[Senate Hearing 108-622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-622
CHALLENGES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED
STATES PROMOTE TRADE AND TOURISM IN A TERRORISM ENVIRONMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 13, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-108 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia, Chairman
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia, opening statement 1
Connors, Mr. Bill, executive director and COO, National Business
Travel Association, Alexandria, VA............................. 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Faull, Mr. Jonathan, Director General, Justice and Home Affairs,
European Commission, Brussels, Belgium......................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, prepared statement 2
Koch, Mr. Christopher L., president and CEO, World Shipping
Council, Washington, DC........................................ 32
Verdery, Hon. C. Stewart, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Border and
Transportation Security Directorate, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Washington, DC.............................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
(iii)
CHALLENGES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED
STATES PROMOTE TRADE AND TOURISM IN A TERRORISM ENVIRONMENT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on European Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen (chairman of the
subcommittee), presiding.
Present: Senator Allen.
opening statement of senator george allen
Senator Allen. Good afternoon. I welcome everyone this
afternoon to this hearing of the European Affairs Subcommittee
on the challenges and accomplishments as the United States and
the European Union promote trade and tourism in this
environment of terrorism.
The terrorist attacks that occurred in this country on
September 11, 2001 dramatically changed the challenges that we
in the United States face to secure our borders and prevent
future terrorism. The attacks in Madrid on March 11 of this
year demonstrate that the European Union faces the same
challenges.
Now, the European Union and the United States have the
largest bilateral trading and investment relationship in the
entire world. It amounts to $1 billion every single day and for
my State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, 68 percent of
investment in our Commonwealth of Virginia comes from European
countries. That is $14.6 billion coming from Europe, and it is
from all sorts of countries, different countries in Europe,
from Sweden and Denmark and the Netherlands to Germany and
Austria, France, Great Britain, all the way to Iceland, a very
important investment in jobs.
Also, international travel is important to our country here
in the United States, obviously to Europe as well. Since 2001,
travel has dropped a significant amount, but it is still high.
While it has decreased, there still are 42 million
international travelers per year visiting the United States and
they spend $66.5 billion per year in our country. So enhancing
international transportation security, while maintaining the
efficient flow of tourists and commerce, is a challenge but an
important challenge for both the EU and the United States.
The purpose of this hearing--and I so much thank all our
witnesses for being here with us--is to review five efforts to
meet and address this challenge: No. 1, the Container Security
Initiative; No. 2, the lost and stolen passport program; No. 3,
access to airline passenger name records; No. 4, the issue of
biometric passports; and No. 5, the visa waiver program.
Now, we are very fortunate today to have four individuals
who are uniquely qualified to give the subcommittee, and indeed
the whole committee and in fact the U.S. Senate, your insights,
your perspective on these efforts.
I am particularly pleased that our first panel has an
official from the European Union with us. It is not often that
a representative from a foreign government appears before the
Foreign Relations Committee. I am grateful that the European
Union agreed to let their official appear before us today, and
that is a testament to the level of cooperation that exists
between the European Union and United States on this very
important matter to our commerce, to our trade, as well as our
security.
Before I introduce our first panel, I would like to
acknowledge the leadership of a colleague on this committee,
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who chairs the Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion. We
will be talking about trade this afternoon and Senator Hagel is
a great leader in this area. He cannot be with us today, but he
is one who cares a great deal about immigration and trade
reforms. He has asked and I will submit for the record a speech
given yesterday by Secretary of State Powell on travel and
tourism, delivered at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce here in
Washington, DC. It is included as part of Senator Hagel's
statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Hagel
Mr. Chairman, The Secretary of State gave a speech yesterday to the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce which is very relevant to this hearing. I ask
unanimous consent that his remarks be submitted for the record.
Secretary Powell has been the champion of advancing the Bush
administration's policy of ``Secure Borders, Open Doors.'' Most
recently, the Secretary and his team have been working to ensure that
the October 26, 2004 biometric passport deadline for Visa Waiver
Program countries be extended, so as to not impede legitimate travel
and tourism by our neighbors and allies.
* * *
Remarks on Securing the Future of Travel and Tourism at the Second
Annual Summit of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Secretary Colin L. Powell
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Washington, DC
May 12, 2004
(1:40 p.m. EDT)
Well, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for that warm
welcome. And thank you, Tom, also for your very kind and generous
introduction. And at this point, let me thank you for the support that
you have provided to me in a variety of capacities over the years,
especially during that time of my life when I was out in the private
sector and chairing America's Promise and working with young people and
forming partnerships with groups such as the Chamber. It was also
during that period that I was on the speaking circuit, where I got to
know the travel and tourist industry very, very well. (Laughter.) Ahh,
yes.
And so I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity, Tom. I
want to thank the Chamber. I want to thank the National Chamber
Foundation and the Travel Business Roundtable for co-hosting this
important summit on securing the future of travel and tourism.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to share with all of you what
the State Department is doing to advance President Bush's policy, a
simple policy, of Secure Borders, Open Doors. Secure borders. We ought
to know who's coming into our country, what they're coming in here for,
where they're going, how long they're going to be here for and when
they leave. Not unreasonable. We also have to make sure that, in having
those secure borders, we also convey an attitude of openness. Open
Doors. We want you to come. We want you come share the American
experience.
Because to be true to ourselves as a democratic nation and to
protect our national security, we must continue to be a welcoming
country even as we take effective means to keep our enemies out. We
must do both at the same time. And that is what our Secure Borders,
Open Doors policy is all about.
Throughout America's history, openness has enriched our democracy,
our culture and our economy. And in today's globalizing world, it has
never been more true that a strong economy is just as essential to our
national security as is a strong defense, a strong military. And the
travel and tourism industry is one of the most vital segments of that
vital economy. Last year, approximately 42 million foreign visitors
spent over $83 billion touring, working or studying in the United
States and U.S. travelers going overseas spent $78 billion.
Your industry is one of America's largest employers, directly
generating some 7 million travel-related jobs. You also contributed
nearly $157 billion in payroll income and over $93 billion generated in
local, state and federal tax revenue. You are a big part of our
economy, for sure, and President Bush and our whole Administration
share your goal to succeed in what you're doing.
The attacks of 9/11 brought home to all of us the chilling fact,
however, that in a 21st century world, terrorists and other adversaries
have unprecedented reach and unprecedented mobility to strike us in
ways that we could never have imagined. The defenses we used to have in
the past against Cold War enemies or the Nazis or other enemies that we
had, state enemies, were easy to see, easy to protect ourselves from.
