trade shows, according to attendance
figures obtained from three of the largest U.S. trade shows,\1\ foreign
participants last year ranged from 11 to 21 percent of total visitors
to their shows. An average of 54 percent of the foreign visitors at
these three shows entered the country using visas. Trade show
participants from Canada and visa waiver countries averaged 46 percent
of foreign attendees. By contrast, the proportion of overall U.S.
international travelers who enter the United States using a visa each
year is 35 to 40 percent. The remaining 60 to 65 percent of
international travelers do not require visas (principally Canadians and
Visa Waiver Program participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because attendance figures are proprietary, we are not able to
name the three shows. They are among last year's top five U.S. trade
exhibitions in attendance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The higher proportion of trade show participants who entered with
visas (54 percent compared with 35 to 40 percent among overall
travelers) indicates that the U.S. visa process is not a barrier to
foreign attendance at these events. On the contrary, Visa Office
representatives in Washington routinely consult with event organizers
to clearly and accurately inform them about general visa requirements
and processing. The Visa Office's Business Visa Center (BVC) provides
information to conference organizers and business travelers. The center
also posts information about upcoming conferences on the Department's
intranet site to inform consular officers about events and trade shows
that expect more than 100 foreign participants. In 2011, the BVC
handled over 3,400 inquiries, and in the first 3 months of 2012, has
posted information about 66 conferences and trade shows that are
expecting more than 153,000 foreign participants.
The Department of State is committed to facilitating legitimate
business travel and supporting U.S. economic growth. All U.S. embassies
and consulates have established procedures to expedite appointments for
business travelers. U.S. officials work closely with American Chambers
of Commerce in more than 100 countries to streamline the visa process
for business travelers. Embassy Foreign Commercial Service and economic
officers also work closely with visa sections, informing them about
upcoming shows and country delegations. At the same time, each
applicant must individually qualify for the visa they are seeking under
U.S. immigration law. Unfortunately, a small minority of potential
trade show attendees fail to satisfy this legal requirement. However,
we note that a study by Oxford Economics commissioned by the Exhibition
Industry Foundation said that only ``3.1 percent of the total
attendance of [surveyed] shows could not participate in the event
because of visa issues. In addition, 1.3 percent of all exhibitors were
not able to attend the 15 events that responded due to visa problems in
attendance at those shows.''
Visa applicants should apply as early as possible before travel, to
allow for any processing that might be necessary. They should be
prepared to discuss, if asked, the family, social and economic ties to
their home country that show they are not at risk of remaining
unlawfully in our country. Most visas are issued for multiple trips and
are valid for as long as 10 years in many countries, depending on how
that country treats U.S. citizen travelers, so applicants who
anticipate future travel do not need to wait until just before their
trip. Applicants can find extensive information about the visa process
on the Bureau of Consular Affairs Web site at http://travel.state.gov.
Question. Your testimony delineates the number of specific steps
State has already taken to reduce the time it takes to issue new visas
to visitors from Brazil and China. However, there still appears to be
the impression that large numbers of potential travelers are unable to
visit the United States because of an inability to obtain a visa.
In your estimation, what percent of the potential traveling
universe from these countries are first time visa requesters? Please
describe this issue in more detail.
Does more need to be done to encourage multiple trips to the United
States because many travelers already have multiple-entry visas?
For what reasons can an individual be denied a visa? Are all of
these reasons specified in U.S. law?
Do many visa requesters apply for a visa with little notice or just
days prior to their planned trip? What more can our Government do to
encourage these individuals to apply for a visa on a timelier basis?
Answer. The vast majority of visa applicants in Brazil and China
are legally eligible for visas and are being issued visas. In fiscal
year 2011, we issued visas to more than 96 percent of Brazilian
applicants and almost 90 percent of Chinese applicants.
The Department of State does not maintain statistics on the number
of visa applications coming from first-time applicants. Available data
does suggest that many visa holders make multiple trips to the United
States. Comparing Department of Homeland Security admissions statistics
for fiscal year 2010 (the most recent available) and the total number
of visas issued in that year, we can see the number of travelers to the
United States far exceeds the number of visas issued during the year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonimmigrant Nonimmigrant
admissions visas issued
Fiscal year 2010 (all (all
categories) categories)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil.................................. 1,233,457 546,866
China................................... 1,038,279 653,198
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do think that BrandUSA should target current visa holders as a
group likely to return to the United States again and again.
Most visas are issued for multiple entries and for validity periods
reciprocal to what the foreign government grants American travelers. In
the last 7 years, for example, the United States issued Brazilians more
than 2.6 million tourist visas (B1 and B2 categories), almost all of
which can still be used for travel. Worldwide, from fiscal year 2007 to
fiscal year 2010 alone, we issued more than 21 million visitor visas
worldwide (categories B1, B2, and border crossing cards), the vast
majority of which are still valid. This represents an enormous
potential market for tourism promotion.
A visa can be denied only on grounds delineated in the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA). The majority of nonimmigrant visa denials
result from the applicant's failure to meet the requirements of INA
section 214(b) which, in part, states: ``Every alien . . . shall be
presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of
the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa. . . that
he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15).''
In the case of B1 and B2 visa applicants, INA section 214(b)
relates to the applicants' failure to convince the interviewing officer
that they have strong ties to a residence abroad that will compel them
to leave the United States after a temporary visit.
INA section 212(a) lists other grounds of inadmissibility to the
United States, including criminal convictions, affiliation with
terrorist organizations, drug trafficking, fraud, among others. INA
section 291 places the burden of proof on the applicant to establish he
or she is eligible to receive a visa.
In all of our public outreach on visas, the Department of State
urges potential travelers to apply early. We make available on our
public Web site (http://travel.state.gov) the lead times necessary to
obtain interview appointments at each of our visa-issuing posts. This
information is updated weekly so that travelers can realistically plan
ahead.
In fact, more than 70 percent of applicants worldwide obtain
appointments in less than 3 weeks, and as we outlined in our written
testimony, the Department has dedicated considerable resources to
improve this figure. We are committed to achieving the goal the
President laid out in Executive Order 13597 that ``80 percent of
nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of
receipt of application.'' Once approved, visas are generally available
to applicants within several days. (A small number of cases may require
additional processing, usually for security, legal or administrative
reasons.) All of our visa-issuing posts have procedures to expedite
cases with medical, humanitarian, national interest, or urgent business
travel, as well as other cases having a legitimate need for rapid
handling.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Senator Landrieu. First, we have Roger Dow, president and
CEO of the U.S. Travel Association; second, Charles Barclay,
president of the American Association of Airport Executives
(AAAE); third, Thomas Hendricks, senior vice president of
Safety, Security and Operations for Airlines for America (A4A);
Mr. Steven Hacker, president and CEO of the International
Association of Exhibitions and Events; and Sara Nelson,
international vice president, the Association of Flight
Attendants (AFA).
Take your seats in any order, ladies and gentlemen. Mr.
Dow, if you do not mind, we will start with you. And if you all
could limit your opening statements to 3 minutes each, that
will leave us approximately 15 or so minutes for questions to
the panel. And so Mr. Dow, let us start with you. And if there
is anything that you heard in the first panel that you would
like to raise, add to your statement, please feel free. But let
us leave it to 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROGER DOW, PRESIDENT AND CEO, U.S. TRAVEL
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dow. Very fine. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding
this hearing. It is so important, and I will skip going through
how big the industry is because you did a great job off the
bat. Lots of jobs, huge industry.
The critical role that DHS and the State Department have in
working and facilitating commerce and travel and protecting our
country we will all concur on. We really thank you for all the
bipartisan leadership on this issue because it is a white hat
issue. I mean, we all believe in increasing travel, jobs, et
cetera.
But we sincerely believe that we can have a robust economy
and a robust tourism industry and very secure by making a few
changes and modifications in some of the things that we are
doing right now.
I am going to divide my testimony into two parts. One, I am
going to talk domestically and I want to address TSA, which was
talked about.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that in
20 years, air traffic will double. So it is going to be 1.2
billion travelers. So the concern is what does that mean for
longer lines if we just keep doing things the way we are.
Sooner or later, this thing falls in on itself. In 2010, we did
a survey and we asked people if you knew you had dependability
and if you knew it was a short, defined amount of time, would
you travel more. And people said they would take two or three
more trips. That is $85 billion, and when you look at that,
that is hundreds of thousands of jobs that that creates. We
think there is a way to really increase this significantly. If
you look at that $85 billion that we could have had, we want to
make sure we do not have that same loss going forward.
So we have submitted, in conjunction with AAAE and CLEAR, a
way that we could find a way to rapidly increase the number of
people that go on the Pre3TM program because we
think that is extremely valuable and have a way that people
could be enrolled like in New Orleans. To go in Global Entry,
you have to go to Houston and it is a long way. So we are
recommending ways to increase that, and that is very critical.
When you look at inbound travel, expanding that--and first
of all, I do applaud Administrator Pistole for what they have
done on really stepping forward with Pre3TM. It is a
great beginning, but we can take it much further because we
have to get a lot more than those 6,000 people a day going
through the system or it is like an HOV lane that does not
work.
So when we take a look at what is going on with inbound
travel, if you look at long-haul travel to the United States,
we now get 12 percent of inbound travel around the world. We
used to get 17 percent. We have lost a huge amount of money.
That is $153 billion. But if we can get back to where we were
years ago, that would be $400 billion to the U.S. economy, 1.3
million jobs over decades. It is big. And we can do that
through several ways.
One, expanding the visa issuance process. We think a great
job is being done there. The numbers that Mr. Donahue talked
about have been nothing less than outstanding over the past
year. But we can expand that greatly.
Also, we need to find a way to get more people into this
program, and when you look at the visa waiver program, that is
one that we believe can be increased. There are 100 and some
countries around the world. We have 36 countries in there. And
there are relatively few countries with security that could
really be looked at. If we could get them into the visa waiver
program, that would be terrific.
And last, the immigration process of how people come in. It
is just as important to have a welcoming and efficient process,
and if we are going to increase the visa process by 40
percent--I did some quick calculation--that is going to add $70
million to what we do. And somehow we ought to figure out how
to use that money at both ends of the spectrum.
And last, you asked a question about video conferencing,
and I applaud your putting it in there. That has not happened
as far as the pilot, and we believe that just as Ranking Member
Coats asked, is there technology--and we really believe you
have to test it. We have to put technology to work or these
things will fall in on themselves. We have to try this. And we
are going to watch. We talked about the Indiana game. We are
going to watch basketball. We are going to watch people on high
definition, 100-inch TVs. I am going to be able to tell whether
someone is going to make that foul shot or not just looking at
their eye. You can see that. Plus, it gives you a chance to
record it, have other people look at. So we believe we should
pilot this program that you have proposed, and we would hope to
work with you and with the State Department to make that
happen.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you very much for your help and all you do for this
industry.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger Dow
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats and members of the
subcommittee: I am pleased to offer testimony on behalf of the U.S.
Travel Association (U.S. Travel), the national, nonprofit organization
representing all sectors of America's travel industry. U.S. Travel's
mission is to increase travel to and within the United States. Last
year the $813 billion travel industry generated a total of $1.9
trillion in total economic output.
I applaud you for holding today's hearing to discuss the critical
role the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plays in facilitating
travel and commerce, and protecting our country. I would also like to
thank you for the strong bipartisan leadership you have demonstrated on
travel issues during your time here in Washington.
Travel provides good, domestic jobs that cannot be outsourced. In
2011, travel supported 14.4 million jobs and is among the top 10
employers in 48 U.S. States and the District of Columbia. For example,
travel directly employs more than 100,000 Louisianans, contributes $8.9
billion annually to the Louisiana economy and generates more than $1.1
billion in State and local tax revenue. Similarly, travel directly
employs more than 96,000 Indianans, contributes more than $8.6 billion
to the Indiana economy and generates nearly $1.3 billion in tax
receipts. In every region of America, travel helps pay the salaries of
police, firefighters, and teachers without creating much new demand for
those public services.
I am here today to tell you that increasing travel in the United
States is the most effective form of economic stimulus--and it doesn't
cost taxpayers a dime. When American and international visitors travel
within the United States, they inject new money into the U.S. economy
by staying in U.S. hotels, spending in U.S. stores, visiting U.S.
attractions, and eating at U.S. restaurants. And spending by
international travelers is chalked up as U.S. exports that contribute
positively to America's trade balance. In fact, international travel is
the export sector that should be easiest to boost.
Larry Summers, the former director of the National Economic
Council, recently observed that ``the easiest way to increase exports
and close the trade gap is by increasing international travel to the
United States.''
But the 10 years from 2001 through 2010 were a lost decade for
America's travel industry and the U.S. economy. While global
international travel grew over the last decade, America failed to keep
pace. The opportunity costs of this slippage are staggering. If America
had kept pace with the growth in global long-haul international travel
between 2000 and 2010, 78 million more travelers would have visited the
United States, adding a total of $606 billion to the U.S. economy that
could support more than 467,000 additional U.S. jobs annually over
these years.
Unlike other goods and services, the barriers to travel are
primarily self-imposed. There are no trade agreements to be negotiated
or tariffs to reduce with other countries. The principle barriers to
increased travel to and within the United States are the
inefficiencies, uncertainties, and delays that characterize our visa,
entry, and passenger screening process. These self-imposed restrictions
discourage Americans and overseas visitors from traveling within the
United States.
It is unconscionable that in a time of weak economic growth,
followed by deep recession, inefficient security, and travel
facilitation programs caused America to leave so much economic
prosperity on the table. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes in
this current decade. As described below, these lost opportunities are
not a tradeoff with security--we can have robust, growing, and secure
travel.
IMPLEMENT RISK-BASED AND EFFICIENT PASSENGER SCREENING
Over the next 20 years, air passenger travel will almost double to
1.2 billion passengers per year, according to projections released last
week by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This forecast may
seem like an indicator of robust growth and increased job creation in
the years ahead. But given our Nation's inefficient and costly security
screening process, and the growing level of passenger frustrations--the
FAA is really forecasting longer lines and wait-times at security
checkpoints and potentially greater economic losses for the travel
industry.
To understand the potential magnitude of problems in the future, it
is helpful to examine the costs imposed by the current system. A 2010
survey conducted by Consensus Research found that travelers would take
two to three more flights per year if the hassles in security screening
were reduced. These additional flights would add nearly $85 billion in
consumer spending back into local hotels, restaurants, convention
centers, and other travel business, and help support 900,000 jobs.
An inefficient screening process also imposes a staggering cost on
the American tax payer. From 2004 to 2011, the TSA's budget rose by 68
percent, while the number of passengers screened remained almost
flat.\1\ If these trends continue, TSA's budget would spiral out of
control as passenger levels increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Travel Association, ``A Better Ways: Building a World-
Class System for Aviation Security.'' http://www.ustravel.org/sites/
default/files/page/2011/03/A_Better_Way_032011.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only way to avoid this scenario is for TSA to become a more
risk-based, intelligence-driven, and cost-effective organization.
In 2011, TSA recently launched PreCheck (Pre3TM), a
trusted traveler pilot program that provides expedited screening for
passengers willing to volunteer more personal information.
Pre3TM is an essential first step in creating a more
efficient and secure screening process, and I applaud Administrator
Pistole for his leadership in creating this program.
Today, roughly 400,000 Americans are enrolled in Pre3TM,
which is small number compared to the 2 million people who fly each
day. The future success of the program will depend on the operational
efficiencies and cost-savings realized when more low-risk travelers use
the program on a frequent basis.