They didn't strike directly at our homeland.
In this instance, the terrorists struck directly at our homeland.
They murdered some 3,000 people, not just Americans, people from 90
countries, in the World Trade Center. They also delivered a blow to the
United States economy and to world markets. Your industry in particular
felt that impact, and your recovery has been all the more difficult
because of the global economic slowdown that we saw over the last
several years.
As we approach this summer, however, I am glad to report that at
the State Department, anyway, we are seeing some very encouraging signs
that the turnaround is here for you, that travel is on the upswing from
its dramatic decline of the first couple of years after 9/11. More
Americans are going overseas and more foreign visitors are coming to
the United States. Our Passport Office is seeing a jump in passport
applications of more than 22 percent over last year. And though we
still have a very long way to go before we reach the volume of visa
applicants that we had before 9/11, applications for visitor visas to
the United States are also on the rise.
The picture is mixed with respect to student visas. The number of
international students enrolled in the United States has grown each
year, even in the post-9/11 period, but the rate of increase has slowed
down. The international market for students is much more competitive
than it used to be: France, Germany, elsewhere in the world, Australia,
students have a broad choice. And clearly, we have to do a better job
of attracting them here, attracting the world's rising generation to
come study in America, come learn our values, come learn what kind of a
people we are and take all of that back with you, as well as whatever
education you picked up.
In February, for example, I welcomed to the State Department 25
Fulbright pioneers from a newly free Iraq. We've issued the first 25
Fulbright scholarships to Iraq now that it has rejoined the family of
nations. And I wish you could have seen these wonderful people. They
are now in some of our best universities. They're studying law, they're
studying business, they're involving themselves in public health
education, in journalism, public administration, education and
environmental science, picking up the skills they need to go back to
what will be a democratic Iraq and help to rebuild that country.
Where else would I have wanted these youngsters to go, and not so
youngsters, as it turned out? Where else would I want them to go, but
to the United States of America? What other values would I want them to
pick up, except the values and the education that they pick up here in
the United States? These young Iraqis are so full of hope for the
future and they are absolutely determined to return to their country
and contribute to its reconstruction.
I reminded the students that other Fulbrighters just like them had
risen to the challenge of leadership when their countries made historic
transitions to democracy. Fulbright scholars stood at the forefront of
Poland's first post-communist government. Poland's Foreign Minister is
a Fulbrighter. A Fulbrighter helped to lead East Timor's struggle for
independence. President Toledo of Peru is also a former Fulbrighter.
More than 200 of the State Department's International Visitors
program participants have become heads of state or government. What a
record. Among those leaders: Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United
Kingdom, President Megawati of Indonesia, President Saakashvili, the
new President of Georgia, who proudly tells me about the education he
received here in the United States, and most of the members of his
cabinet have been exposed to our international programs for education.
President Konare, the former President of Mali and now the Chairman of
the African Union Commission is also one of those graduates of our
programs. It is likely that tomorrow's leaders are among the 30,000 men
and women who participate each year in our State Department exchange
programs.
Perhaps the next generation of leaders from the Arab and Muslim
world will be found among the students selected for our Partnerships
for Learning Initiative. Partnerships for Learning is an outreach
effort that we put in place in the wake of 9/11. Under this initiative,
160 young people from predominantly Islamic countries are now studying
at American high schools and living in American homes, and over 70
undergraduates from the Middle East countries are studying at American
universities.
I had some of these young high school students into my dining room
a few months back for an IFTAAR dinner. And rather than just have
intellectuals and people from the think tank community around me at
this dinner I said, ``Well, just go get some young people. You know,
c'mon. I'm an old geezer. Give me some young people to have dinner
with.'' (Laughter.)
And they sat these high school students around the table with me,
and they were all Muslim, all representing the various parts of the
Muslim world, and it was such an experience for me to sit and talk to
them and tell them about the American experience; tell them about the
American immigrant experience; tell them about the diversity of our
country; tell them about our value systems; tell them about the things
they never will see in their television sets or not often enough. And
when they left, I think they carried a little bit away from that
dinner, but they carry a little bit away from every encounter they have
for the year that they are here. And they will go back with a better
feeling about our country, with a better understanding of what we stand
for.
The personal and professional relationships that are developed
during such exchanges can form a foundation of understanding and
lasting partnerships, not just between young people, but between
nations, between societies, between cultures.
By the same token, if we lose legitimate foreign scholars, if we
lose them to procedural frustrations because it's too hard to get a
visa, because they don't want to be bothered, because they're going to
be hassled at the airport coming into the United States, we risk losing
their goodwill, and that is a priceless thing to lose. The essential
embracing spirit of America's attitude toward people is our greatest
asset. And we must work together to ensure that our country remains a
beacon for students, international tourists, immigrants, and business
people.
These past few years have been fraught with challenges, but I
believe that the United States is doing a better job than ever of
balancing security with openness. The past 30 months have seen the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security under the gifted
leadership of Tom Ridge, who spoke to some of you last night, the
largest reorganization of our government since World War II. And there
have been other major changes in the measures we take to safeguard our
borders and protect the integrity of the nation's immigration system.
Norm Mineta, of course, now responsible for airport surveillance and
security, as people come into the nation.
The Department of State is working closely with the Department of
Homeland Security, with the Department of Transportation, and other
government organizations to make even more improvements that minimize
the negative impacts of new security procedures on legitimate
travelers.
We are implementing an interlocking system of border security
called US-VISIT, which I'm sure Tom may have spoken to you about, and
this begins with our consular officers overseas collecting scanned
fingerprints. The system ends with immigration officers of the
Department of Homeland Security at our Ports of Entry and Departure
verifying the identity of travelers. When this system was first put in,
it got a lot of attention. We had problems with a couple of countries
who felt offended by the fact that we would ask their citizens to place
the two fingerprints on the scanner and have a photo taken.
But after awhile, people got used to it. And as we explained why we
were doing it, not to harass them, not to hassle them, but to protect
us, and also to protect them, so that they knew who their fellow
travelers were, it has gained acceptability as a way of doing it. It is
non-intrusive. It is inkless. You don't have to wipe your hands off.
It's simply that, take a picture, you're through, it adds a few seconds
to the process.
Since this program went into effect, US-VISIT, in January, three
and a half million travelers have processed through US-VISIT without
any appreciable lengthening of the wait times. And US-VISIT has
prevented over 200 known or suspected criminals from entering our
country. Secure Border, Open Door.
As you know, we have another problem that I talked to Tom and some
of the others about a few moments ago. It comes about from our Visa
Waiver Program. Congress set October 26, 2004, this Fall, as the
deadline when the 27 countries that are in our Visa Waiver, visa-free
travel program, to begin issuing passports to these kinds of travelers
that contain biometrics and are machine-readable, in the form of
photographs or electronic chips. The law stipulates that the citizens
of countries who don't meet the deadline of October 26, 2004, will no
longer have the privilege of visa-free travel to our country and
they'll all have to now apply for visas.
It isn't likely that any of the countries in this program can make
the deadline of October 26, 2004. Not because of a lack of interest or
a lack of trying. It's that the standards for these new machine-
readable passports were only put in place a year or so ago, and it
takes time to put in place a passport system that will be foolproof,
technically secure. And we have to give our friends the time to develop
the right kinds of passports and to make sure that they have been
checked out and tested, and they're ready to work.
We need an extension of that deadline. And if we don't get an
extension of that deadline from Congress, we estimate that an
additional five million people will have to go through our embassy
procedures in these 27 countries in order to obtain passports. The
other half of that is, though, that it won't be five million people
because many of them will say, ``We're not going to put up with it. Why
should I go to the United States to go to a resort area when I could
easily go somewhere else without this kind of a problem?'' We cannot
allow this to happen and we have been working with the Congress.
Secretary Ridge and I testified a couple of weeks ago on the
importance of giving us an extension to this deadline, and we have
asked for a two-year extension of the deadline, and I hope that
Congress will give us this extension. It is so essential.
This is part of our effort to rationalize our system in ways that
people will understand, that speed up the whole process of obtaining a
visa, but at the same time, making sure that we are not risking our
security.
For the foreign travelers from non-waiver countries who must submit
a visa application, things have gotten a lot better. Some 97 percent of
the visa applications that we receive are processed in one or two days.
We're increasing the capacity of our databases to talk to one
another so that we're not querying multiple databases. Increasingly,
it's a centralized system where we can get rapid turnaround after
searching all of our databases to make sure there is no derogatory
information.
For the two-and-a-half percent of non-immigrant visa applicants
who, for national security reasons, are subject to extra screening--
they popped up in some way--we have made the screening process less
onerous and more efficient by speeding up the exchange of information.
And so last year, the wait time for students and scholars who
required clearances from Washington averaged two months. Today, 80
percent of these visas are issued within three weeks.
We recently increased to one year the validity of the clearances
granted to certain groups, scientists and scholars, who participate in
joint-research programs. I was getting killed by our friends around the
world who kept saying, ``You invite us to these scholarly conferences
and you want our people to come and work with you, but it's too
difficult to get them visas in time. You know that they are no risk to
you. You know them as a group. They have been to your country on many
occasions previously. Why do we have to go through this?''
So we are trying to create certain classes that can be allowed to
come in on an expedited basis, making it even easier for them to
acquire their visa. Travelers who need to make repeated visits within a
given year may now do so without our consular officers having to go
back to Washington for an additional name check if they are part of the
categories I just discussed.
At the same time we're doing everything we can to cut wait times,
to streamline our procedures. We have also, at the same time, taken
steps to strengthen security. We have worked with the law enforcement
and intelligence agencies, as I mentioned earlier, to make sure not
only is the information consolidated, but the information is available
to anyone who needs it--whether you're a consular officer or whether
you're an immigration official at a port of entry.
We are hiring additional consular officers. One of the things we've
succeeded in doing at the Department over the last several years is to
persuade the Congress to let us to hire more people--above the level of
attrition. For years, the State Department was starved of funds and we
were not hiring the people necessary to meet the new workload.
A generous Congress supported President Bush's very, very
significant request, significant request for a significant increase in
the number of people that would be available to the Department, and you
will see the result as we put more and more consular officers out in
the field.
These security measures that I've touched on not only enhance the
security of our own citizens, they make travel safer for the foreign
public as well.
Keeping our homeland secure and our society open is too big a job
for government alone. The private sector--you all--have to play a vital
role in this process as well. And you do. And on behalf of all of my
colleagues at the State Department, I want to express our appreciation
to the Chambers of Commerce and the Travel and Tourism Industry for all
that you have already done to help us make travel to and from the
United States easier and safer for all.
As we implement President Bush's Secure Borders, Open Doors policy,
we need to hear from you. I told Tom and I'll tell everybody here: When
you have a problem or you think we're not doing it right, please write
me, let me know, scream at me. Every major university president is now
writing me letters at my invitation. (Laughter.) Come on, scream at me,
and then I can scream at Tom Ridge. That's the way it works.
(Laughter.)
But, more importantly, I want to make the case here in Washington
to my colleagues in government who fully understand this problem, but
also the Congress, that what we have to do is protect ourselves, but
we've got to do it in a way that never causes us to lose that openness.
Share your insights with us. Give us ideas as to how we can speed
up the process. Tell us what your problems are. Otherwise, I'll just
sit over there on the 7th floor of the State Department thinking I know
what's going on, but until you tell me how you see it in the field, I
really won't know what's going on. Let me know how we are affecting
your business. Give me anecdotes. As I heard earlier, people don't want
to come here for a conference if they can go to London for a conference
because it's easier. Oh, we've got to fix that. Don't want that to
happen. I've got nothing against London; I just would prefer to have
people come to the United States.
We encourage each and every one of you to view our Web site:
state.gov. And it will give you insight, a lot of information on what's
going on around the world, what's going on with our visa policies,
what's going on in our organization to help you do your job better and
to encourage people to come to the United States.
Since our nation's earliest days, people have come from all around
the world. I love to say we are a nation of immigrants and we are
enhanced by this. We are enhanced by the people who come here to live,
the people who come here just to watch, the people who come here to get
their healthcare taken care of, the people who come here to enjoy our
resorts, the people who come here to get an education. We are so
enriched. It's a shame that some of my colleagues in other nations
around the world don't have the same kind of opening--opening attitude
toward immigration and toward visitors coming into their country that
has made us such a vibrant society, made us such a vital force in the
face of the Earth.
We have seen people come to this country and stay, and their
children have thrived, as I am one of them. Most of you can tell a
similar story. Others have not stayed. They have returned to their
countries of origin, taking with them a better understanding of our
nation and our values.