Unfortunately, there are several barriers preventing ordinary
Americans from joining and using Pre3TM. One way to join the
program is to be a member of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP's) Global Entry program. To be a part of Global Entry, CBP
requires an in-person interview but only offers these interviews at 25
permanent locations. If a person living in New Orleans wishes to join
Global Entry, the closest CBP interview location is in Houston, Texas--
nearly a 6-hour drive away. Alternatively, if the same person wanted to
qualify for Pre3TM through an airline frequent flier
program, U.S. Travel estimates that it would cost roughly $10,000 in
airfare paid to a single airline in order to accrue enough frequent
flier miles to qualify.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ TSA considers enrollment criteria for Pre3TM to be
security sensitive information. The U.S. Travel Association calculated
an estimate of the cost to join Pre3TM by multiplying the
average 2010 passenger yield (the average fare paid by domestic
passengers per mile flown) of cents13.49 by 75,000 (the number of
miles needed to become a platinum customer on Delta airlines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, once a traveler is enrolled in Pre3TM through
a frequent flier program, they can only use the expedited screening
lanes when flying with that particular airline--in airports where
Pre3TM is established. For example, an American Airlines
Pre3TM customer who buys an American Airlines ticket for
travel from JFK airport to Miami International, would have access to
the Pre3TM lane. If that same customer decides to fly Delta
airlines on the return flight home, he or she would not have access to
the Pre3TM lane, simply because they are not flying with
American Airlines. In our opinion, risk should not be determined by
your loyalty to any one airline.
Fortunately, there are many innovative ways to bolster the
Pre3TM program. TSA and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) can increase participation in Pre3TM by expanding
CBP's trusted traveler programs and allowing travelers to qualify by
aggregating their frequent flier miles across multiple airlines.
Additionally, once a passenger is enrolled in the program,
Pre3TM passengers should be immediately granted access to
any Pre3TM lane.
But TSA must also offer enrollment opportunities beyond CBP trusted
travelers and elite frequent fliers if the program is going to succeed.
In 2011, the U.S. Travel Association, the American Association of
Airport Executives (AAAE), and CLEAR submitted to TSA a joint proposal
for expanding Pre3TM. Under our proposal, TSA would
establish a new set of eligibility requirements for participation in
the program. U.S. Travel, AAAE, CLEAR, and TSA would then work to
create enrollment procedures that meet these requirements by using
proven and operationally ready methods of identity verification and
risk assessment. Once these procedures are in place, our organizations
could quickly increase enrollment in Pre3TM by leveraging
CLEAR's existing base of 200,000 members and providing additional
outlets for enrollment in places frequented by travelers--including
airport, hotel, rental car, and convention center lobbies.
Additionally, CLEAR is willing to explore a partnership with CBP
whereby persons who enroll in Pre3TM through CLEAR would be
offered reimbursement for the CBP trusted traveler application fees.
TSA is considering various aspects of our proposal and we look
forward to working with them in the future to expand Pre3TM
and ensure its future success.
PROMOTE AND EXPAND INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL
Just as FAA is predicting a significant increase in domestic air
travel, international air travel is expected to grow as well. On a
worldwide basis, total international tourist arrivals are projected to
grow 36 percent between 2010 and 2020, resulting in $2.2 trillion in
direct travel spending and 62 million jobs. Over the same period,
international travel revenue as a share of global GDP is forecast to
increase by 10 percent. This presents enormous economic and diplomatic
opportunities of the United States.
Increasing secure travel to the United States is an integral part
of a successful foreign policy. As noted by a Federal advisory
committee to the Departments of Homeland Security and State in 2008:
Our long-term success requires not only that we deter and detect
determined adversaries, but also that we persuade millions of people
around the globe of our ideals--democratic freedom, private enterprise,
human rights, intellectual pursuit, technological achievement. That
persuasion requires human interaction, and each visitor to the United
States represents such an opportunity. Raw statistics are important in
analyzing our achievements and challenges, but so are the attitudes we
display. Treating prospective and actual visitors with dignity and
respect will reinforce, not diminish, our security.
The travel industry is also a leading source of U.S. exports. When
visitors travel to the United States from abroad, they inject new money
into our economy by staying in our hotels, shopping at our stores,
visiting our attractions and eating at our restaurants. In many cases,
they are also here to conduct business that can lead to significant
sales of U.S. products and services in overseas markets. Every dollar
these visitors spend in the United States counts as an export--just
like agricultural crops, minerals, or manufactured goods. International
travel to the United States generated more than $134 billion in exports
in 2010, supported 1.8 million U.S. jobs, and made travel the Nation's
leading industry export.
In May 2011, the U.S. Travel Association released a comprehensive
report which studied the effects of the visa process on international
travel to the United States and found that delays, cost, access, and
unpredictability in the U.S. visa system served as a barrier for
potential visitors and contributed to our lost market share. The travel
industry rallied together in support of recommendations in the U.S.
Travel Association's report that would help to reform the visa process
in key high-growth and high-spend markets such as Brazil, China, and
India.
While reforms can often be difficult to implement and are rarely
done quickly, we greatly appreciate the support and attention Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources Tom Nides, and U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke have
dedicated to improving the U.S. visa process in China and Brazil over
the last year. The State Department has undertaken several steps, most
importantly dedicating more personnel and resources toward visa
adjudication. Among the Department's recent initiatives are:
--Adding 100 visa adjudicators in China and Brazil, many of whom are
being hired through a pilot program that targets applicants
with Mandarin and Portuguese language skills.
--Extending hours at some posts in China and Brazil at existing
facilities to process more visa applicants.
--Expanding visa-processing facilities to allow for increased
interview capacity of applicants.
--Opening a new Embassy consular facility in Beijing to increase visa
interview capacity in by 50 percent.
--Initiating a new pilot program that permits consular officers to
waive interviews for some qualified non-immigrant applicants
worldwide who are renewing their visa within 48 months of the
expiration of their previously held visa, and within the same
classification as the previous visa.
--In Brazil, permitting consular officers to waive interviews for
applicants 15 years and under and 66 and older.
--Sending temporary duty officers to manage seasonal spikes in visa
application demand.
Furthermore, we applaud the President for issuing Executive Order
13597 which gives this issue the prominence it deserves, and offers the
vision and commitment we have long needed to reap the economic,
security and public diplomacy rewards that will come from improving our
competitiveness in the global travel market.
We look forward to working with the new Task Force on Travel and
Competitiveness that was created by the Executive order to help fulfill
the enormous promise of America's travel industry and strengthen our
economy's leading industry export. However, there is also a clear role
for Congress to help advance policy that will increase legitimate
international travel. I will focus on three key areas: the entry
experience at U.S. international airports, the visa issuance process,
and the Visa Waiver Program.
VISA ISSUANCE PROCESS
As I mentioned, visa issuance process will be a critical factor in
determining whether the United States will regain the 17-percent global
travel market share we once held and whether we can match the market
power our Western European competitors currently enjoy in the thriving
Brazilian, Chinese, and Indian travel markets.
We believe Congress can play a key role in ensuring that the
reforms the State Department has implemented to reduce the backlog in
visa processing in Brazil and China are replicated in other countries
and that they are sustained over time. In our view, Congress should
codify a 2-week visa processing standard. Furthermore, a consistent set
of metrics that indicate the efficiency, effectiveness, and consumer
friendliness of visa application and adjudication should be maintained
and be used to analyze and continually improve performance and optimize
deployment of resources. The performance metrics related to visa
application and adjudication and those related to entry of
international travelers, both citizens and non-citizens, should be
globally benchmarked. For example, the State Department needs to
develop a short-term and long-term plan for addressing visa processing
problems in key emerging markets (Brazil, China, and India) and measure
its visa processing performance against Western European countries
competing for these visitors. Progress assessments should be evaluated
by GAO annually; both the report and assessment should be submitted to
Congress for review. The State Department should develop a formal
tracking mechanism to measure results, and its annual budget request
should reflect the resources required to these meet targets.
Another area for Congress to engage is in providing greater access
to a U.S. visa interview for thousands of applicants. The visa
application fee is $140 but the real cost of obtaining a U.S. visa is
far greater, particularly when potential visitors do not live near a
consular post issuing visas and therefore must travel hundreds if not
thousands of miles and pay for a flight and hotel to make a mandatory
trip to a U.S. consulate for an interview that on average lasts for 3
minutes.
Thanks to the leadership of Senator Landrieu and others on this
subcommittee, the fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations bill included
language that granted the State Department the authority to develop and
conduct a pilot program that would use secure videoconferencing
technology to interview visa applicants remotely. Ensuring security of
the videoconferencing transmission and encryption must be a top
priority. Therefore, we support granting Federal agents access to the
recorded interview videos as well as ensuring that the State Department
works with other Federal agencies that regularly transmit real-time
video, biometric, and document data through secure means.
Unfortunately, the State Department has stated that it does not intend
to carry out a pilot of the technology. We hope to work with the
subcommittee and the State Department on this issue to find a way to
move a pilot forward. The fact is we live in a world where technology
can help us solve problems but we must be open to testing it.
Furthermore, the lack of reliable information regarding applicant
backlogs makes it difficult to identify consulates where demand is not
being properly met. The GAO reported, ``Wait times generally do not
provide a sense of applicant backlog, which is the number of people who
are waiting to be scheduled for an appointment or the number of people
who have an appointment but have yet to be seen.'' \3\ In order to
better understand and manage workload, staffing and throughput, it is
critical that the State Department develop a better measure of
applicant backlogs and use that information to deploy resources more
efficiently and develop annual budget requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, ``Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace
with Increasing Demand for Visas''. (13-JUL-07, GAO-07-847)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Department should also set a standard for capping
interview dates at consulates to prevent consulates from artificially
limiting appointment dates which only serves to mislead applicants
about the actual interview wait times. The GAO noted in its report:
``We observed that some posts artificially limit wait times by tightly
controlling the availability of future appointment slots--such as by
not making appointments available beyond a certain date, which can make
appointment scheduling burdensome for the applicant who must
continually check for new openings.'' \4\ We believe that individual
posts should not control the availability of appointment slots to
artificially limit wait times. We urge the State Department to publish
specific guidance on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of reliable information about the visa system, its current
performance and its ability to meet future demand makes it all the more
difficult to make improvements. However, we know that improving the
performance and competitiveness of the visa processing system must
begin with transparency. We recommend a system of ongoing information
sharing that should take place at least annually--and in some cases
monthly. This data should include:
--Monthly visa interview wait times for each consulate so that
travelers can view historical information and make informed
decisions about when to apply.
--Consulate throughput capacity and ability to meet projected visa
demand.
VISA WAIVER PROGRAM
The most economical and powerful step the U.S. Government can take
to improve the performance and competitiveness of the visa processing
system while maintaining national security is to sign bilateral visa-
free travel agreements with new countries as part of the Visa Waiver
Program (VWP). Visitors from VWP countries played a leading role in
making travel the leading service export for our Nation. VWP countries
are the largest source of inbound overseas travel to the United States.
According to Commerce Department data, over 17 million VWP visitors, 65
percent of all visitors from overseas traveled to the United States in
2010. While here, they spent more than $61 billion, supporting 433,000
American jobs along with $12 billion in payroll, and generating $9
billion in Government tax revenues. Countries in the VWP must agree to
adopt strict security measures, strong travel document standards, and
enhanced information sharing agreements with the United States. In
addition, each traveler from a participating country must also obtain
pre-clearance to board a flight to the United States through the
Electronic System Travel Authorization (ESTA).
We strongly support the recommendation in the President's recent
Executive order on travel and tourism, that the U.S. Government
increase its efforts to expand the VWP. We are pleased that the
administration has nominated Taiwan for participation in the VWP and we
support Taiwan's inclusion. In the short-term we also believe the
Departments of State and Homeland Security should immediately begin
bilateral negotiations with countries that are prospective candidates
for the VWP.
Recently, the U.S. Travel Association studied the economic impact
of including the 11 likeliest candidates for VWP status: Argentina,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Israel, Panama, Poland, Romania,
Taiwan, and Uruguay. Last year, 3 million visitors from these countries
spent $14 billion in the United States, directly supporting 104,300
jobs in the American travel industry. In the first year of
participation in the VWP, the growth rate of visitation from these
countries would nearly double. If that first year were 2012, VWP status
would generate an additional 482,000 arrivals and $5.1 billion more in
total revenue. VWP eligibility would quickly drive up arrivals from
these 11 nations to 4 million visitors with an overall economic impact
exceeding $41 billion, supporting 256,000 American jobs. The 32,200
additional U.S. jobs created this year would be eight times more than
employment at the largest auto assembly plant in Michigan.
Every potential new VWP visitor from Brazil, Poland, and other key
markets constitutes, in effect, a walking economic stimulus package.
Each has the desire and means to travel to the United States, for
business and/or pleasure; and rarely do these visits require additional
U.S. infrastructure. It is just a question of whether our entry process
is welcoming or discouraging, as compared with destinations in other
nations.
Another key goal of the Visa Waiver Program is to improve standards
for air security, travel documents, and international law enforcement
collaboration. As a condition of participation in the program, VWP
countries must follow strict counter-terrorism, border security, law
enforcement, and document security guidelines, as well as participate
in information-sharing arrangements with the United States. VWP
countries must issue International Civil Aviation Organization-
compliant electronic passports; report information on all lost and
stolen passports to the United States through Interpol; and share
information on travelers who may pose a terrorist or criminal threat to
the United States. As a result, our Government is able to supplement
our watch-list database with information from the travelers' home
governments. In addition, each VWP traveler must also obtain pre-
clearances to board a flight to the United States through the
Electronic System for Travel Authorization.
Taken together, these eligibility requirements ensure compliance
with elevated security standards and cooperation with United States law
enforcement. This enables us to better detect, apprehend, and limit the
movement of terrorists, criminals, and other dangerous travelers--and
to shift limited visa screening resources to higher risk countries.
The most effective ambassadors of American values are ordinary
Americans. Citizens from VWP countries who travel to the United States
for tourism or business form life-long impressions of American society
based on their visits to destinations, large and small, across America.
From our national parks to our ball parks to our theme parks, the
heartland of our great Nation reflects the best of the United States to
foreign visitors. The more they know us, the better they like us.
Surveys have shown that foreigners who have the opportunity to
visit the United States are 74 percent more likely to have a favorable
view of our country; and that 61 percent are more likely to support the
United States and its policies. Moreover, the mere agreement itself to
establish a visa waiver relationship reinforces bilateral goodwill.
While its explicit mission is to enhance security and encourage travel,
the Visa Waiver Program has also demonstrated significant public
diplomacy value as a ``soft power'' tool that complements our formal
foreign policy mechanisms.
By strengthening our alliances and enhancing our Nation's global
image, the Visa Waiver Program has helped to keep us safer. By
facilitating more efficient flow of overseas visitors for legitimate
business and leisure at a time when the global travel market is
booming, VWP expansion offers enormous export opportunity for the U.S.
travel and tourism sector across the entire Nation.
That is why we strongly support bipartisan legislation introduced
earlier this congressional session by Senator Mikulski (D-MD) and
Senator Kirk (R-IL) which would reform the criteria for being admitted
to the Visa Waiver Program, with the intent to accelerate VWP expansion
(S. 2046). We urge Congress to make passage of this legislation a top
priority this year.
The stakes are high for every American business seeking to host
meetings with international customers, for dozens of international
trade shows each year whose foreign clients need to enter the United
States on a deadline, and for tens of thousands of U.S. workers and
businesses dependent on a vibrant inbound travel market. We appreciate
your ongoing interest in ensuring an efficient entry process and look
forward to continuing to work closely with you to move this legislation
forward.
IMMIGRATION PROCESSING UPON ARRIVAL INTO THE UNITED STATES
How international visitors are treated when they arrive in the
United States and is just as important as the visa process. Over the
last decade, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, the U.S. Government
has rightly built additional layers of security into America's border
entry process. However, the way some of these policies are implemented
has had the unintended effect of alienating some international
travelers. Overseas visitors complain about hour-long waits at the
inspection areas at airports and of unfriendly treatment by inspection
officials.