Today, the trendlines for travel and tourism are encouraging again
and President Bush and I believe that the future of the U.S. Travel and
Tourism Industry is bright. But, you know, it's not just tourism and
industry and your business. You're helping me do foreign policy. This
is not an abstraction for me. When I go around the world--I'm going to
Jordan this weekend--and when I talk to my colleagues from around the
world, I've got to make sure they understand that we are open. I've got
make sure that they understand that we're doing everything we can to
attract their youngsters to our shores.
It is a vital part of my foreign policy and the President's foreign
policy goals, because if people think that America is hiding behind a
fence, that America is not engaged in the world, if America is so
concerned about its security that it is not open to people in other
lands coming to visit, then it is not the same America we've been
telling them about for all these years, that wonderful nation that has
drawn from all nations and touches every nation in return, is still
here, is still welcoming, still has that Statue of Liberty that stands
in New York Harbor. Just like that Statue of Liberty, our nation has a
spine of iron and steel, but also a welcoming torch.
Together, we will guard our country with vigor and vigilance just
as the Statue of Liberty has guarded New York Harbor for all these
years. And even as we hold high a welcoming light to good people across
the globe, we will protect ourselves. But above all, let them see that
welcoming light. Come, visit, travel, stay, if you will. Enrich us and
we will enrich you. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Senator Allen. There may also be other Senators who may
wish to submit their statements, and if possible, if they have
questions, they may pose them to you in writing. I hope you
will be able to answer them.
Now, the subcommittee is going to hear from the first
panel, obviously, and let me introduce those two panelists.
First is C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. He was confirmed on June 19,
2003 by the U.S. Senate to be the first Assistant Secretary for
Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security Policy
and Planning. In this capacity, Mr. Verdery is the principal
advisor to the border and transportation security for policy
development in the substantive areas, including immigration and
customs inspection and investigations, cargo and trade policy,
transportation security, counter-narcotics, and Federal law
enforcement training.
Mr. Verdery was general counsel to the United States Senate
Assistant Republican Leader Don Nickles of Oklahoma. As part of
his leadership duties, he handled the lead staff duties for the
Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force of which I was chairman,
and so I have had the pleasure to work with him as we reached
out to the technology community.
He also served in years previous on two Senate committees
and to Senator John Warner and Chairman Orrin Hatch on the
Judiciary Committee, served as lead counsel for the committee's
crime unit.
Our second panelist on the first panel is Director General
Faull, who has served for more than 20 years in the European
International Community and is currently Director General of
Justice and Home Affairs to the European Commission. Mr. Faull
was chief spokesman and Director General of Press and
Communications from 1999 to 2003, having previously served as
head of the Press and Communications Service and Deputy
Director General in the Directorate-General for Competition
from 1995 to 1999. Mr. Faull was Director for Competition
Policy, Coordination, International Affairs and Relations.
He is an author of articles on various topics of EU law and
policy and in 1999 was co-editor of the EC Law of Competition.
In 1989 he became a professor at law at the Free University of
Brussels, at which he still instructs today.
We are pleased to have a representative, again, of the
European Union appear before the subcommittee. It is uncommon
that this occurs and we are certainly grateful, Mr. Faull, for
your appearance.
With that, I would like to hear from our panel. We will
hear first from you, Mr. Verdery.
STATEMENT OF HON. C. STEWART VERDERY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Verdery. Chairman Allen, thank you for the invitation
to be here today before your subcommittee. It is nice to see
you again, of course, and we welcome the opportunity to be
here. I am especially glad to be here with Mr. Faull, with whom
we have developed a very productive relationship at the
Department, both between myself and my boss, Under Secretary
Asa Hutchinson at BTS. So it is very appropriate that we are
here today to talk about some of the issues you outlined in
your opening statement.
Our respective principals, the Homeland Security Secretary,
Tom Ridge, and the European Commissioner, Antonio Vitorino,
have just concluded a very productive set of meetings as part
the G-8 ministerial this week, and the written testimony
submitted for the hearing describes in quite some detail our
ongoing transatlantic efforts between our Department and our
partners in Europe. I would like to speak just briefly to some
of those key initiatives in my oral statement today. These are
designed to combat not only the terrorist threat but to find
ways to enhance transportation security and border enforcement
and facilitate legitimate trade and tourism.
As you mentioned, the recent bombings in Madrid caution us
that terrorism is an international threat that cannot be
conquered by the United States alone. Rather, we must engage in
a global effort with our colleagues in the European Union and
elsewhere on a daily and sometimes even hourly basis to make
sure that our lifesaving work is both thorough and coordinated.
As part of this effort, we are working with our allies on
improving standards for travel documents, aviation safety, and
exchange of watch list information, to name a few issues. We
are seeking ways to address the security challenges of lost and
stolen passports, as well as exploring new technology to detect
identity and document fraud, and even things such as explosives
in the transportation environment.
In terms of aviation security, we are building a layered
approach for the transatlantic aviation that is so crucial to
our economy. We are looking at enhancements to visas, use of
airline passenger data, boosting airline security, and
utilizing air marshals on some international flights of
concern.
We continually engage our European counterparts to discuss
and coordinate on these important measures.
Let me move on to the cargo arena. As was mentioned in your
opening statement, on April 22 of this year the EU and DHS
signed an agreement that calls for prompt expansion of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection's Container Security Initiative,
or CSI, throughout the European Union. The purpose of CSI is to
ensure that all containers that pose a risk or a potential risk
for terrorism are identified as early as possible in the
international trade supply chain before they are ladened on
board vessels to the United States.
On lost and stolen passport security, we are very excited
about the recently announced program under which the United
States will provide current information on issued passports
that have been reported lost or stolen to Interpol in their
lost and stolen document data base, which is available to
border authorities worldwide.
On passenger data, I am very happy to report positive
progress toward implementation of the negotiated agreement for
screening passengers that we have with the European Commission.
During my tenure at the Department, I have been the lead
negotiator for the United States in our efforts to establish a
legal framework to allow CBP, Customs and Border Protection, to
access passenger name record information, the so-called PNR
data, from airlines that carry passengers between Europe and
the United States, both our domestic carriers and European
carriers who are flying transatlantic.
Throughout these yearlong negotiations, both sides have
worked together to find a workable solution that outlines the
type of data that may be transferred, the period of time it can
be retained, the purpose for which it may be used, and also
establishes aggressive redress mechanisms for passengers. While
implementation is pending a final review by the European
Council, we are encouraged by the Commission's efforts and
especially the support we have received from European
Commissioner for Internal Market, Frits Bolkenstein, the
Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, Commissioner
Vitorino, and Director General Faull.
When the agreement is finalized--and hopefully that will be
extremely soon--it will be an historic achievement that will
protect both the privacy of travelers and the borders of the
United States and the European Union.
I also wanted to mention that we are working to further
enhance security and facilitate legitimate travel with the
Transportation Security Administration's efforts to develop a
successor program to the first generation computer-assisted
passenger prescreening program, or CAPPS I. The CAPPS I program
flags a very large number of persons for secondary screening, a
hassle to passengers, and a resource drain on carriers and TSA.
The replacement program we are working on has strong
privacy and data protection measures built in and will use
passenger data to reduce the number of persons incorrectly
flagged as potential security risks and better identify real
risks. TSA is working very closely with industry to accurately
quantify costs, reduce duplication, and craft a regulatory
framework that is transparent and industry friendly. And it is
important to note that the ancillary benefits of the successor
program will eliminate between $150 million and $200 million of
annual costs the air carriers currently incur operating CAPPS
I.
As we move further into the 21st century and adopt
biometric technology and other advancements to enhance security
and facilitate legitimate travel, we will proceed with prudence
and deliberation considering the civil liberties effects of
government's use of these technologies and ensuring that we
fortify our privacy protections so that no personal data can be
misused or abused. And we are engaging continually with our EU
counterparts to discuss, coordinate, and cooperate on these
measures.
Clearly, in terms of our overall cooperation, the path
forward is through careful and coordinated efforts. As a step
to formalizing contact with our counterparts in Europe, Under
Secretary Hutchinson traveled to Brussels in April to lead a
U.S. delegation to the inaugural meeting of the new Policy
Dialog on Border and Transport Security. Through this
formalized dialog and our other cooperative efforts, we are
seeking to identify and communicate problems or initiatives
that are on the horizon.
Also, we are trying to mutually recognize the key goal of
security programs is to preserve and enhance the robust travel
between our shores, whether for tourism, business, education,
or family. Over time our investments in security and travel
facilitation will ensure that transatlantic passengers feel
that travel is both safe and convenient and allow that robust
travel to flourish.
We find our coordinated efforts and continuous dialog are
certainly the key elements to a successful transatlantic
strategy and again I am honored to share the podium with
Director General Faull who has been a true ally to the United
States. I am certain we both agree that the key to staying the
path and meeting the great challenges ahead is continuing not
only to build and develop technical connections and enhanced
methods of exchanging information, but also to strengthen the
personal relations and communications between our leaders on
both sides of the Atlantic.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look
forward to your questions on these and some other key issues on
the agenda that you outlined in your opening statement. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Verdery follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. C. Stewart Verdery, Jr.
Chairman Allen, Ranking Member Biden, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the invitation to address the Subcommittee on European
Affairs about current DHS-European Union initiatives. I also want to
thank Director-General of Justice and Home Affairs Jonathan Faull from
the European Commission who has come a great distance to join me here
today. I am very pleased with the progress that DHS and the European
Commission are making in addressing many issues of mutual concern
related to combating terrorist threats, transportation security and
border enforcement.
As you know, the U.S. has an especially close partnership with the
European Union, and, since its formation, DHS has been a key player in
establishing many transatlantic initiatives and agreements. The
challenges of the post 9/11 environment can only be tackled and
surmounted with the cooperation and assistance of our European partners
and other foreign counterparts.
The challenge before us is to secure the Homeland from another
terrorist attack while preserving our most cherished values and
maintaining a free, safe and open society. DHS is diligently working to
improve its ability to identify terrorists and criminals without
impeding legitimate trade and travel. While we are enhancing security
by reexamining how we produce and examine documents, bolstering
security at our ports of entry, and improving and expanding watchlists,
we are committed to protecting and respecting the civil liberties and
individual privacy of U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors. Our
efforts to combat terrorism threats and protect our borders require the
assistance, counsel and partnership of our allies, especially our
transatlantic neighbors in Europe.
The recent bombings in Madrid, Spain caution us that terrorism is
an international threat that cannot be conquered alone. Moreover, the
recent events demonstrate that Al-Qaida-influenced regional extremist
networks have increased in visibility and may pose a growing threat to
the U.S. and the rest of the world. As such, we must engage in a global
effort with our colleagues in the European Union and elsewhere on a
daily and even hourly basis to make sure that our lifesaving work is
thorough, sound and coordinated.
As part of this effort, we are working well with our partners on
improving standards for travel documents, aviation safety, and the
exchange of watchlist information. In an effort to scrutinize travelers
more effectively and more equitably, we are moving toward
individualized review. Appropriate and secure use of biometric
identifiers will significantly aid this process. Biometrics will also
assist our efforts to authenticate the identity of travelers. By
individualizing the process through biometrics, we can be more
confident and secure about our admissions and screening decisions. To
get there, we are working closely with our European counterparts in the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other fora to
discuss how to advance biometric methodologies, both in chip technology
and electronic readers. International discussions on these issues are
vital, specifically in regard to how we can best address privacy
concerns.
In addition, we are building a layered approach for aviation
security. DHS recognizes that there is no single solution to prevent
airplanes from being used as weapons of mass destruction. The layered
approach includes enhancements to visas, appropriate use of airline
passenger data, vetting travelers through US-VISIT, boosting airline
security utilizing air marshals on international flights of concern,
and offering voluntary programs for arming pilots on the passenger and
cargo planes for domestic flights. DHS fully recognizes that imposing
unnecessary inconveniences will discourage travel to the U.S. and is
committed to avoiding unnecessary procedures that would harm the United
States' ability to welcome students, tourists, and business travelers.
Our investments and efforts within the transatlantic and international
context aim to minimize burdens on our citizens' and visitors'
livelihoods while we pursue our main mission of protecting their lives.
We are working closely with EU Director General for Justice and
Home Affairs, Jonathan Faull, and other officials and agencies of the
European Union to ensure that developments and initiatives in aviation
security are discussed, coordinated, and explained before they are
implemented. Through on-going communication and dialogue with the EU we
are seeking to avoid transatlantic surprises and diplomatic
differences. As we move further into the 21st century and adopt
biometric technology and other advancements, we will proceed with
prudence and deliberation, considering the civil liberties effects of
governments' use of these technologies and ensuring that we fortify our
privacy protections so that no personal data can be misused or abused.
We are taking such steps every day. Let me briefly touch on some of
the ongoing discussions we are having with our European partners that
can be viewed as true achievements and positive, practical steps to
tackle the security challenges we face together.