This negative perception of the U.S. entry process was on full
display in 2009 when President Obama traveled to Copenhagen to help
promote Chicago's bid for the Olympic Games. An International Olympic
Committee (IOC) member from Pakistan, in the question-and-answer
session following Chicago's official presentation, pointed out to the
President that entering the United States can be ``a rather harrowing
experience.''
When IOC members are expressing concern to our President about the
kind of welcome international visitors would get from airport officials
when they arrive in this country to attend the Olympic Games, we need
to take seriously the challenge of reforming our entry process to make
sure we are welcoming our friends around the world, even as we ensure a
secure system.
Since 2006, our industry has partnered with DHS and CBP to offer
strategic advice on how to provide improved customer service and
increased efficiency in traveler facilitation. CBP has implemented some
recommendations quite effectively, such as the adoption of a welcome
video--produced by Disney--that is now played at all major
international U.S. airports. CBP also created the Global Entry program
to fast-track previously vetted Americans and select international
visitors returning from international trips. But much more remains to
be done.
The Department of Homeland Security should aim to process all
international arriving passengers within 30 minutes at the primary
inspection area. This can be done by developing and implementing a
comprehensive and automated staffing model to improve passenger
facilitation. In addition to the workload staffing model, CBP should
also expand the staffing workload alignment tool (SWAT) to additional
airports in order to better anticipate short-term staffing demands and
reduce wait times at primary inspection areas. To meet these goals, the
DHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013 should fund CBP adequately
to implement appropriate staffing reforms included in the workload
staffing model to decrease wait times at airports of entry.
U.S. Travel also encourages the establishment of baseline data and
the development clear staffing metrics in order to assess the
efficiency of CBP's workforce. The development of performance metrics
will increase agency accountability and ensure effective use of their
current resources.
The Department of Homeland Security should ensure that the $110
million in annual funding resulting from the elimination of the COBRA
fee exemptions from Canadian, Caribbean, and Mexican air and sea
travelers be reinvested into CBP staffing and facilitation at air and
sea ports of entry.
U.S. Travel remains concerned that a shortage of inspection agents
continues to produce excessive delays in processing international
passengers at some of this Nation's highest volume international
airports. Some international airports note that thousands of passengers
arriving from long flights are experiencing delays of up to 3 hours due
to inadequate staffing. We would like to work with your subcommittee to
find a sensible funding solution to ensure adequate staffing is
provided to process international travelers visiting our Nation. We
also encourage CBP to enhance transparency and reporting related to
airport wait times data. We recommend that the fiscal year 2013 DHS
appropriations bill should require this information to be published on
CBP's Web site and submitted to the subcommittee through a
comprehensive report on a quarterly basis.
These long delays in processing hurt the undoubtedly hurt customer
experience and discourage travelers from visiting or doing business in
the United States. The fiscal year 2013 DHS appropriations bill should
include provisions contained in the House DHS Authorization bill to
improve CBP transparency and customer service through the
implementation of a comprehensive system to collect, analyze, respond
to traveler comments. In addition, the legislation includes
requirements for CBP to set baseline standards and implement clear
metrics to track progress of customer services related issues and
establish agency best practices.
Lastly, CBP should increase the number of nations participating in
the Global Entry program and implement fully those reciprocal
agreements signed to date with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,
Germany, and Korea, among others, so that the maximum number of foreign
nationals can be signed up under Global Entry. We recommend that CBP
provide a more user-friendly process for individual registration to the
program, including simplifying the online application and providing
additional staff and locations for in-person interviews in order to
ensure conditionally approved applicants are interviewed within 6
weeks.
CLOSING
If this country is serious about becoming more competitive in a
global economy, Congress and the administration have to encourage
Americans and legitimate international visitors to travel in the United
States by reducing unnecessary hassles and barriers, while maintaining
necessary security. The stakes are enormous. Our own analysis shows
that if the United States recaptured its historic share of worldwide
overseas--or long-haul--travel by 2015 and maintained that share
through 2020, it would add nearly $100 billion to the economy over the
next decade and create nearly 700,000 more U.S. jobs. Increasing
America's share of worldwide long-haul travel is a no-brainer and, with
the right policies, should be relatively easy to do.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Dow. And your focus on
using technology to help solve these problems I really
appreciate.
Mr. Barclay.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. BARCLAY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES
Mr. Barclay. Thank you, Chair Landrieu.
I would just like to make three very brief points because a
lot of our testimony repeats what Roger and the first panel
have said.
The first is that airport executives strongly support the
philosophy behind RBS and the Trusted Traveler programs. We
congratulate the Department on both Pre3TM and
Global Entry. I particularly want to point out Administrator
Pistole deserves great credit for taking Pre3TM from
theory to practice. It is something that has been debated for
far too long over the last 10 years, as you have noted.
Second, RBS is not an option. We have to go to more
efficient use of our limited screening resources. Passenger
growth alone will overwhelm our facilities and our checkpoints
if we do not make more efficient use of intelligence and
information that people are willing to provide on themselves.
And third, airports want to be of greater help. Airports
would like to engage in local enrollment of trusted populations
in order to expand the numbers of people going through
Pre3TM. We have a number of both large and small
airports that are eager to do this for the frequent travelers
in their communities, but people who do not travel enough to be
on one airline's high level frequent flyer list or they may not
travel internationally and be thinking of Global Entry.
This is not just a theoretical offer. Airports own the
Transportation Security Clearinghouse which has processed 12
million biometric and biographic background checks to Federal
Government standards for airport workers and passengers in the
past 10 years. We have a number of airports that want to take
that process and on a voluntary basis airports would market
enrollment again to trusted communities locally and brand it
for themselves.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, the key to Pre3TM is to fill up those
lanes. If we do not fill those lanes--at a lot of airports, you
cannot put a new lane in. So if you designate a lane for
Pre3TM and put the resources there, we need to get
the volume going through there. Airports are eager to quickly
help engage in enrollment and make sure that we are putting
enough volume through those lanes in order to justify them, and
in both kinds of lanes, it will speed passengers' screening
process.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles M. Barclay
Senator Landrieu, Senator Coats, and members of the subcommittee,
on behalf of the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)--the
world's largest airport organization, representing thousands of men and
women across the country who manage and operate the Nation's airports--
I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
important hearing on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) travel
programs and initiatives. We appreciate the subcommittee's continued
focus on enhancing security, efficiency, and passenger satisfaction in
air travel and look forward to working with you toward that end in the
months ahead as you develop fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland
Security appropriations legislation.
Although airport operators do not have a direct role in screening
passengers at airport checkpoints or in processing international air
travelers, airport professionals are committed to enhancing security
and efficiency at their facilities and serve as important partners to
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) in meeting their respective missions in these areas.
Airport executives remain strongly committed to working collaboratively
with the Federal Government to expedite checkpoint screening and
international facilitation, and we are encouraged by recent
developments with the implementation by DHS of intelligence-driven,
risk-based programs, including CBP's Global Entry and TSA's PreCheck
(Pre3TM) trusted traveler programs.
On the international facilitation front, DHS and CBP leaders should
be commended for initiating and growing the Global Entry program, which
is showing demonstrable benefits at a number of international airports
across the country. Continued expansion and utilization of Global Entry
combined with additional CBP staffing at international airports are key
to the timely processing of international travelers and ensuring that
the United States remains a prime tourist and travel destination--a
goal that has profound implications for the broader U.S. economy. A
group of international gateway airports known as the G-10 have done
extensive work on international facilitation issues and have a series
of specific recommendations that I have included at the end of my
testimony. I urge the subcommittee to give these recommendations
careful consideration as well.
We also appreciate the administration's efforts to encourage
international travel and tourism with recently announced initiatives,
including the enhancement of the Global Entry and Visa Waiver programs.
Notably, AAAE Airport Alliance Chair and Chicago Department of Aviation
Commissioner Rosie Andolino has been appointed by the President to the
U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board and will play a key role in
addressing travel facilitation, visa policy, improving the
international travel experience, and other important topics as part of
that group.
Domestically, airport executives are equally enthusiastic about the
roll-out and announced expansion of the TSA Pre3TM program.
Administrator Pistole and his team deserve immense credit for their
leadership in moving forward with the program and other risk-based
initiatives. We also appreciate the support and funding the initiative
received from this subcommittee and Congress in fiscal year 2012, as
you have highlighted previously, Madam Chair.
Airport executives anticipate great success with Pre3TM
and recognize that the next challenge will be moving from a largely
airline-centric program in operation at merely a handful of airports to
one that is operational for large numbers of travelers at airport
facilities across the country. As you know, Pre3TM in its
current form is available only to certain elite travelers on specific
airlines and participants in the CBP Global Entry program who fly on
participating air carriers.
Airport executives would like to see the program expanded to
accommodate as many additional, qualified travelers as possible through
a community based, airport-centric approach that allows vastly larger
populations of travelers to enroll and participate in
Pre3TM-approved programs on an airport-by-airport basis and
become trusted through Government-approved vetting protocols. While
airline-based programs and Global Entry are good avenues in enrolling
qualified participants, additional efforts will be needed to
accommodate a broader range of qualified travelers--a goal that
airports, the traveling public, and the Government share.
Some have argued that the Global Entry process is sufficient in and
of itself as an enrollment platform. It is worth noting, however, that
only roughly one-third of the U.S. population currently holds a valid
passport, based on recent statistics from the State Department. Since
holding a valid passport is a requirement for Global Entry
participation, some two-thirds of the American public is currently
ineligible for participation through that process--a fact that
highlights the need for a more robust approach.
Airports Are Eager To Partner With DHS To Expand Trusted Traveler
Programs
AAAE and airports have long supported the trusted traveler concept
that underlies both the Global Entry and Pre3TM programs,
and we are actively working with CBP and TSA in an effort to rapidly
expand the population of passengers participating in these programs,
which virtually everyone knowledgeable about the program acknowledges
is necessary to maximize the efficiency and security benefits achieved
by focusing limited DHS resources on higher risk passengers. We are
also working collaboratively with DHS to address related issues
affecting program expansion, including checkpoint configuration, queue
management, modified LEO response expectations, and public outreach and
communication.
Airports long ago recognized that there was great potential value
in terms of enhanced security and efficiency with the deployment of
trusted traveler programs. Airports have also understood that they are
uniquely situated to bring interested parties together to chart a
course that would result in the successful deployment and operation of
these types of programs.
Over the past decade, AAAE and individual airports have worked
closely with TSA and the technology community to implement other
specific trusted traveler programs, including Registered Traveler (RT).
In roughly 1 year, the RT program enrolled more than 250,000 travelers
at 24 airports, proving the security and efficiency benefits that
adoption of these programs provides. As you may know, CLEAR is actively
working to build upon the earlier RT program and is currently in
operation at several key airports, including Orlando and Denver with
plans to expand to San Francisco and Dallas/Fort Worth later this year.
AAAE is encouraged by and supportive of those initiatives and others
aimed at facilitating the wide-scale utilization of the trusted
traveler approach at airports across the country.
Based on our prior success with trusted traveler initiatives, AAAE
has encouraged TSA and CBP to utilize community based, airport-centric
enrollment options to facilitate the flow of additional information to
the agencies on a significantly expanded number of low-risk passengers
for eligibility in the Pre3TM and Global Entry programs. In
addition to providing the volume of passengers necessary for TSA and
CBP to realize the operational efficiencies for which the programs are
designed, airport specific, public enrollment options will allow
airport operators to proactively and directly participate in the risk-
based programs that they support.
By playing such a key role, airport operators will also benefit
from local implementation of national programs that enhance security.
Airport involvement will also bolster the relationship between airport
operators and local DHS staff, increase affinity to airports, and
assist DHS in reducing the complexity while enhancing the customer
experience at passenger screening checkpoints and international
arrivals areas. The success of DHS' efforts to advance intelligence
driven risk-based security approaches is a top priority for AAAE and
its airport leadership.
Airports are confident that in partnership with TSA and CBP they
can help facilitate the deployment of robust trusted/known traveler
programs that focus on enhanced security above all else in addition to
expediting the travel experience. These two pillars are the primary
values that air travelers want and that each of you as policymakers
rightly will demand. By bringing efficiency back into the Nation's
airport screening checkpoints and the international facilitation
process, TSA screeners and CBP personnel will be able to better focus
their limited resources on the critical task of providing more rigorous
screening to individuals about whom we know less than those who use the
system the most and have voluntarily submitted background information
for extensive vetting and clearance.
Recommendation.--In addition to providing adequate funding to
support the Global Entry and Pre3TM programs in fiscal year
2013, AAAE recommends that the subcommittee and Congress encourage CBP
and TSA to continue working with airports to expand these critical
trusted traveler programs to additional populations and airport
facilities through community-based, airport-centric enrollment
approaches.
TSA Efforts To Upgrade Airport Baggage Systems Must Continue With
Federal Support
In addition to the wide-scale deployment of trusted traveler
programs, efforts to upgrade outdated and inefficiency technology to
screen checked baggage for explosives must continue with Federal
support if we are to successfully reduce lines and headaches for
passengers at the Nation's airports. While good progress has been made
over the past decade in upgrading checked baggage systems at airports
of all sizes thanks to the good work of this subcommittee and Congress,
a number of airports remain in need of improved, in-line baggage
screening systems.
Adding to the complexity of the ongoing problem is the fact that
much of the explosives detection (EDS) equipment placed in airports to
screen checked baggage in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is at or near
the end of its useful life, necessitating a costly recapitalization. In
an effort to address this issue, the administration in fiscal year 2012
requested and Congress granted to the TSA limited flexibility to
utilize for the purchase of EDS equipment funds designated under
permanent law for facility modification at airports to accommodate
optimal EDS solutions. The fiscal year 2013 budget requests similar
authority for TSA.
While airports recognize and support efforts to purchase necessary
equipment, we are concerned that resources intended to help make
necessary facility modifications at airports to accommodate optimal EDS
solutions--the precise purpose of the Aviation Security Capital Fund--
are being diverted to pay for equipment. Since terminal modifications
are necessary in most instances to install updated EDS equipment,
diverting funding from the Aviation Security Capital Fund could stall
necessary projects at airports as has been the case in the past. Many
airports simply don't have funding readily available for costly
terminal modifications and must rely on the Federal Government to meet
its obligations in this area.
Recommendation.--Congress should provide TSA with the resources it
needs to purchase EDS equipment and reject requests to divert resources
from the Aviation Security Capital Fund designated for airport
infrastructure upgrades for purposes beyond the scope of current law.
As past experiences with technology deployment in airports prove,
important projects can become stalled or slow significantly in
instances where resources are not available for necessary airport
facility upgrades. AAAE further asks that Congress ensure the agency
pays for all appropriate costs associated with EDS installation
projects, including ``bricks and mortar'' infrastructure upgrades
necessary to accommodate mandated screening systems.
TSA Must Remain Focused on Its Primary Mission of Passenger and Baggage
Screening
While not the prime focus of today's hearing, we also wanted to
bring to the subcommittee's attention our concern with proposals that
continue to emerge to expand TSA's authority beyond its primary mission
of passenger and baggage screening. Expanding the agencies reach and
responsibilities--particularly to areas already in capable local
hands--threatens to dilute already scarce resources.
As you know, airports play a critical role in aviation security,
serving as an important partner to TSA in helping the agency meet its
core mission of passenger and baggage screening. The significant
changes that have taken place in airports over the past decade with the
creation of the TSA and its assumption of all screening duties have
been aided dramatically by the work of the airport community, and we
will serve as a critical local partner to the agency as it continually
modifies its operations, including some of the risk-based security
initiatives that are under discussion today.