LOST AND STOLEN PASSPORTS
Together with our colleagues in the Department of State, who are
responsible for the U.S. passport system, and our foreign counterparts,
DHS is addressing security challenges posed by lost and stolen
passports. We share this effort with our partners in Europe and around
the world. Across the globe, international border control authorities
continue to seek timely and accurate information concerning the
validity of travel documents presented at their borders. In most cases,
countries are able to identify the misuse of their own lost or stolen
travel documents when presented at their own borders; however, without
a system for international sharing of this data, to date it has not
been possible to access this data from other countries. Finding the
best solution to this security challenge is the topic of discussion in
many international fora. In addition, this is an important discussion
that DHS has with most every foreign delegation that it hosts and that
it visits.
Additionally, DHS is following efforts made by the ICAO New
Technologies Working Group which has undertaken preliminary research
into using Interpol's electronic global data base to exchange
information on lost and stolen passports, so that a query of country
and passport number can be submitted to a central database of lost and
stolen passports. The long-term goal is to develop a system in which a
yes-no response can be generated in real-time. We support these efforts
and see these advancements in the exchange of information as key to
securing our borders.
Recently, the Department of State announced a new a program through
which the U.S. will provide current information on issued passports
that have been reported lost or stolen to the Interpol's lost and
stolen document database, which is available to border authorities
worldwide. The Department of State has just transferred to Interpol
data on 330,000 lost or stolen U.S. passports. Only the passport
number, country of issuance and document type will be provided to
Interpol. We believe that this action will encourage other governments
to join in this international data-sharing initiative.
CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE (CSI)
On April 22, 2004, the United States and the European Community
signed an agreement to intensify and broaden cooperation on customs
matters. The objectives of the agreement include, among other things,
the prompt expansion of Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Container
Security Initiative (CSI) to more ports in the European Community.
The Container Security Initiative addresses the threat to border
security and global trade posed terrorist misuse of a maritime
container. The purpose of CSI is to ensure that all containers that
pose a potential risk for terrorism are identified as early as possible
in the international trade supply chain and before they are laden on
board vessels destined for the United States. CBP is now stationing
multidisciplinary teams of U.S. officers from both CBP and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work together with their
host government counterparts. Their mission is to work with local law
enforcement officials to develop additional information related to the
terrorist threat to cargo destined to the United States.
Through CSI, U.S. officers work with host country customs
administrations to establish security criteria for identifying high-
risk containers. Those administrations use non-intrusive technology to
quickly inspect the high-risk containers before they are shipped to
U.S. ports. Additional steps are taken to enhance the physical
integrity of inspected containers while en route to the U.S. CSI ports
are points of passage for approximately two-thirds of containers
shipped to the United States.
The CSI agreement signed last month with the EU sets the stage for
enhanced cooperation between the United States and the Europe on CSI
and related matters. It will lead to enhancements in our mutual efforts
to prevent terrorists from exploiting the international trading system.
The agreement will intensify and broaden cooperation and mutual
assistance in customs matters between the European Community and the
United States. The objectives of the broadened cooperation called for
under the agreement include expanding the Container Security
Initiative, establishing minimum standards for risk-management
techniques, and improving public-private partnerships to secure and
facilitate international trade.
CSI is a fully reciprocal program. Japanese and Canadian officers
are currently stationed and working in key U.S. ports to screen
containers destined for their respective countries. We expect others to
do so in the future.
While the first twenty largest ports (which include many in Europe)
were the starting point, CSI is not limiting participation to those
locations. Sweden, Malaysia, South Africa, and Sri Lanka have signed on
to CSI: ports in the first three countries are already operational.
Discussions are currently being held with additional expansion ports in
South and Central America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
International organizations like the World Customs Organization has
provided a multi-lateral forum for discussion of appropriate security
measures and encouraged the further development of CSI-type initiatives
throughout their 162-country membership.
PASSENGER NAME RECORD (PNR) DATA
In addition to expanding cooperation on container screening, the
U.S. and the European Commission (Commission) have been able to move
forward with a negotiated arrangement for screening passengers. During
my tenure with Border and Transportation Security (BTS), I have been
the lead negotiator for the U.S. with the Commission in our efforts to
establish a legal framework to allow CBP, a component of BTS, to access
passenger name record (PNR) data from the airlines that carry
passengers between Europe and the U.S. In 1995, the European Parliament
and Council issued a ``Data Protection Directive'' which sets forth
detailed requirements for the utilization and sharing of personal data.
The purpose of our negotiations with the European Commission is to
obtain an adequacy finding, under the European privacy directive, which
would allow CBP to receive PNR data from those airlines affected by the
Directive. Without resolution of these issues with the Commission,
airlines would be put in a position where they would be subject to
fines from EU member states if they provide PNR data to the U.S.
PNR data is just one of many tools used by CBP to fulfill its
mission. PNR data is an essential tool in allowing CBP to accomplish
its key goals: (1) PNR data helps us make a determination of whether a
passenger may pose a significant risk to the safety and security of the
United States and to fellow passengers on a plane; (2) PNR data
submitted prior to a flight's arrival enables CBP to facilitate and
expedite the entry of the vast majority of visitors to the U.S. by
providing CBP with an advance and electronic means to collect
information that CBP would otherwise be forced to collect upon arrival;
and (3) PNR data is essential to terrorism and criminal investigations
by allowing us to link information about known terrorists and serious
criminals to co-conspirators and others involved in their plots,
including potential victims. Sometimes these links may be developed
before a person's travel but other times these leads only become
available days or weeks or months later. In short, PNR enables CBP to
fulfill its anti-terrorism and law enforcement missions more
effectively and allows for more efficient and timely facilitation of
travel for the vast majority of legitimate travelers to and through the
United States.
Through these negotiations (which have been going on for more than
a year), we are grateful for the cooperation of the European
Commission. Last December, the European Commission agreed to adopt an
adequacy finding and just this week, the 25 member states accepted the
finding in the Article 31 Committee vote. Over the course of our
negotiations, both sides worked together to reach a workable solution
that outlines the type of data that may be transferred, the period of
time it can be retained, and the purpose for which it may be used.
Additionally, the arrangement includes requirements for aggressive and
important passenger redress mechanisms including a channel for direct
access by European Data Protection Authorities to the Chief Privacy
Officer at the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of European
citizens.
While implementation is pending a final review by the European
Council, we are encouraged by the Commission's efforts, especially the
support we have received from European Commissioner of Internal Market,
Frits Bolkestein; Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten;
Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitorino and
Director General Faull. While our arrangement and the adequacy finding
may face legal challenges, we are confident that they are legally
sufficient and will improve the safety of air passengers. When the
arrangement is finalized, it will be a historic achievement that will
protect both the privacy of travelers and the borders of the United
States and the European Union.
Moreover, DHS is also very pleased to learn through the March 25 EU
Summit Statement on Combating Terrorism that the EU is itself
considering setting up its own PNR system that will further strengthen
the ability of the international community to identify the handful of
violent criminals and terrorist hiding among the throngs of legitimate
travelers.
VISA WAIVER PROGRAM AND US-VISIT
I now turn to the issues surrounding the Visa Waiver Program and
US-VISIT. As you know, in September 2004, DHS will expand US-VISIT
checks to Visa Waiver Program travelers.
The US-VISIT system was initiated on January 5, 2004, and as of
late April, the US-VISIT program had processed over 3.5 million
travelers without negatively effecting wait times. During that same
period, US-VISIT has identified 180 known or suspected criminals and
more than 100 immigration violators, including rapists, drug
traffickers, credit card and visa fraud criminals, manslaughter
suspects, and an armed robber. In most cases, biographic information
alone would not have led to the identification of these criminals.
Although the US-VISIT Program was initially designed for travelers
from non-Visa Waiver countries, its successful deployment demonstrates
that it can be effectively expanded to travelers from Visa Waiver
Program (VWP) countries who enter the United States at air and sea
ports. This expansion will increase security by ensuring that biometric
information on VWP travelers is collected even if the deadline for
biometric passports is extended.
The biometric passport deadline was established by the Enhanced
Border Security Act (EBSA), which requires VWP countries to certify by
October 26, 2004, that they have a program to issue biometrically
enhanced passports that comply with International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) standard. If they cannot make such a certification,
they will be unable to continue to participate in the VWP.
Additionally, beginning on October 26, 2004, VWP applicants with non-
biometric passports issued on or after October 26, 2004, will not be
eligible to apply for admission under the VWP. While most VWP countries
will be able to certify that they have a program in place, due to
technological limitations, they will be unable to actually produce
biometric passports by that date. Limiting VWP participation could lead
to serious disruptions to travel and tourism because millions of VWP
travelers may choose not to travel to the U.S. resulting in billions of
lost revenue to the U.S. economy. It may also cause friction with some
of our closest allies in war on terror.
The EBSA also requires DHS to deploy passport readers to
authenticate these passports. Acknowledging the limits of the current
state of technology, Secretary Ridge, on April 21st, testified before
the House Committee on the Judiciary that DHS, ``. . . is not currently
in a position to acquire and deploy equipment and software to
biometrically compare and authenticate these documents. DHS cannot
today acquire one reader that will be able to read all chips utilized
in the ICAO compliant biometrics passports. However we believe that by
the fall of 2006, the technology required to implement successfully a
security system based on the ICAO standards will be much more settled
and allow DHS to derive benefits envisioned when the original EBSA was
enacted.'' Accordingly, DHS and DOS jointly requested that the October
26, 2004, deadline be extended to November 30, 2006 for the production
of ICAO-compliant biometric passports and the deployment of equipment
and software to read them.
The VWP governments are deeply concerned about their nationals
losing the ability to travel to the United States visa-free and support
the Administration's request for an extension. Additionally, the VWP
countries understand that in the short-term enrolling VWP applicants in
US-VISIT would alleviate some of the security concerns associated with
that extension and in the long-term will improve document and border
security.
U.S.-EU DIALOGUE
On April 26, Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson traveled to Brussels to
lead a U.S. delegation to the inaugural meeting of the new Policy
Dialogue on Border and Transport Security. The EU delegation was led by
Director General Faull. The purpose of this new group was to establish
a forum where the issues of transport and border security could be
addressed at a policy level. This first semi-annual meeting
successfully discussed a wide range of issues and included experts from
Homeland Security, Justice, and State on the U.S. side and the European
Commission Directorates of Transport, Internal Market, Justice and Home
Affairs and External Relations, demonstrating an effort by both sides
to bring all concerned parties to the table and avoid
compartmentalizing. This on-going formal dialogue is to provide a
mechanism to communicate problems or initiatives on the horizon.
Delegates at the inaugural meeting took the opportunity to address
many of the issues I have already discussed, including biometrics, the
US-VISIT and Visa Waiver Programs, joint initiatives on lost and stolen
passports, ``flights of concern'' and air marshals. With the US-EU
Summit approaching in June, parties are already working collaboratively
toward making that event a success.
Coordinated efforts and continuous dialogue are certainly the key
elements to a successful transatlantic strategy. I am honored to have
this opportunity to share the podium with Director General Jonathan
Faull, who has been a true ally to the U.S. Specifically, his support
and cooperation have been invaluable to DHS as we carry out our daily
mission and meet formidable challenges. I am certain that we both agree
that the key to staying the course and meeting the great challenges
ahead is continuing not only to build and develop technical connections
and enhanced methods of appropriately exchanging information but, more
importantly, to strengthen relations and communications between leaders
on both sides of the Atlantic.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Verdery. I will have some
questions of you.
Now we would like to hear--do you go by General Faull,
Director Faull?
Mr. Faull. I will settle for ``Mr.''
Senator Allen. Mr. Faull, we would love to hear from you.
Thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN FAULL, DIRECTOR GENERAL, JUSTICE AND HOME
AFFAIRS, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
Mr. Faull. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Chairman. It is
indeed a great honor for me to be here to address this
subcommittee this afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to say a
few words about what has become a very close and constructive
relationship between the European Commission and the U.S.
Government in this area, and it is, if I may say so,
particularly fitting that I do so in the company of Stewart
Verdery who has played a very important role in building
cooperation with us across the Atlantic.
The European Union now has 25 member states. The European
Commission's role is to develop policy, propose legislation,
enforce rules once adopted, and represent the European Union
internationally.
My job is to run the department known as the Directorate-
General for Justice and Home Affairs, and my political boss,
Commissioner Antonio Vitorino, has been in Washington this week
to attend the G-8 Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial meeting
and to meet his counterparts in the U.S. administration.
The issues just referred to by Stewart Verdery in his
remarks are certainly at the top of our agenda too. We are
building an integrated system across the whole of the European
Union with secure external borders, allowing bona fide
travelers access to our territory, while keeping others out. We
are developing laws and networks to deter, prevent, and punish
serious crime, including terrorism.