In addition to partnering with TSA to meet its core mission,
airports as public entities provide a critical local layer of security,
performing a number of inherently local security-related functions at
their facilities, including incident response and management, perimeter
security, employee vetting and credentialing, access control,
infrastructure and operations planning, and local law enforcement
functions. These important duties have long been local responsibilities
that have been performed by local authorities in accordance with
Federal standards and subject to Federal oversight. Airport operators
meet their security-related obligations with a sharp focus on the need
to protect public safety, which remains one of their fundamental
missions. The professionals who perform these duties at airports are
highly trained and have the first responder authorities and
responsibilities that we all value immensely.
Recommendation.--From a security and resource perspective, it is
critical that inherently local security functions--including incident
response and management, perimeter security, employee vetting, and
credentialing, access control, infrastructure and operations planning
and local law enforcement--remain local with Federal oversight and
backed by Federal resources when appropriate. We urge the subcommittee
and Congress to reject efforts to federalize local security functions
at airports.
Airport Credentialing and Access Control Should Remain With Local
Airport Control
One area of particular concern for airport executives that we are
compelled to highlight for the subcommittee is an ongoing effort to
``harmonize'' or ``modernize'' various aspects of existing
transportation worker vetting programs. In the aviation environment,
the background check process for workers operates successfully as a
Federal/local partnership with the Federal Government holding sole
responsibility for security threat assessments and other necessary
Government checks for prospective workers and with local airport
authorities operating and managing enrollment, credentialing, badging,
criminal history background check adjudication, and access control
systems in accordance with strict Federal standards.
The current system for aviation ensures the highest level of
security by combining the unique local experience, expertise, and
knowledge that exists at individual airports with Federal
standardization, Federal oversight, and Federal vetting assets. Local
involvement provides a critical layer of security and gives airports
the operational control they require to ensure that qualified employees
receive the credentials they need to work in the airport environment.
In contrast to the long-standing locally controlled credentialing
and access control apparatus that exists in the aviation environment,
the credentialing/access control system in place in the maritime
environment with the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) program is relatively new. Under the TWIC model, the Federal
Government or its contractors are responsible for virtually all aspects
of the process, including worker enrollment, applicant vetting,
credential issuance, and some elements of access control. In our view,
the early results of TWIC have been uneven at best despite hundreds of
millions of dollars in Federal investments. The existing system in
aviation operates at no cost to the Federal Government.
Some have suggested abandoning the successful local systems and
processes already in place at airports with badging and access control
to expand TSA and the Federal Government's control over more of the
process as is the case with TWIC in the maritime environment. Airport
executives oppose any move to shift any additional functions in
aviation to the Federal Government and believe that such a move would
diminish security by reducing or eliminating a critical, extra layer of
security that is already in place in airports and absent with the TWIC
approach.
Pursuing such an approach would scuttle a successful local/Federal
model that has worked well for decades, eliminate local operational
control, stymie significant efforts already under way at airports
across the country to upgrade and biometrically enable existing airport
badging and access control systems, and significantly increase costs to
the aviation industry with no demonstrable security benefit.
While the desire to centralize and federalize the process for all
transportation worker vetting programs in the name of modernization or
harmonization may be understandable from the Federal Government's
perspective, airport executives are concerned about Federal intrusion
into existing processes that have worked well for decades. Airports are
also very concerned about having to help foot the bill for these
initiatives--estimated at $633 million through 2025 in appropriations
and new fees as part of the TTAC Infrastructure Modernization (TIM)
program--for changes that provide them with no demonstrable security or
operational benefit. The current system in aviation operates
efficiently and effectively at a fraction of the cost of other
transportation vetting programs and at no cost to the Federal
Government. We want to ensure that remains the case.
Recommendation.--TSA can and should continue with its efforts to
modernize and harmonize its internal vetting programs without the need
to expand the Federal Government's responsibilities to include
credentialing and access control in the aviation environment. As the
subcommittee and Congress consider the TIM program, we urge you to
exempt aviation from any new fees or requirements in recognition of the
existing, successful, locally controlled credentialing and access
control model and the significant investments that have been made
locally over the years to those systems. Efforts to federalize any of
these processes or functions are unnecessary and wasteful and should be
rejected.
CONCLUSION
With Federal resources under severe constraint and with more than
700 million passengers traveling through the U.S. aviation system each
year--a number that is expected to grow significantly in the years
ahead--it is imperative that TSA remain focused on its primary mission
of passenger and baggage screening while pursuing risk-based approaches
to enhance security and efficiency. AAAE and airport executives are
encouraged by recent efforts to move forward with trusted traveler
programs with Global Entry and Pre3TM and are eager to
partner with CBP and TSA to expand those programs to additional
populations and airports through community-based, airport-centric
approaches.
I appreciated the opportunity to be here today and look forward to
any questions you have.
[The G-10 Airports Coalition's facilitation talking points (March
2012) follow:]
Attachment, G-10 Airports Coalition--Atlanta; Chicago; Dallas/Fort
Worth; Denver; Houston; Los Angeles; Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority; Miami; New York/New Jersey Port Authority; Philadelphia;
Phoenix; San Francisco; Seattle/Tacoma.
Efficient facilitation of internationally arriving travelers at the
gateway airports is vital to ensuring the continued growth of the U.S.
economy. According to the U.S. Travel Association, improving the
inbound air travel experience could add $85 billion in air traveler
spending which would support 900,000 jobs nationally. Doubling spending
by visitors from Brazil, China, and India specifically could result in
an additional $15 billion to the U.S. economy, creating another 105,000
jobs in the travel and tourism industries. The following
recommendations to Customs and Border Protection and the Department of
State would significantly improve the international traveler
experience, encouraging the continued growth of tourism (business,
medical, academic, and leisure) to the United States.
CBP ISSUES
Airport Processing Wait Time
Adopt a 30-minute goal of processing all international arriving
passengers through Primary Passport Control, which would illustrate the
need for additional offers, revised scheduling and queue management,
and/or new technology/programs--80 percent of all passengers by end of
2012, 90 percent by end of 2013, 100 percent by end of 2014.
Provide all G-10 airports with daily actual wait times logged per
FIS, for greater transparency and communication, as well as the ability
to monitor progress toward a goal.
Airport Staffing Levels
Provide additional staffing to provide adequate service to
accommodate the growing number of international passengers.
Institute a staffing model/standard to increase efficiency of
operations and scheduling at current levels to maximize the number of
officers in booths during peak periods, effectively reducing wait times
for passengers.
Global Entry Program
Negotiate international reciprocal agreements to increase the
number of eligible travelers in the Global Entry (GE) program. The GE
program works to reduce overall wait times for arriving passengers by
reducing the number of passengers needing to be processed by an
officer.
Provide G-10 airports with GE data relative to numbers of
enrollments and kiosk usage (broken down by U.S. citizens and foreign
nationals) nationally and in our respective airports to gauge the
effectiveness of promotional efforts and media outreach.
User Fees
Funds generated ($55 million) from the elimination of the user fee
exemption for Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean should be directly
applied to increase resources/staff for airport passenger processing.
Consolidate the CBP user fees, currently at $17.50 for Customs,
Immigration, and USDA inspection services per arriving international
passenger, into one fee and increase to a level that reflects 50
percent of CBP personnel costs (currently user fees account for 37
percent of CBP's staffing budget of $2.98 billion), with the additional
revenue to be used to expand CBP staffing at U.S. international gateway
airports.
In-Transit Visa Passengers
Institute a pilot program to provide easier processing for in-
transit (international-to-international connecting) passengers at the
G-10 airports. This would provide a better service to passengers--
guaranteeing connections, and would eliminate these travelers from the
general processing queue.
visa (department of state) issues
Reduce the time of visa processing for all applicants (especially
China and Brazil). Extended wait times (average 50 days in Brazil)
hinder the ability for travelers to enter the United States, which
results in billions of dollars lost. The average international visitor
spends $4,000 in the U.S. per visit.
Implement a pilot to waive in-person interviews for certain low-
risk applicants (visa renewals, full-time students, etc.). The
elimination of unnecessary interviews would allow officers to put
greater focus on high-risk or first-time applicants and ease the burden
for legitimate travelers to the United States.
Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program to key target countries such
as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, would significantly increase business
and tourism to the United States and deploy consular officers to high-
risk/volume countries.
Extend the duration of visas issued to Chinese nationals, from the
current 1-year period to a longer period (2, 5, or 10 years). This
would significantly reduce the number of travelers re-applying at the
limited number of Embassies/Consulates in China. While DOS sites
reciprocity and lack of repatriation as reasons, the Secretary of State
has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Senator Landrieu. I think that is a very important point. I
mean, as happy as it sounds to designate a special lane for
prescreening passengers, it would be very aggravating to be a
nonscreened passenger and stand there for 45 minutes watching
no one go through the other lane. So I know that, Doug, you are
focused on this coordination, but that is very, very important.
Thank you for raising it.
Mr. Hendricks.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. HENDRICKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
OF SAFETY, SECURITY AND OPERATIONS,
AIRLINES FOR AMERICA
Mr. Hendricks. Chairman Landrieu, thank you for the
opportunity to speak this morning. It is a very critically
important topic, and we look forward to sharing our thoughts
with you.
As you are aware, A4A represents 90 percent of the
traveling passengers and cargo within the United States.
I will try to briefly echo some of the thoughts of some of
my fellow panel members and quickly get to our recommendations.
We all here on the panel and members of the subcommittee
recognize the importance of air travel within the United
States. One of the dominating factors has become hassle for our
passengers and not only hassles but the perception of hassles
as they see throughput diminished during the screening process.
The President's recent initiative on travel and tourism is
a very positive step in our view. He has rightly recognized
that the spend of international travelers in the United States
has been reduced from 17 percent in 2000 to 11 percent, and we
need to turn this around. It is very worrisome. The President's
initiative attributed this to increased international
competition, changing patterns in global development, and to
some degree more stringent security requirements imposed after
9/11.
Having identified these issues that are hindering our
competitive position, we need to act promptly and decisively to
make travel and tourism a national priority without
compromising on safety and security. This should be a
centerpiece of a national airline policy.
And we would just like to point out that a strong, vibrant,
and healthy airline industry is good for the economy. It is
good for our country. Those are good, high-paying jobs, and we
need to do everything we can to make this industry successful.
Needed actions. I will get to those quickly. Several basic
considerations should guide any new travel and tourism
strategy. As has been correctly pointed out, we cannot
compromise on security and safety in any way.
Moving to the risk-based screening program that this
subcommittee has supported and that Administrator Pistole
referred to is the right path forward to help this industry and
to improve jobs in the United States.
Second, while impressions may not be accurate, they count
mightily in the tourism business. Frustration about obtaining a
visa or the length of a line at an airport of entry or a
security checkpoint can easily dissuade people from traveling
to the United States.
Third and related to the above, many countries have entry
procedures that are viewed as less burdensome than ours.
Fourth, other countries are competing hard for our
tourists. Some new emerging markets have a cache of newness
that, frankly, becomes difficult to compete with sometimes. We
need to be on the leading edge of attracting those travelers
with their dollars to our communities around this country.
And fifth, globalization is generating larger opportunities
for travel throughout the world, and we need to be in a
competitive situation and go after those tourists very
aggressively.
So it is a demanding environment.
To broaden these opportunities, very briefly I would like
to make these recommendations.
We would like to speed the issuance of visas, particularly
for high-growth countries such as Brazil, China, and India, and
you referred to that, Madam Chairman.
Expand the visa waiver program which we have strong support
for.
We are working very closely with Administrator Pistole and
his team on the TSA's Pre3TM program at domestic
screening locations.
Recognize on a reciprocal basis other countries' trusted
traveler entry programs that mirror CBP's very well received
Global Entry program. I have used that program myself. It is
very effective and very convenient.
Speed the processing of passengers entering the United
States. This will require CBP staffing levels to be at the
appropriate level to accommodate greater numbers of
international travelers.
Modernize CBP's information technology systems to keep pace
with technology as it evolves.
And avoid diverting CBP staff from existing airports of
entry and overseas preclearance locations to provide additional
personnel for land border crossings or to open new preclearance
locations. We are trying to avoid a diversion of these
resources so we can focus them most appropriately.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, there is a common recognition of the need
and benefits of promoting travel and tourism. I understand that
you have a great appreciation for that, Madam Chairman. And we
look forward to taking any questions you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas L. Hendricks
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to appear at this timely and
important hearing.
The members of Airlines for America (A4A) and their affiliates
transport more than 90 percent of all U.S. airline passenger and cargo
traffic. That traffic is carried on both domestic and international
networks. Speaking on behalf of America's airlines, the subject of
today's hearing is both timely and critical and we commend the
subcommittee for allowing us to provide our views.
OVERVIEW
Whether we are focusing on promoting travel within our country or
to our country, one factor predominates: the ease of the traveler's
experience. Hassles are the enemies of expanding travel. We must also
keep in mind that the perception of a hassling experience can drive
travel decisions.
Domestic and international travel is immensely important to our
overall economy. It contributed $1.1 trillion to our economy in 2010
and was directly responsible for nearly 7.5 million American jobs.
Sixty million international travelers visited our country that year.
They spent an estimated $134 billion while they were here and helped
generate significant levels of economic activity for those surrounding
destination areas.
And while the economic benefits of foreign visitors to the United
States are impressive, they are not as great as they could be. The U.S.
market share of international travelers' spending worldwide fell from
17 percent in 2000 to a little more than 11 percent in 2010. This is a
worrisome decline. President Obama's recent travel-and-tourism
Executive order attributed this decline to three factors:
--Increased international competition;
--Changing patterns in global development; and
--To some degree, more stringent security requirements imposed after
2001.
Having identified the issues hindering our competitive position, we
need to act promptly and decisively to make travel and tourism
promotion a national priority without compromising on security and
safety. This should be a centerpiece of a national airline policy. A
strong national airline policy would restore and enhance U.S. airline
industry viability and enable it to increase air service across the
Nation, boost economic growth, expand exports and create more high-
paying U.S. jobs.
NEEDED ACTIONS
Several basic considerations should guide a new national travel-
and-tourism strategy:
--First, security and safety cannot be compromised in any effort.
U.S. Government agencies with border control responsibilities,
however, have demonstrated that they have the experience and
ability to balance the need to maintain security and
simultaneously reduce barriers to travel.
--Second, while impressions may not always be accurate, they count
mightily in the travel and tourism business. Frustration about
obtaining a visa or the length of the line at an airport of
entry or security checkpoint can easily dissuade foreign
travelers from visiting the United States or Americans from
taking domestic trips.
--Third and related to the point above, many countries have entry
procedures that travelers regard as more predictable and less
burdensome than ours. These impressions affect travel
decisions.
--Fourth, other countries are competing hard for tourists. They have
made the national commitment to attract foreign visitors. In
some instances, these destinations have only emerged on a
significant scale in the last 5 or 10 years. They thus have the
cachet of newness, a potent competitive advantage.
--Fifth, globalization is generating greater disposable incomes--and,
therefore, the means to travel--in areas of the world that
historically have not been the sources of significant numbers
of visitors to the United States. To be realistic, travel to
the United States may be viewed in those areas as something
less than a priority.
This is a demanding environment. America must sharpen its
competitive edge if we are to expand the employment and economic
benefits that communities throughout the United States realize from
travel and tourism.
To broaden these opportunities, the U.S. Government needs to:
--Speed the issuance of visas, particularly for high-growth countries
such as Brazil, China, and India.
--Expand the Visa Waiver Program to additional countries where
security assessments support such expansions.
--Expand TSA's Pre3TM program at domestic passenger
screening checkpoints.
--Recognize, on a reciprocal basis, other countries' trusted-traveler
entry programs that mirror CBP's very well-received Global
Entry program. Consideration should also be given to expanding
trusted-traveler programs to specific categories of foreign
passengers, such as business travelers, who frequently travel
to the United States.
--Speed the processing of passengers entering the United States. This
will require more CBP staffing to accommodate greater numbers
of international travelers.
--Modernize CBP's information technology systems to better support
its passenger processing responsibilities.
--Avoid diverting CBP staff from existing airports of entry and
overseas preclearance locations to provide additional personnel
for land-border crossings or to open new preclearance
locations. Diversion of these limited resources would delay the
processing of air travelers arriving at our busiest airports of
entry, a result that would tarnish our reputation as a
desirable travel destination.
CONCLUSION
There is a common recognition of the need and the benefits of
promoting travel and tourism. We look forward to working with the
subcommittee to achieve those benefits.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you and I am going to ask you what
countries you think serve as the current models when we get to
our questions.
Mr. Hacker.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN HACKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EXHIBITIONS
AND EVENTS
Mr. Hacker. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity
to share our concerns with you. I am here representing the
nearly 11,000 trade exhibitions that take place in the United
States every year. As you would guess, most of them are now
heavily dependent upon international visitors.
I can tell you that more Chinese will visit France this
year than will visit the United States. We are keeping our
best, most lucrative customers from coming to buy American
heavy equipment, expensive technology, and management know-how.
What we need is an overarching strategy that combines all
of these silos that are involved with travel, safety, tourism.
We do not have a national strategy. What we have in place is a
patchwork quilt of fixes. The exchange you had just a few
moments ago about Pre3TM is a perfect example of why
we need an overarching strategy to think out these systems and
procedures in a very holistic manner.
Knowing I was coming here yesterday, at DFW Airport I
counted myself to be the 38th person in line at the priority
lane as a Pre3TM-approved passenger. It took me 28
minutes to get to the podium. That totally discredits the
program and defeats its entire purpose. It should not be in
place until a strategy was developed to implement it
effectively for all of the concerns that were expressed.
Our recommendations are fairly simple. We think that a
comprehensive visa strategy is essential and that a commission
ought to be organized drawing personnel from the Departments of
Homeland Security, State, and Commerce, and the private sector.
Draw talent out of the travel and trade industries where you
have seasoned executives who know how to compete fiercely in a
marketplace. Those are essential ingredients that are missing
in the current system.
Next, we must expand the visa waiver program. In the years
since South Korea was admitted to the program, tourism from
that important trading partner has doubled in 1 year.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And then video conferencing. We cannot afford not to test
out the validity of video conferencing. When you look at
nations that are important to our strategic and economic
interests like India, Brazil, and China, the land masses there,
the existing infrastructure just simply does not permit those
citizens to travel hundreds of miles to a U.S. consular office.
We have the technology. We must begin to use it.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Hacker
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you information about
the concerns of the exhibitions and events industry with respect to
visa, entry and homeland security issues. My name is Steven Hacker. I
am the president of the International Association of Exhibitions and
Events TM (IAEE), a not-for-profit trade association
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, that represents the exhibitions and
events industry. Our members in the United States produce, service, or
host most of the 11,000 trade and public exhibitions that take place
each year. These trade events represent about half of the total number
that takes place worldwide each year. Many are state-of-the-art events
such as the International Consumer Electronics Show, ConAgra/Con Expo,
and The National Association of Broadcasters, to name just a few that
you may know.
Trade shows and other exhibitions are nothing more than a mirror
reflection of the economic circumstances of the industries and
avocations that they serve. The events our members produce run the
entire spectrum of commerce and society. There are literally events for
every industry and interest including events serving the commercial
fishing boat industry, wind energy, nuclear medicine, and scrapbooking.
It should come as no surprise then that most of the events that take
place in the United States are now dependent upon the attendance of
international buyers and sellers.
My friend and colleague, Roger Dow, president of the U.S. Travel
Association, often refers to the time since 9/11 as the ``lost decade''
with respect to the global expansion of international travel. While the
number of international travelers has increased by 60 million
worldwide, the number visiting the United States has remained
essentially the same. We are only expecting to increase the number of
international visitors by 3.4 percent this year. To put these numbers
in perspective, more Chinese citizens will visit France this year than
will visit the United States. Our market share of international
visitors has shrunk from 17 percent in 2000 to 12.4 percent in 2011. We
have become the ``Blackberry'' of international travel--hemorrhaging
critical market share to our competitors who are thriving at the same
time.
The last decade has been 10 years of lost opportunity for the U.S.
exhibition industry. Visa and entry hurdles have kept millions of eager
foreign buyers and sellers from participating in our events. As a
result, they are now buying products and services at exhibitions taking
place in Germany, France and China. This is terribly frustrating and is
the first of three important ironies I will share with you today.
For the first time in modern history we stand on the brink of being
able to finally compete on a level playing field with the colossus of
the German trade fair industry whose decades-long and very substantial
government subsidies are quickly being eliminated as the result of the
continuing European financial crisis. The likely beneficiary of this
historic economic opportunity will not be the United States--it will be
China.
Just last week, the Chinese Government and the city of Shanghai
announced they will soon build the world's largest exhibition
facility--containing over 5 million square feet of space--large enough
to house two McCormick Place Convention Centers, this Nation's largest,
within its walls.
We have struggled for 10 years to convince State and Homeland
Security that we must have a comprehensive and secure visa and entry
policy--and I want to underscore the singular noun policy because what
we now have is nothing more than a patchwork quilt of ad hoc measures
that often are at odds with each other and that fall far short of
constituting a seamless approach to our commercial and security
interests.
The second tragic irony is that our most promising customers who
are buyers from the emerging economics of China, Brazil, and India are
often the least likely visitors to secure U.S. visas. We are
essentially broadcasting to our best prospects, ``do not shop here.''
In late 2010 we commissioned the highly regarded research firm
Oxford Economics to conduct a study that would reveal the economic
consequences upon our industry and our Nation stemming from this
hodgepodge of poorly conceived and executed visa and entry policies.
The key findings of the study are disturbing:
--Visa issues prevented 116,000 international visitors from attending
U.S. exhibitions. This includes 78,400 buyers and 37,900
international exhibitors.
These are not buyers who you would find at the Premium Outlet Mall.
They want to come here to buy farm and construction heavy
machinery costing thousands, and in many cases, millions of
dollars apiece; they need aerospace components, automobile
parts, technology, and U.S. service industry know-how. Today
they are buying what they need in other nations.
--Drop the visa barriers and the U.S. economy would realize increases
in business sales from our events alone of about $3 billion.
These gains include $1.5 billion in business-to-business trade,
one-half billion in registration fees and exhibition space
spending, and about $300 million in visitor spending.
--The $3 billion in lost sales would sustain over 17,500 jobs
directly and 43,000 jobs overall. It would generate three-
quarters of $1 billion in State and Federal taxes.
The third irony revealed by our study is that the industrial sector
that would benefit most from the removal of visa barriers is
manufacturing--the sector that is most vital to long-term American
economic security. The presence of visa obstacles keeps our most
promising buyers from engaging with our most vital industry sector.
What sense does this make?
We applaud both State and Homeland Security for the recently
announced initiatives that will add additional resources in China,
Brazil, and elsewhere and that will help bring down waiting times and
facilitate more efficient visa processing. However, these latest
efforts are just new pieces of the same patchwork quilt and continue to
fall far short of constituting a comprehensive, over-arching visa and
entry policy that also enhances national security.
Let me hasten to add that the entry experience is as important as
the visa issuance policy. It creates a lasting personal impression that
can either be very helpful or very harmful to our long-term economic
interests. Waiting in an immigration and customs line for 90 minutes
only to be greeted by a sullen customs officer is not what other
cultures consider hospitality. No surprise, it often reaffirms the
conviction that ``we are not wanted in the United States.''
I referred earlier to ad hoc policies that are often at odds with
each other. Here is an example. The newly launched Trusted Traveler
program is something we have advocated repeatedly since 9/11. In most
airport installations it is flawed. Trusted Travelers who expect to
``fly through'' TSA security screening must first wait the typical 20
minutes or more in the same lanes as all other travelers. This
completely defeats the purpose of the program. The system needs to
stipulate that there must be a lane dedicated exclusively to Trusted
Travelers so they may reach the TSA podium swiftly.
To conclude here is what we recommend:
--We must develop a singular and comprehensive visa and entry policy
that is designed from the ground up. It must support the mutual
goals of enhancing our economic competitiveness and national
security. We believe it would be beneficial to create a U.S.
visa commission consisting of State and Homeland Security
personnel and executives from the private sector for this
purpose. Many of the flaws in the current patchwork would never
be permitted if we ran visa and entry processing as a
commercial enterprise. We need to streamline and modernize
these systems if we hope to become globally competitive.
Executives who have expertise in travel and the movement of
people are resources that must be engaged to ensure that our
Federal agencies can redesign the system in the most efficient
and effective manner.
--Ample evidence exists that many visa rejections appear to be
illogical, capricious, and unfounded. While we believe that
ultimate authority for the approval or denial of applicants
must continue to reside with consular officials at posts
abroad, we also believe that it would be very helpful to adopt
uniform guidelines that establish more definitive parameters
for the circumstances that might bear upon the final decision
to approve or deny an application.
--The Visa Waiver Program must be expanded quickly to include our
most important potential trading partners like Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, and Poland. There are, of course, many
others. The benefits are enormous and will materially reduce
the stress on our visa and entry support systems. Expanding the
Visa Waiver Program will free desperately needed resources that
can be applied elsewhere in the system. The addition, for
example, of the Republic of Korea to the program last year has
already resulted in the doubling of visitors from that nation
to the United States.
--Allowing more international visitors to enter the United States is
not a zero sum game. Quite the contrary. It will yield millions
and millions of dollars in new fees and taxes to stimulate new
jobs and put American commerce in a far more competitive
position globally than we have been for the past decade.
Thank you again for allowing me this opportunity to visit with you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Hacker.
And that is actually why I insisted on you being part of
this panel, I think, because we have had so much focus on
tourism, and that is extremely important and it was a subject
of part of my opening. I do sense, as a community that also
attracts large trade shows--I am aware of these trade shows.
Lots of them happen in New Orleans. It is virtually impossible
for our businesses to compete in the world that we have created
without really pushing the envelope on some of this. And I
agree with you. While we have made some progress, we have a
great deal of progress to go. And I think your call for an
overall strategy is right on.
Ms. Nelson and then we will go to questions.
STATEMENT OF SARA NELSON, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA
Ms. Nelson. Thank you, Chairwoman Landrieu, for giving us
the opportunity to testify today.
Our president, Veda Shook, regrets that she was unable to
attend and sends her best wishes.
I am here representing the world's largest flight attendant
union, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, representing
60,000 flight attendants at 22 different airlines. Flight
attendants, as first responders in the aircraft cabin, have a
unique perspective on security, and we very much appreciate
your attention to these issues.
When airport security was federalized, security improved
immediately. On September 11, 2001, I was based in Boston as a
United Airlines flight attendants, and I had worked United
Airlines flight 175 frequently. It could have been me on that
fateful day, but instead it was people I knew and worked with,
including my good friends, Emmy King, Michael Tureau, Robert
Fangman, Amy Jerrod, and the 21 other flight attendants who
were my colleagues.
I remember airport security prior to September 11 and the
faces of the screeners who worked at the checkpoint for
terminal C at Logan. The terrorists would have passed through
this checkpoint to board United flight 175. I remember the
screeners' faces because they were all the time, 7 days a week,
all hours of the day. I remember their accents and their sweet
but tired smiles. I remember their efforts to work long hours
for the lowest bidding security company so that they could
provide for their own families.
I lost my friends that day and my profession was redefined
and our world changed forever. And I often wonder how those
hard-working security personnel have coped with their part in
failing to stop the most fatal attack on U.S. soil. Do they
know they were set up to fail?
Federalizing airport screening has been a success,
improving the security of air travel. Flight attendants are the
last line of defense in aviation security. We depend upon a
regulated Federal security system, and we commend TSA
Administrator Pistole's efforts to limit privatization of
security at additional airports and we oppose recent actions of
Congress to attempt to force the Administrator to allow more
privatization.
AFA expects flight attendants to be included in the Known
Crewmember program as a part of the larger risk-based
initiatives that focus on security while making screening more
convenient. TSA initiated this alternate screening first for
pilots in 2011. The Association of Professional Flight
Attendants representing American Airlines flight attendants and
the Transport Workers Union Local 556 representing Southwest
flight attendants join the 60,000 flight attendants in AFA in
supporting inclusion of flight attendants in Known Crewmember.
The 9/11 Commission Act provided direction that all crew
members, flight attendants included, take part in expedited,
alternate screening. Full implementation with all crew members
would create a more efficient travel experience as it reduces
passenger screening congestion. Flight attendants have access
to the flight deck. We are subject to the same 10-year
background checks as pilots, and like pilots, we carry a
certificate issued by FAA. We are charged with protecting the
flight deck at all costs, including the loss of our own lives.
The Air Line Pilots Association and A4A have both requested
that TSA expand the program to include flight attendants in the
future, and the time is now. So we encourage the subcommittee
to request a report from TSA establishing milestones for
including flight attendants in the program as mandated by the
9/11 Commission Act.
To improve efficiency and security during screening and
boarding, TSA should issue regulations to limit carry-on
baggage: One bag, plus one personal item. According to the
Common Strategy Security Guidance, flight attendants are to
observe passengers during the boarding process to watch for
anything suspicious. This critical final layer of pre-flight
security is severely hampered by the distraction of carry-on
bag chaos.
Current carry-on rules were established more than two
decades ago, and each carrier has its own program. Global
alliances and code share agreements can make this very
confusing for passengers. For example, passengers buying a
ticket on Delta's Web site from Roanoke, Virginia to Paris,
France, may never step foot on a Delta airplane as they
actually fly on ExpressJet to Atlanta and Air France to Paris.
A standard baggage policy enforced by TSA that limits size
and number of carry-on bags will make screening more efficient
at security checkpoints and allow flight attendants to more
effectively observe the cabin for possible security threats.
In conclusion, TSA should institute and enforce a
standardized carry-on baggage policy. Security and the
screening workforce must remain federalized through TSA, and
flight attendant inclusion in the Known Crewmember program
should be expedited.
We look forward to continuing our working relationship with
you and with this subcommittee and making progress on these
important issues. And we look forward to working with
Administrator Pistole to implement these important policies.
And thank you again so much for the opportunity to testify
today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sara Nelson
Thank you, Chairwoman Landrieu for giving us the opportunity to
testify today. Our president, Veda Shook, regrets that she was unable
to be here today and sends her best wishes and greetings. My name is
Sara Nelson, and I am the international vice president of the
Association of Flight Attendants-Communication Workers of America
(AFA), AFL-CIO. AFA represents nearly 60,000 flight attendants at 22
different airlines and is the world's largest flight attendant union.
We appreciate having the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on
``Balancing Prosperity and Security: Challenges for U.S. Air Travel in
a 21st Century Global Economy.''
In the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks, flight attendants have been
assigned increased responsibilities for ensuring safety, health, and
security in the cabin. We receive training in fire control, first aid,
aircraft evacuation, and emergency procedures, and are responsible for
protecting the flight deck and cabin from an attack. Flight attendants
play a key role in the security of passengers on the aircraft and are
required to be on passenger flights.
Flight attendants, as the first responders in the aircraft cabin,
have a unique perspective on a number of the programs of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). We are pleased to have a
seat here today to share our views on how the Federal TSA workforce,
expedited screening for all crewmembers, and establishing a
standardized carry-on baggage policy can enhance safety and security
while improving convenience and efficiency at our Nation's airports.
TSA WORKFORCE
When airport security was federalized, security improved
immediately. On September 11, 2001, I was based in Boston as a United
Airlines flight attendant. I remember airport security prior to
September 11. I remember the faces of the screeners who worked the
check point for terminal C at Logan. The terrorist would have passed
through this check point to board United flight 175. I remember the
screener's faces because they were there all the time, 7 days a week,
all hours of the day. I remember their accents and their sweet, but
tired smiles. I remember their efforts to work the long hours for the
lowest bidding security company just so that they could provide for
their own families. I lost 25 of my flying partners that day, my
profession was redefined and our world changed forever, and I often
wonder how those hard-working security personnel have coped with their
part in failing to stop the most fatal attack on U.S. soil. Do they
understand they were set up to fail?
We commend TSA Administrator Pistole's efforts to date to limit
privatization of security at additional airports and we oppose recent
actions of this Congress to attempt to force the Administrator to allow
more privatization. Federalizing airport screening has been a success,
improving the security of air travel. Flight attendants and passengers
are safer today because of it. Flight attendants are the last line of
defense in aviation security. My colleagues and I depend on TSA workers
to keep our jobs safe. We depend upon a regulated security system that
meets the requirements of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Commission Act), Public Law 110-53.
Effective passenger and baggage screening is a vital part of our
layered defense against terrorism in the skies. It is also a difficult
job with massive responsibility.
There is a growing drum beat demanding a return to the old system
where security checkpoints were contracted out to the lowest bidder. To
return to a bottom-line driven system that puts security second to
profits borders on reckless and is an unjustified regression from TSA's
successful mission to protect the skies.
The flight attendants of this country act as first responders every
day of the year and our lives depend on the integrity of each layer of
security in the airport and on the aircraft. TSA must have the funding
to give screeners the staffing, support and training they need to do
their jobs to help keep our skies safe and secure.
SECURITY SCREENING
For more than 5 years AFA has pressed for alternative screening for
flight attendants that would accurately reflect our credentials as pre-
screened safety professionals. Our advocacy on alternative screening is
all the more important and relevant as the TSA moves to implement risk-
based passenger security screening.
Flight attendants are subject to the same level of screening and
background checks as pilots, with the exception of those pilots
participating in the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program. Flight
attendants are an integral part of the crew and the purpose of our jobs
is to handle in-flight safety and security. Yet flight attendants are
not included in the same alternative screening as our pilots. TSA has
stated that a similar screening process is contemplated for flight
attendants, but concrete dates or milestones to start this inclusion
process have yet to be announced.
The 9/11 Commission Act requires the Department of Homeland
Security to implement an alternate security screening system for
sterile area access control within commercial service airports. The
system was to be used by all crewmembers. The subject is extremely
relevant for today's hearing. First, an alternate security screening
process for crewmembers contributes to a more efficient travel
experience as it reduces passenger-screening congestion. Second, the
system recommended was included in a report that focused on creating a
more secure aviation system.
In May 2009, TSA announced a test program, CrewPASS at three
airports. Participation at these airports was voluntary but plans to
expand the system were underway until November 2010. New screening
technologies, advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanning machines, were
deployed in over 68 airport locations with TSA implemented enhanced
screening procedures at security check points. Any person, who did not
want to utilize the new AIT machines, and set off the alarm at a walk-
through metal detector, would be subjected to an ``enhanced'' pat-down.
The Thanksgiving weekend roll-out was done without consultation of
the industry or aviation workers on the front lines of security. A
Memphis pilot refused to submit to the new screening procedures and was
subsequently denied access to his aircraft. Faced with a public outcry,
TSA announced that pilots would be exempt from the new screening
procedures and TSA would implement an expedited screening program based
upon the CrewPASS test program, utilizing the Cockpit Access Security
System (CASS) database. Since the CASS database was designed to verify
the identity and employment status of pilots allowing them access to
the jumpseats of airplanes belonging to companies other than their
own--it was to be limited to pilots only.
On November 19, 2010, AFA held a meeting with Administrator Pistole
to discuss the concerns of our members about these procedures and to
reiterate our call for TSA to implement CrewPASS that would provide
flight attendants with a non-invasive method of screening. At this
meeting TSA said that pilots and flight attendants would be subjected
to the exact same screening procedures and the Administrator agreed to
work with AFA on a range of security-related issues, including
screening procedures.
On August 11, 2011, TSA started another expedited alternate
screening program similar to CrewPASS called Known Crewmember (KCM).
TSA, working in cooperation with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)
and Airlines for America (A4A), rolled out the program at a few U.S.
airports and it was available for pilots from specific airlines only.
Flight attendants, with the same background checks as their pilot
crewmember counterparts, have not been included in the program.
While TSA continues to consider when or if to include flight
attendant participation in the Known Crewmember program, the agency has
announced pilots from additional airlines are scheduled to be included
in addition to implementing other alternative screening initiatives for
frequent travelers and Active Duty servicemembers. AFA supports risk-
based screening initiatives designed to make the screening process more
convenient without sacrificing security. Flight attendants should be
recognized for the work we do and for the service and safety we
provide, and permitted to participate in alternative screening. In
terms of supporting security, efficiency of the program and convenience
for travelers currently sharing screening lines with flight attendants,
TSA should move quickly to include all crewmembers in KCM. We encourage
this subcommittee to request a report from TSA establishing milestones
for including flight attendants in the program as mandated by the 9/11
Commission Act.
Flight attendants are first responders and since 9/11 we have also
taken on the role as the last line of defense for aviation security.
Flight attendants routinely identify and manage threat levels, use our
training to de-escalate threats, and provide direction to helper
passengers to assist in restraining assailants. We are charged with
protecting the cockpit at all costs, including the loss of our own
lives. Security doesn't just happen; over 100,000 flight attendants
working in U.S. aviation system fill our role to make sure our skies
are safe.
Flight attendants have access to the flight deck and we are subject
to the same 10-year background checks as pilots. Like pilots, we carry
a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The
9/11 Commission Act provided direction that all crewmembers, flight
attendants included, take part in expedited, alternate screening. Other
stakeholders are in agreement: ALPA and A4A have both requested that
the TSA expand the program to include flight attendants in the future.
The time is now. Passengers are being invited to opt-in to
expedited security screening programs simply because they log a certain
number of miles on U.S. carriers. The Nation's certified flight
attendants, serving as the last line of defense, surely meet the
requirements of the Known Crewmember program.
CARRY-ON BAGGAGE LIMITATIONS
To improve efficiency and security during the screening process and
during the boarding process, TSA should issue regulations that would
set a standard limit on carry-on baggage permitted to pass through
security checkpoints. TSA has introduced passengers to the concept of
3-1-1 regarding liquids, aerosols, and gels. That is, 3 ounces in a 1-
quart clear plastic, zip-top bag; one bag per passenger placed in a
screening bin and fit through a template on the X-ray conveyor belt. We
call upon the TSA to add two numbers to this equation 1+1: One bag,
plus one personal item. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exclusions: any regulations established by the FAA or TSA
should not apply to child safety seat nor a child passenger, assistive
devices for disabled passengers, musical instruments, outer garments or
to working crewmembers in uniform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing the size and number of carry-on bags would ultimately
enhance security screening by reducing the number of bags that need to
be screened at airport checkpoints.
Current guidelines for carry-on bags were established more than two
decades ago when air travel was much different than today. Each carrier
had to have an individual program to control the weight, size, and
number of carry-on bags. This created a maze of varying programs making
it difficult and confusing for passengers. With the formation of global
alliances and code share agreements individual program philosophies add
to the confusion since alliance members sell seats on their partners'
routes. A ticket purchased from one carrier may be subject to the
carry-on bag rules of another.
The concept of limiting the size, type, and amount of carry-on
baggage in relation to improving security is nothing new and was
recommended by the FAA Aviation Security Advisory Committee in 1996.
Similarly, after 9/11, the FAA issued guidance to carriers to limit
passengers to one carry-on bag and one personal bag (such as a purse or
briefcase). This restriction is loosely enforced.
AFA has filed two petitions for rulemaking requesting the FAA to
enhance their carry-on baggage rule, citing incidents involving carry-
on bags that range from disruption in the cabin, delays in boarding and
deplaning, physical and verbal abuses toward flight attendants and
passengers, and injuries and impediments to speedy evacuations. Despite
these two requests for rulemaking the FAA has failed to establish a
specific requirement regarding size and number of carry-on bags
allowed.
According to the Common Strategy security guidance, flight
attendants are to observe passengers during the boarding process to
watch for anything suspicious. Prior to takeoff, flight attendants can
ask the captain to subject a suspicious passenger to additional
security scrutiny. The ability of flight attendants to provide this
critical final layer of pre-flight security is being severely hampered
by the distraction created with carry-on baggage chaos. Frequent flyers
see it almost every flight: flight attendants are forced to manage
excessive numbers of oversized carry-on bags in limited overhead bin
space and removing baggage that doesn't fit.
Limiting the size and number of carry-on baggage would create a
uniform, enforceable rule across the industry, and enhance security in
the process. It will allow for more efficient screening at the
checkpoint and also improve the ability of flight attendants to more
effectively observe passengers for possible security threats. The TSA
could make travel more secure and convenient for passengers by issuing
a standardized policy on carry-on bags and limiting the size and number
of carry-on bags allowed to be screened at an airport check point.
In conclusion, AFA believes there are areas where improvements
could be made by the TSA to foster efficiency while enhancing security.
Security must remain federalized through TSA, flight attendant
inclusion in the Known Crewmember program should be expedited and the
TSA should institute and enforce a standardized carry-on baggage
policy. We look forward to continuing our working relationship with
this subcommittee and the chairwoman to make progress on these
important issues. And, we look forward to working with Administrator
Pistole to implement these important changes. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Ms. Nelson. And I really
appreciate the airline industry that is represented here
staying focused on the subject at hand and not diverting too
much into this baggage charge issue. But I do want to raise
this.
With baggage charges anywhere from $25 to $50--I think it
could even go up to $100 depending on--it is really dissuading
people from putting their bags through the regular process and
stuffing everything into extra large carry-ons which is slowing
down the boarding process, as you heard, making it more
difficult for the flight attendants to actually have eyes on
the cabin with so much chaos.
So I do not want to bring that up in too much detail, but I
am going to follow up with some additional hearings on the
whole baggage charge, et cetera, at the appropriate time.
But let me ask the airports. Do not even mention TSA; do
not mention the State Department; and do not mention Customs. I
would like to know what the airports themselves are doing to
improve the experience for travelers. I know your budgets are
limited. Your capital budgets are limited. We took a long time
to expedite the reauthorization of the Federal aviation bill.
But what, Mr. Barclay, are airports doing themselves? Could
you mention two or three specific things to improve the
experience of travelers, maybe what one or two of your biggest
concerns are or your frustrations? Either you do not have as
much say-so over the airlines themselves or your working
relationship with TSA at some places is not what it should be
or Customs. Could you mention two specific things that are your
doing and maybe two specific frustrations that airports are
doing?
Mr. Barclay. Right. The airports, as you know, are
landlords. They are like the shopping center owner and then the
direct line of interaction with the customer are the tenants,
whether it is the airlines or the shops. TSA is a tenant at the
checkpoint. But airports are owned by local governments and
controlled by government entities headed by people who care
mostly about their volunteers and they care about--if you serve
on the board of an airport, what you care about is the
passenger experience at that airport.
So airports try to find ways. They hire ambassadors. As was
mentioned earlier, often they will hire ambassadors with
multiple language capabilities to help folks that may not speak
English. They try to find ways to insert themselves where it is
not interfering with the commerce of the direct relationship
between a passenger and an airline or between someone trying to
get vetted and TSA. So our role is to provide the facilities
and provide comfortable enough facilities, but it is not the
direct interface with the passenger.
Senator Landrieu. I think this is a very interesting point
and it may just be my perspective as a former local elected
official just on behalf of my constituents. I think when
somebody shows up to an airport, they actually think that the
airport is in charge of something. Like they go to the Atlanta
airport, they think that the Atlanta airport is in charge of
something. It is becoming apparent to me that the Atlanta
airport is virtually in charge of nothing. And so the
passengers wander from airline to airline with all different
rules and regulations. TSA is in charge of this. You cannot get
a glass of water because of this.
I mean, I really think, getting back to what Mr. Hacker
said, sort of an overall look, a look afresh, at the way that
just a regular passenger views, that they are in this huge
building that looks someone should be in charge, but no one is
really in charge of the whole picture. It is either an airline
issue or a TSA issue or a food service issue, et cetera, et
cetera. And I think this should be an issue for mayors that are
trying to promote their cities and for Governors that are all
about creating jobs and opportunity.
And I am going to do what I can as chair of this
subcommittee to connect mayors, Governors, airports, and this
large group because the bottom line is jobs and opportunity and
economic vitality for this country. This is about business.
This is the way business is done now. And I am not seeing as
much progress on this as I would like to see.
What is your one biggest frustration as an airport
director? And let me ask you this. Do you ever give awards to
airports that do a really good job of this just regularly? And
who won your award last year?
Mr. Barclay. We do not give out awards, but there are a
number of awards aimed at trying to incentivize people to win
the awards. We can get the subcommittee a list of some of
those.
Senator Landrieu. Get that list to me, if you would.
[The information follows:]
Letter From the American Association of Airport Executives
January 15, 2013.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Landrieu: I am writing as a follow up to the March
21, 2012, subcommittee hearing on challenges for U.S. air travel and a
question you posed to me during the hearing regarding airport customer
service awards. As I noted to your initial inquiry, AAAE does not give
out specific awards in this area, but there are other notable efforts
aimed at fostering enhanced customer service at the Nation's airports.
Perhaps the most prominent of these is the J.D. Power and
Associates North American Airport Satisfaction Study. The study, which
has received wide-spread national and local media attention, provides
an important measure of customer satisfaction with the passenger
experience at individual airports, including accessibility; baggage
claim; check-in/baggage check process; terminal facilities; security
check; and food and retail services. The study has been helpful in
showcasing successful customer service initiatives by airports and
their airline and Government partners. It has also been helpful,
frankly, in providing useful feedback on areas in which improvements
are needed.
As I tried to make clear in response to your questions and in my
testimony before the subcommittee, airports as public entities view
passenger convenience, safety, and security as their primary
responsibilities and work diligently with their tenants and the Federal
Government to make constant improvements in these areas. In addition to
reviewing feedback from national surveys, many individual airports
routinely query their passengers--both formally and informally--to
assess where they are in terms of customer service so that improvements
can be made when necessary.
Airport executives share your concern about the challenges that
exist at the Nation's airports as all parties who operate at these
facilities seek to find the right balance between security and
convenience. There are clearly many areas in which improvements can be
made, and airport executives are committed to working with our
Government and industry partners to achieve that goal.
We sincerely appreciate the leadership role you have taken through
your work on the subcommittee to highlight the importance of improving
the experience of air travelers both domestically and internationally,
and we look forward to working with you toward that end in the year
ahead.
Sincerely,
Charles Barclay,
President.
Mr. Barclay. I mean, the frustration is often exactly what
you are saying. Airports have a big job. Adding a fifth runway
at Atlanta which affects the entire system because delays were
rippling around the system, the politics and the difficulty and
the cost of adding a multi-billion dollar, multi-year project
was enormous. And that is the airport's job, making sure those
facilities are there. But it does not feel as fulfilling as it
should if you have got a lot of mad passengers who are waiting
too long in a security line somewhere and you are the local
government official in charge of that airport.
Senator Landrieu. And I would like to ask, while TSA is
here, when Delta Airlines adds 10 more flights into an airport
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 on a morning, how is that
communicated to TSA and how quickly can they change their
staffing assignments? Who wants to take that question?
Mr. Hendricks. Madam Chairman, I would be happy to answer
that. Thank you.
I am a retired airline captain. I worked at Delta Airlines
for many years.
I can assure you that the station manager in Atlanta--his
job is to run the experience for all of those Delta passengers
in Atlanta, and he is very much engaged with his partners at
the local airport authority, with the local TSA officials. And
whenever the network changes, those communications take place
at the local level because we have to make sure that we have
got enough supporting capability to match the capacity that may
be changing at that particular airport.
So I am comfortable that United in Chicago, American in
Dallas and Miami, Delta in Atlanta and Minneapolis--they are
communicating very aggressively with their airport authorities
and with local TSA agents and with CBP as well to ensure that
the traveling experience is as good as it possibly can be
because they want to reduce the amount of frustrations that our
passengers have from when they walk in the door at the airport
to when they exit the curb and go to their destination.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Hacker, you testified that flaws in
our visa processing system are costing the U.S. convention
industry $3 billion in sales, 43,000 jobs, and $750 million in
State and Federal taxes every year. Those are big numbers. You
also made the comment that exhibition attendees are not
shopping at outlet malls. They are shopping for heavy
machinery, aerospace, automobile parts, advanced technology,
and professional services.
What are some of the highest profile global trade
exhibitions that take place in the United States just to give a
little bit more dimension to what we are trying to raise here?
Mr. Hacker. Let me give you two illustrations. The first I
think most of us are familiar with because of the intense media
coverage every January, and that is the international consumer
electronics show in Las Vegas. This year it drew 150,000
attendees from literally all over the world. It is the
principal trade event. And billions of dollars change hands at
an event like that.
I can tell you that about 40,000 buyers from overseas,
principally from Asia, did not attend the event because they
could not get visas.
One of the points I was not able to make earlier was we
really do need to adopt guidelines at the State Department that
define what are the parameters for the approval or the denial
of a visa application. We have ample evidence that many of
those rejections are capricious, they are illogical, and they
are unjustified. I would be happy to provide you with specific
information about that.
But it is incalculable when a delegation from India that
wants to come to another major event like Conexpo-Con/Agg, the
largest footprint, 2.8 million square feet of space every 3
years in the United States--this is where you would go to buy
John Deere mining equipment, Caterpillar earth moving
equipment. A delegation from India, 35 buyers, was rejected. So
they went to Germany and they bought Polish tractors and earth
moving gear.
Now, the losses to John Deere and Caterpillar measure in
the billions of dollars right there in that transaction alone,
to say nothing of the jobs and the taxation that was lost.
So this is such a frustrating decade that we have endured
since 9/11. And much credit to TSA, DHS, and the State
Department. We have made progress, but not nearly enough. Not
nearly enough.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Landrieu. I think that is a good place to close
this hearing.
I am going to carefully review this testimony. It will stay
open for 1 week for any additional submissions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the nondepartmental witnesses for response
subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Roger S. Dow
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Mr. Dow, now that the President has issued an Executive
order on travel and tourism and the State Department has instituted
needed reforms, is there still a need for legislation to improve the
visa process?
Answer. The President's Executive order was an enormous step
forward toward encouraging overseas travel to the United States. The
administrative directives to re-deploy consular personnel more
strategically and to reduce wait times in key markets will address the
inefficiencies that currently serve as a self-imposed barrier to
international travelers to the United States for both business and
leisure. These steps will certainly help alleviate the unproductive
delay and confusion in the visa application process that undermine our
competitiveness in the international travel marketplace. But this
progress will be illusory if we cannot sustain it over the long term.
The only way to ensure such structural change is to codify these
welcome reforms in statute. In particular, we urge Senators to support
S. 2233, the JOLT Act.
Question. Mr. Dow, would you elaborate on why Brazil, China, and
India are such important travel markets for the United States? Why
should we focus on them right now?
Answer. When it comes to attracting visitors from these dynamic
markets, the United States lags behind our international competitors,
especially in Western Europe.
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of long-haul arrivals to the
United States from Brazil, China, and India rose by about 1.4 million.
During that same period, arrivals increased by more than 3 million to
Western Europe. In 2010, the United States welcomed just 2.6 million
travelers from these countries, while more than 6 million Brazilian,
Chinese, and Indian travelers visited Western Europe.
In 2010, the United States claimed 29 percent of the Brazilian
long-haul market, compared to 51 percent for Western Europe. For China,
the United States held just 13 percent of the market, a third of
Western Europe's share. And in India, only 11 percent of long-haul
outbound travel comes to the United States, compared to more than 26
percent for Western Europe.
In order to compete effectively in the global travel market, the
United States must set a national goal of keeping pace with our
competitors in Western Europe and matching their current market share
in attracting visitors from Brazil, China, and India by 2015.
Question. Mr. Dow, you have recommended that the State Department
pilot the use of visa videoconferencing to conduct visa interviews
remotely. Why is there a need for this and do you know of a concern
about security in carrying it out?
Answer. For millions of overseas tourists and business travelers
seeking admission to the United States, the lack of accessibility to
our consular offices is a significant disincentive to even applying for
a visa. In critical travel markets like China, India, and Brazil, visa
applicants who do not live in a city with a U.S. consulate, are forced
to travel--at times--thousands of miles, at great expense and
inconvenience, for the required personal interview that lasts less than
5 minutes. We could remove this obstacle by authorizing the use of
secure remote videoconference technology for applicant interviews. This
technology, used routinely for secure communication by nearly every
Federal agency including the State Department, would streamline the
process without in any way compromising security. Indeed, the fact that
the videotaped interview could be reviewed later could actually enhance
security. It is important to note that any applicant whose videotaped
interview yielded increased suspicion could still be required to appear
in person. For the vast majority of interviews that proceed
successfully, this technology would encourage more applicants for
legitimate business and leisure travel to the United States; minimize
the daunting expense and logistics of travel to the ``nearest''
consulate; economize on the time of consular officials; and, most
important, help restore the competitiveness of the United States in the
global travel market.
Question. Mr. Dow, if the visa reforms that are being implemented
help to drive up international travel, what impact will that have on
U.S. airports?
Answer. As international travel to the United States grows through
much needed visa reforms, the flow of traffic through U.S. airports
will significantly increase. This will impact all phases of airport
operations but could have serious impacts particularly on the entry
process. Several U.S. airports are already facing long wait times at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) primary inspection areas, of
up to 3 hours, as a result of inadequate officer staffing and non-
optimal officer schedule management. The U.S. Travel Association
supports entry reforms that will reduce primary inspection wait times
and better facilitate the increased flow of passengers through
immigration processing.
U.S. Travel supports the adoption of a 20-minute baseline standard
for the clearance of each international arriving passenger in the
primary inspection area. We believe this will require CBP to develop
and implement an automated staffing model to maximize CBP limited
resources. In addition, it is likely that new personnel will be needed.
In order to determine the appropriate staffing levels, we encourage CBP
to share the findings of its recent Workload Staffing Model report with
the Committee and for the subcommittee to include adequate funding in
the fiscal year 2013 DHS Appropriations bill to fund our Nation's
international airports appropriately.
We also encourage CBP to expand the use of technology in passenger
processing to enhance security and free up valuable officer resources
to focus on the most critical threats. CBP should increase the number
of nations participating in the Global Entry program starting with
South Korea, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. In
addition, we urge CBP to implement a more user-friendly application
process through a simplified online application and additional
interview locations in order to conduct applicant interviews within 6
weeks of conditional approval.
In the current budgetary environment, we strongly believe that any
funds acquired through the taxation of travelers should be reinvested
to enhance travel facilitation. As a result, it is only fitting that
the additional funding of $110 million resulting from the elimination
of the COBRA fee exemption for Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean
travelers should be used for passenger facilitation operations at air
and sea ports of entry.
Question. In your testimony, you state that travelers would take
two to three more trips per year if security hassles were improved.
Besides the airlines, what other businesses are impacted by the
inefficient screening process? Do all U.S. Travel Association members
see this as a problem?
Answer. For the travel community--which supports rural and urban
communities alike--inefficiencies in the aviation security screening
process impose a staggering cost on all types of businesses.
A 2008 survey of air travelers who took one or more flights in the
previous year found that one in four respondents (28 percent) avoided
at least one trip because of the hassles of air travel, which include
aviation congestion and passenger screening. That loss of travel
translates into a $26.5 billion loss to the U.S. economy, including
$9.4 billion to airlines, $5.6 billion to hotels, $3.1 billion to
restaurants and $4.2 billion in Federal, State, and local tax revenue.
These types of economic losses also trickle out to food suppliers,
retail businesses, car rental and bus companies, and travel agents,
just to name a few.
U.S. Travel members from all subsectors of the travel industry
identify the inefficient screening process as a problem. From
convention planners, to travel agents, to attractions and more, U.S.
Travel members frequently express frustrations that their customers are
deterred from traveling because of the hassles in security screening.
__________
Questions Submitted to Charles M. Barclay
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Could you walk us through the role you think airports can
play in facilitating the expansion of TSA's PreCheck
(Pre3TM) program?
Answer. Airports have long recognized the potential value of
trusted traveler programs in terms of enhanced security and efficiency
and are eager to partner with TSA to facilitate expansion of the
Pre3TM program to additional airports and populations--
something that is absolutely critical if the program is to achieve its
full promise.
Airports serve as local partners to the TSA with a common mission
of providing the highest levels of security for the traveling public.
For more than a decade, airports have worked directly and
collaboratively with TSA and understand fully Federal requirements and
agency security imperatives. Airports support the Federal security
mission while ensuring that the needs of airport tenants and the
traveling public in the communities they serve are also well understood
and attended to. Airports, in other words, are uniquely situated to
ensure that Pre3TM and other trusted traveler approaches are
undertaken in a way that best meets the needs of all interested
parties.
Moving forward, airport executives believe the Pre3TM
program must be expanded to accommodate as many additional, qualified
travelers as possible through a community based, airport-centric
approach that allows vastly larger populations of travelers to enroll
and participate in Pre3TM on an airport-by-airport basis and
become trusted through Government-approved vetting protocols. While
airline-based programs and Global Entry--the only current avenues for
enrolling qualified participants--are a good start, additional efforts
will be needed to accommodate a broader range of qualified travelers.
Specifically, airports can play an active role in the enrollment of
individuals into Pre3TM, Global Entry, and other trusted
traveler programs. All commercial service airports have an established
process in place for collecting and submitting to the Federal
Government biographic and biometric information for employees at
airports who are required to undergo mandated criminal history and
security threat assessment background checks. This process could be
expanded to accommodate enrollment in Pre3TM and other
trusted traveler programs. We also believe there are other viable
solutions to gathering the information required by the Government for
program participation.
AAAE has played an active role in the collection of biographic and
biometric information for aviation workers subject to Government
background checks for more than a decade, and its Transportation
Security Clearinghouse has successfully processed nearly 10 million
background check records during that time. The association and the
airport community stand ready to do even more to leverage this
experience and expertise to quickly and effectively move today's
largely airline-centric program in operation at merely a handful of
airports to one that is operational for large numbers of travelers at
airport facilities across the country.
In our view, the experiences with the Registered Traveler (RT)
program offer an important roadmap on how to proceed. As you may
recall, 250,000 people were enrolled in RT in a relatively short time
and the program quickly became operational and interoperable at 22
airports across the country. Although the initial business model with
Registered Traveler ultimately proved unsustainable, the effort was
incredibly successful operationally and should serve as a model for
moving forward to grow the Pre3TM program efficiently and
effectively utilizing airport knowledge and expertise.
Question. TSA plans to have Pre3TM security lanes at 35
airports by the end of 2012. Do you have concerns that wait times for
non Pre3TM security lanes will increase?
Answer. Airports are very concerned about the potential for growing
wait times in non-Pre3TM security lanes and believe that
every effort must be made to implement a community-based, airport-
centric approach to ensure that adequate numbers of eligible
individuals participate in the Pre3TM program.
For the TSA Pre3TM program to be a viable, long-term
solution to increasing efficiency and security at airport checkpoints,
it must grow quickly to include populations beyond elite frequent
fliers, Global Entry program participants, and other select groups.
With TSA contemplating the dedication of both staffing and screening
lanes to the program, a failure to enroll a sufficient number of
participants could result in the underutilization of scarce TSA
screening resources and exacerbate wait times at lanes available to
non-participating travelers--a result that the traveling public will
absolutely not accept.
Participation in the Pre3TM program must grow
significantly beyond where it is in its early stages to be successful,
and airport executives are eager to play an active role in
accomplishing that critical objective.
__________
Questions Submitted to Thomas L. Hendricks
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Outside of expanding PreCheck (Pre3TM), what
else can DHS do in the near-term to make air travel more convenient for
passengers?
Answer. As Airlines for America (A4A) noted in its testimony, our
members that carry passengers internationally are increasingly
concerned about the adequacy of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
staffing at U.S. airports of entry. The first and often most durable
memory a visitor to the United States has is her or his experience in
being processed upon arrival. If we are to encourage travel and tourism
to our country, therefore, Congress must assure that there are
sufficient CBP personnel to promptly handle air passengers.
International travel and tourism is an extraordinarily competitive
sector and it is becoming more so. The United States cannot afford to
be saddled with the reputation of delaying visitors at our gateway
airports. Because of that, one thing that the Department of Homeland
Security should not do is divert CBP personnel from U.S. airports of
entry, which are already stretched, to either land border crossings or
new overseas preclearance facilities.
With respect to processing of passengers at U.S. airport security
checkpoints, we believe that the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) should continue to expand its Pre3TM program. There is
sufficient experience with the program that it has been successful in
four essential respects:
--Applicants for participation in the program can be vetted
thoroughly and consistent with security protocols before TSA
accepts them;
--TSA's finite checkpoint resources are focused on other passengers;
--Overall passenger processing at the checkpoint is improved and
therefore more convenient for our customers; and
--There is widespread belief that the program is a significant
improvement to the travel experience by those passengers who
have enrolled in it.
Question. Are you confident in the long-term viability of
Pre3TM, TSA's risk-based screening program?
Answer. TSA has stated that Pre3TM is a key component of
the agency's intelligence-driven, risk-based approach to security. We
believe that the Government has accumulated a great deal of both
experience and intelligence information that enable it to pursue with
confidence widely available, risk-based security programs such as
Pre3TM and Known Crewmember. We also believe that it has
demonstrated a firm commitment to do so. Over the last decade, an
extraordinary amount of our Nation's intelligence and security
resources have been directed to identifying, evaluating, and countering
threats to national security in general and civil aviation security in
particular. Leveraging that know-how to better focus TSA resources is
both responsible and sensible. This approach is responsible because it
does not compromise civil aviation security. It is sensible because it
enables TSA to concentrate its limited resources where they are most
needed and improves the experience of passengers because security
checkpoints can function more efficiently by diverting fully vetted
passengers from one-size-fits-all security measures.
__________
Questions Submitted to Steven Hacker
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. What are some of the highest profile global trade
exhibitions in the United States?
Answer. Here is a short list of some of the most important high-
profile global trade exhibitions that take place in the United States,
not in any particular order:
--CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2014, March 4-8, 2014; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This event occurs every 3 years and is the largest exhibition
in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--International CES, January 8-11, 2013;
--National Plastics Expo 2012, April 2-5, 2012;
--National Wood Flooring Expo, April 10-12, 2012;
--Lightfair International, May 9-11, 2012;
--Indigo New York, April 10-11, 2012;
--Texworld USA Summer, July 24-25, 2012;
--FOSE Conference and Exhibition, April 3-5, 2012;
--INFOComm 2012, June 9-15, 2012;
--NAB Show, April 14-17, 2012;
--National Hardware Show, May 1-3, 2012;
--National Association of Convenience Stores, October 7-10, 2012;
--SEMA Show, Oct 30-November 2, 2012;
--Waste Expo, April 30-May 3, 2012; and
--Interop Las Vegas, May 6-10, 2012.
Question. Is the United States at risk of losing any of these
events to foreign convention destinations as a result of business
travelers' difficulty in obtaining visas to this country?
Answer. Without inside knowledge it is impossible to know if any of
the events listed are at risk of being replaced by foreign competition.
Frankly, it is not likely though because most of these events have a
very solid core of domestic U.S. exhibitors and attendees (buyers).
What is known is that events that depend upon buyers and/or sellers
from abroad are being negatively affected because many of their
international attendees and exhibitors have been unable to secure U.S.
visas on a timely basis or at all. In each instance, there are
competing events taking place abroad. Those events are beneficiaries of
our visa issuance difficulties as many buyers or sellers who cannot
access the U.S. markets can usually attend events abroad with little
inconvenience.
Question. Has the Department of State made any concerted efforts to
expedite processing for the unique brand of business travelers and
company representatives who attend professional exhibitions and
conventions?
Answer. No, actually it is quite to the contrary. Not only have
focused efforts on the most important U.S. events not taken place but
it has become substantially more difficult for U.S. organizers to
establish communications with consular officials abroad and to secure
any meaningful support from them for more efficient visa issuance.
For example, in the past savvy U.S. organizers would prepare
briefing files of their events for the use of local consular officials.
Many of our members would periodically visit key embassies and consular
offices in nations like China and India specifically to establish and
maintain relationships with visa officials. That practice is now
discouraged and in some cases prohibited, ostensibly because consular
officials do not have time to meet with organizers. This has been a
setback in our efforts to assist member organizers to familiarize
Department of State personnel abroad about the nature of their events
and who are the likeliest audiences to attend them. It is a classic
case of attending to the urgent and not the more important issues which
are likelier to provide broader and more long-lasting solutions. It is,
in other words, poor management.
Question. Regarding the example you mentioned during your testimony
about the trade delegation from India deciding to go elsewhere to
purchase heavy equipment, please provide greater detail. When were they
denied their visas? Have you spoken with them and did they provide you
the reason they were given for their visas being denied?
Answer. Attached to this response you will find a series of
documents (exhibits A-E) that provide more specific information about
individuals and delegations from India and China who have recently
encountered visa issuance difficulties that prevented their
participation in U.S.-based exhibitions.
What is not recorded is the broad anecdotal evidence that U.S.
exhibition organizers come across routinely. An example is the U.S.
consular office in Delhi where the organizer of one of our most
important global exhibitions was told by a consular official ``if a
visa application crosses my desk and the applicant is from the Punjab
region (Delhi and surrounding environs) I do not even look at it.'' The
stunned organizer was then informed by that consular official that it
is his opinion that any visa applicants from the Punjab region wish
only to immigrate illegally to the United States--this despite the fact
that many of the applicants are owners of large and profitable farms
who wish to come to U.S. exhibitions to purchase farm equipment. I
should also point out to you that in exhibit E slide No. 8 contains
data in chart form that seems to corroborate the allegation that there
is strong bias among Department of State officials against issuing
visas to applicants originating in the Punjab region. This slide
presentation was prepared by NASSCOM a highly respected Indian Trade
Organization.
In conclusion, permit me to add that the evidence that is now in
your possession strongly suggests that our recommendations before the
subcommittee for the establishment of a new visa commission coupled
with the adoption of uniform guidelines to define more specifically
when visas should or should not be issued are warranted if we are to
bring some order to the manner in which U.S. visas are processed.
Please feel free to contact me if I can provide further information
on these or other questions that bear upon matters before the
subcommittee, and thank you again for the opportunity to share our
members' concerns with the chair and members.
[Exhibits A-E follow:]
EXHIBIT A \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for Date of consulate
Name of the company Name of the person City rejection rejection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alwasay Impex Pvt.ltd.......... Mr. Syed Hatim Rustom... Mumbai..... Visa rejection 6-Jul-11
letter attached in
the email--U.S.
Consulate in
Mumbai.
M/s. Magnum International...... Mr. Mayur Agarwal....... Kolkata.... Frequently visiting First week of June
Middle East
countries for
business--U.S.
Consulate in
Kolkata.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excerpts from an Excel spreadsheet providing names and circumstances regarding two individuals from India
who were rejected in 2011.
Exhibit C
This is an email message from March 16, 2012, from Megan Tanel
reporting the rejection of an eight-person delegation from Vietnam.
Every attendee was a president or vice president of their company.
From: Megan Tanel
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012, 11:20 a.m.
To: Hacker, Steven
Subject: RE: Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Hearing on Wednesday, March 21
Here's our latest issue with this--a delegation of eight from
Vietnam were all denied Visa's for our World of Asphalt show in
Charlotte this week. Every attendee was a president or VP of their
company. We're asking for more details as to why they were denied and
working through our DC office.
Megan Tanel,
CEM, AEM.
Exhibit D
This includes two email messages from the ``IAEE'' Beijing office
regarding recent Visa issues for Chinese nationals.
To: Richard Craig
From: Edward Liu
Subject: Visa Appointments and Rejection
Dear Richard,
Greetings again from IAEE and my company, CEMS Beijing Offices. As
I did not receive your call for a meeting with the consular office this
afternoon, I assumed that the visa officers and your good self were
extremely busy and were not available for a discussion. For guidance, I
would be returning to Beijing on 14 June for about 2 weeks, and would
appreciate it if you could help facilitate a meeting during that
period.
In the meantime, I would like to bring to your attention some of
the problems being faced by our principals, viz the World Shoes
Association (WSA) and the National Restaurants Association (NRA) and
our authorised sales agencies marketing their two exhibitions in China.
Firstly, I just had a meeting with an official of the China Leather
Industry Association (CLIA) this morning and was informed that some of
the visa appointments are being fixed in August and even in September.
This would affect the WSA Show which takes place in Las Vegas from 9-11
August 2010. According to the CLIA official, he had wanted to recruit
another 22 exhibitors but they were unable to secure visa appointments
in time for the show in LV in August. At the moment, we have already
contracted some 239 booths at the WSA Show, and I am concerned that
some of the exhibitors might have problems with their visa application
in due course.
Similarly, there were also a couple of rejections for our 45
exhibitors for the NRA Show which opens in Chicago from tomorrow till
25 May. Overall, the rejection of visa applications has caused problems
for the organisers, sales agencies and the exhibitors.
For the organisers, to recruit new exhibitors to fill the vacated
booths would be extremely difficult. This would disrupt their overall
planning and layout of the exhibition booths. For the sales agencies,
the rejection of visas for the exhibitors would mean that their
marketing efforts would have been in vain. It would demoralise them in
their marketing efforts for the organisers. And for the exhibitors,
their deposits would have been forfeited by the organisers. The
exhibitors would have wasted all their efforts in making preparation
for the exhibition, including freighting of goods and possibly the
construction of exhibit stands etc., thus making their intended
participation a very costly affair. And the rejection of their visa
applications was probably no fault of theirs!
As mentioned recently, this lengthy visa interview process, the
rejection of applications etc, is causing harm and damage to the
American exhibition industry as a lot more genuine Chinese companies
and exhibitors could have taken part in trade shows in the United
States. This has also caused a lot of unhappiness amongst the Chinese
associations and exhibitors, who are really keen to do business in the
U.S.
Thus, on behalf of IAEE and our principals, I would like to seek a
meeting or dialogue with your colleagues from the consular section, to
better understand their requirements and to appeal for their
understanding and assistance in handling some of the more established
shows in the United States. If convenient, I would like to invite a few
Chinese associations and sales agencies for this meeting. If not, I
would be happy to meet with them with my own staff only.
I look forward to your kind assistance in arranging a suitable
meeting with your colleagues from the consular section in the week of
14 June at a date convenient to them.
Sincerely,
Edward Liu,
Chief Representative, IAEE China Office.
Group Managing Director, Conference & Exhibition Management
Services, CEMS Beijing Office.
Ms. Rosemary Gallant,
Principal Commercial Officer,
American Embassy, Beijing, China.
Dear Ms Gallant,
First of all, warmest greetings from IAEE China Office in Beijing.
It has been a few months since we last met at your office in Beijing.
You may recall that we had discussed the problems of visa
applications by Chinese executives and managers going to the United
States, to take part in various trade shows and exhibitions. In
particular, I had raised the problems being faced by Mr. Yang Ming of
Ximaike International Exhibition Company, a member of our IAEE in
China.
I had just met up with Mr. Yang Ming in Beijing last week and he
has subsequently sent me the email below, to seek my assistance again.
I would be grateful if your office could look into his case, and help
solve his problems of visiting the United States, to take part in U.S.
trade shows.
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Edward Liu,
PBM, Chief Representative, IAEE China Office.
From: Yang Ming,
Sent: Friday, 11 November, 2011, 8:55 a.m.
To: Edward Liu
Subject: Visa problem
Dear Mr. Edward Liu:
I write this letter to you in order to get your assistance to solve
my visa problem of American.
Mr. Yang Ming, with passport number P01410407 and birth date Feb.
5th, 1972, is the vice general manager in XIMAIKE International
Exhibition Co., Ltd being focus on organizing Chinese enterprises to
attend international exhibitions.
Yang Ming's first time to United States of America was in 1998 and
attended IMTS (now named National Design & Manufacturing Midwest) with
Passport Number P3359527. During that applying visa period, a managing
operator wrote May 1st, 1972 as his birth date by a mistake which
caused the visa refusal in 2002 IFPE (International Exposition for
Power Transmission).
The forthcoming birth date in visa applying is correct. Then, Mr.
Yang Ming went to America in 2005, 2008 many times to participate IFPE
(International Exposition for Power Transmission) and Auto Parts.
From 2009 when he submitted the visa applying to issue, it was
informed that he has to wait for the further information or long-time
unknown investigation. Sometimes, it is up to 7 months. The above makes
the delaying to attend the exhibitions or the international flights
tickets costs as well as the difficulties of the organizing work. The
more about Mr. Yang, he will explain to the officer in the visa section
of United States of America in Beijing. As a result, he will repeat all
mentioned formalities each time in visa applying.
I has got an U.S. visa issued under the assist of IAEE with single
entry this year. When I came back from America and continued to go
further for renewing visa based on Auto Parts exhibition which goes
without any result until now. The exhibition is closed now.
I don't have any relatives of my family members in USA, I have good
and stable job in China.
Because XIMAIKE organizes more than 20 exhibitions in USA every
year, we sincerely hope the visa applying for Mr. Yang Ming can go
smooth which will ensure the exhibition organizing successfully.
It is highly appreciated for your reply.
Mr. Yang Ming,
XI MAI KE International Exhibition Co., LTD.
__________
Questions Submitted to Sara Nelson
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
KNOWN CREWMEMBER PROGRAM
Question. TSA's Known Crewmember initiative allows pilots to forego
regular screening procedures if they show two forms of verifiable ID,
but flight attendants are not eligible to participate in the program.
Can you explain the background checks that flight attendants
typically undergo as part of the hiring process and your association's
perspective on this policy?
Answer. TSA regulations require flight attendants to undergo a 10-
year criminal history records check and an employment history
investigation as a condition of employment. Pilots are subject to the
same regulation. The regulations are designed to ensure the
trustworthiness of each flight attendant and pilot to serve as
crewmembers responsible for the safety and security of every flight and
they are effective. For this reason, the U.S. airline industry and all
crewmember unions advocate inclusion of flight attendants in the Known
Crewmember program.
Question. With airline pilots, TSA has the ability to access a
central database to verify a pilots' identity through the Known
Crewmember program. TSA has identified the lack of a similar database
for Flight Attendants as an impediment to expediting screening for
Flight Attendants. Can you please respond to this issue?
Answer. Some airlines have a database of flight attendants that
would provide the information needed by Known Crewmember (KCM) to
verify the current employment status and identity of flight attendants.
Other airlines need to update their existing database and some airlines
need to create such a database. The TSA needs to provide the
specifications for connectivity to KCM for existing airline flight
attendant databases or flight attendant databases to be created.
CHECKED BAGGAGE FEES
Question. According to a Government Accountability Office report
from July 2010 (Cite: GA0-10-785, page 29), the Association of Flight
Attendants conducted a member survey in February of that year
indicating that checked baggage fees have led to excess and oversized
carry-on bags, slow passenger boarding, pushback delays, stressful
boarding situations, full overhead bins, and injuries to airline staff
and passengers from lifting oversize carry-on bags.
From your organization's perspective, can you please explain the
impact of checked baggage fees on flight attendants' general ability to
facilitate passenger boarding and efficient, customer-friendly air
travel?
Answer. Overly large and bulky carry-on items have been a problem
for commercial aviation operations for several decades.
An examination of past airline and Government data suggests that
the frequency of injuries among cabin crew is high, but reliable
statistics on crew and passenger injuries caused by carry-on items are
difficult to obtain. In the mid-1980s, as problems mounted, the
Association of Flight Attendants gathered evidence from its members and
presented the data to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with a
request for limits on carry-on baggage. Hearings were held in 1985; a
rule proposed in 1986 followed by more hearings; and a final rule,
Federal aviation regulation section 121.589 Carry-on baggage, was
published in June 1987, followed closely by advisory circular (AC) 121-
29, an industry guidance document published in November 1987.
Unfortunately, the regulation contains two fundamental weaknesses: each
airline is allowed to set policies (approved by the FAA) dictating
numbers and sizes of passenger carry-on items, and airlines are allowed
to enforce their own policies. Despite minor revisions made since
initial passage of the carry-on baggage regulation, neither weakness
has been corrected.
According to the TSA Common Strategy, flight attendants are
supposed to carefully observe passengers during the boarding process to
watch for suspicious items and behaviors. Prior to takeoff, flight
attendants can ask the captain to subject a suspicious passenger to
additional security scrutiny. If warranted, the passenger can be
removed from the plane before takeoff or monitored more carefully in
flight.
The ability of flight attendants to provide this critical final
layer of pre-flight security is severely diminished by carry-on baggage
chaos. Flight attendants report being distracted from their critical
security responsibilities by attempts to wedge excessive quantities and
sizes of carry-on bags into overhead bins, and often time-consuming
efforts to convince passengers to take excess bags back to the jetway
for stowage as checked baggage.
While there may appear to be increases in the quantity of baggage
brought into the cabin since airlines began charging fees for checked
bags, to AFA's knowledge there have been no surveys conducted or
statistical data generated that isolate checked baggage fees as the
significant contributing factor. In fact, AFA believes that other
factors, including flight reductions that have led to decreases in
total numbers of seats and increased load factors and seat pitch
reductions to increase seating capacities on individual airplanes are
potentially greater contributors.
Thus, in AFA's opinion the specific factors that contribute to the
crew distractions, schedule disruptions and workplace safety hazards
created by excessive amounts of carry-on baggage are unknown. However,
what is clear is that a simple, standardized policy applied to all
passengers and enforced prior to the security screening area is
necessary. A standard bag size dimensional limit that accommodates most
passengers' carry-on baggage is essential to curtail attempts to bring
onboard overstuffed bags that cannot be accommodated in the storage
location under the seats in front of passengers. Once the overhead bins
are full these larger, bulkier bags must be checked prior to closing
the aircraft door, leading to crew distractions and flight delays.
Smaller, standard sized carry-on bag limits will ensure that passengers
are able to accommodate their allowable amounts of one carry-on bag
plus one personal item in the overhead bins and in the under-seat
storage areas.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Landrieu. And Mr. Hacker, I am going to schedule a
special meeting between you and your association and the State
Department to talk more carefully through this because it is
absolutely essential. And I know it is the idea of this
administration to foster international trade, but in theory it
sounds great, but this is the practice of international trade.
This is where the rubber hits the road. This is whether it
happens or not. And all the good wishes here in the United
States for selling our equipment, ideas, and professional
services overseas cannot happen if people who are buying them
cannot get access to the trade shows where we are displaying
some of our best services and wares. And so I am going to ask
for a special meeting with State to focus with you on this.
I think we are making some headway on the tourism piece of
this. I think we have a long way to go on this more business-
focused trade situation.
This has been a very good hearing. I am glad we had it. I
thank the staff.
And the meeting is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-