As Ambassador J. Cofer Black said before this committee a
little over a month ago, ``neither the United States nor Europe
can fight the war against terrorism alone.'' This is a message
that we have also received from many American friends this week
and it is one we share fully. Building on what was already a
sound relationship, we have developed close and unprecedented
cooperation with the United States in the fight against
terrorism since the tragic events in this city and in New York
on the 11th of September 2001. And the awful attacks in Madrid
on the 11th of March this year have made it even more
abundantly clear to us all that the fight against terrorism is
both global and far from over.
In the area of border and transport security, we have
established a high level policy dialog between the EU and the
USA. The U.S. is represented by the Departments of State,
Homeland Security and Justice. The group met first on the 26th
of April this year and Under Secretary in the Department of
Homeland Security, Asa Hutchinson, led the U.S. delegation
while I had the honor of chairing the meeting on the European
side. It was a very good, constructive, business-like meeting
covering some of the issues that we have already heard about
today, biometrics, sky marshals, visa policies, and the issue
of information sharing. We intend to meet at least twice a year
and hope to make this group a lasting vehicle for cooperation
between the European Union and the United States in these
important policy areas.
I would like to say a few words now about biometrics. One
of our most important common endeavors is to make travel safer.
We want to improve the security of travel documents by using
the best means available to us of modern technology. Biometric
identifiers, therefore, are of the utmost importance.
Nearly all travelers nearly all the time go about their
business as law-abiding citizens. The transatlantic relations,
business and personal, are of great importance to us all
economically, socially, and in many other respects. Our aim
should be to make travel safe and to prevent criminals and
terrorists from abusing our open societies.
By the end of this year, we intend to adopt laws and
technical rules to introduce biometric data into EU visas and
residence permits issued to foreigners and into the passports
issued to ourselves, EU citizens, by our member states, in a
harmonized, coherent and interoperable way.
We are grateful to the U.S. administration for its proposal
to extend by 2 years the deadline by which foreign travel
documents, passports in particular, should feature biometric
identifiers. We hope that the U.S. Congress will enact the
necessary legislation to give effect to this extension.
We understand also the reasons for the extension of the US-
VISIT program to all travelers arriving in the United States
and we hope that the visa waiver program will be maintained and
eventually extended to all 25 member states of the European
Union.
Meanwhile, we are very busy in Europe enhancing the control
and surveillance of our now expanded external borders. We are
resolute in fighting against illegal immigration, trafficking
of all kinds, and of course, international terrorism. But at
the same time, the new, enlarged European Union is open for
business and we welcome friendly visitors.
We are in the process of setting up a ``European Agency for
the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External
Borders of the Member States of the European Union,'' a rather
long name. It will, no doubt, be called for short the Borders
Agency or something like that. It will coordinate the
operational activities of our national border guard services at
our common external border, helping them in their work by
providing common training and risk analysis, as well as help on
procurement of equipment and on research matters. It will, of
course, also cooperate with international organizations and
foreign countries, including the United States, on matters
relating to its tasks. It will not have a law enforcement role,
but is expected to become a key player in our border management
system.
We share the determination of the United States to
strengthen border and aviation security, while facilitating the
free movement of legitimate travelers. I expect that decisions
will be taken in the next few days whereby the European
Commission will make an adequacy finding under our data
protection rules and the Council of Ministers of the European
Union will adopt the international agreement on the transfer of
PNR data to the United States' authorities. This will end a
period of legal uncertainty for European airlines and will, I
think, reflect our very clear determination to take data
protection very seriously. We believe that we have struck the
right balance after somewhat arduous negotiations with our
counterparts in the United States. As you know, the European
Parliament has not shared this view and litigation before the
European Court of Justice is still a real prospect.
We agree that the advance scrutiny of air passengers is a
key element in border security. We have adopted common rules on
an advanced passenger information system, known as APIS,
requiring airlines to provide border authorities with passenger
data prior to the arrival of aircraft. This system will enable
national authorities to keep bona fide travelers moving
smoothly while boosting law enforcement efforts.
These shared objectives require constant exchanges of
information and effective shared risk analysis. We are
preparing legislation for the use of passenger manifest data
for internal security purposes, creating an obligation for air
carriers to transmit these data to law enforcement authorities.
This will provide a sound legal basis to enhance information
sharing with the United States for law enforcement purposes.
We share the view that special security measures have to be
taken when a flight seems to be under terrorist threat. Who
could possibly think otherwise?
Some of our member states use sky marshals already; others
do not and lack the facilities for training them. We have,
therefore, agreed with our American friends that other special
security measures could be appropriate and satisfactory in
these circumstances and we hope that the movement toward a
resolution of the PNR issue will be considered a helpful
measure in this respect.
We have proposed to our own member states guidelines on sky
marshals and other related measures, which will be discussed
soon with our ministers. Those discussions will take account of
the G-8 SAFTI discussions and the very valuable work being done
by the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO.
Finally, on exchanges of data on lost and stolen travel
documents, we suggested to our American friends only some
months ago that we agree to feed our data on lost and stolen
passports into a data base in Interpol. And I am very pleased
to see that this week the United States forwarded 330,000
entries from its consular lost and stolen passport system,
known as CLASP, to Interpol. We will follow suit shortly. We
intend to visit Interpol in Lyon in the next few weeks and have
invited American colleagues to join us to look at Interpol's
operations in this area.
These, Mr. Chairman, are just some of the areas we are
working on closely with our American colleagues. We do not
always agree on everything immediately, but there should be no
doubt about our common determination and resolve. We are open
societies, united by common democratic values. We will continue
to promote movement of people across the Atlantic while uniting
in our common fight against terrorism and, indeed, against
crime of all sorts.
I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to address
you this afternoon, and I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faull follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Faull
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Allen, Ranking Member Biden, members of the committee,
Thank you for inviting me here today. I welcome the opportunity to
say a few words about our very close cooperation with the U.S.
Government.
It is fitting that I do so in the company of Stewart Verdery, who
has played an important role in building cooperation with us across the
Atlantic.
The European Union now has 25 Member States. The European
Commission's role is to develop policy, propose legislation, enforce
rules once adopted and represent the EU internationally.
My job is to run the department known as the Directorate-General
for Justice and Home Affairs. My boss, Commissioner Antonio Vitorino,
has been in Washington this week to attend the G8 Justice and Home
Affairs Ministerial meeting and to meet his counterparts in the U.S.
Administration.
The issues addressed by Mr. Verdery in his remarks are certainly at
the top of our agenda too.
We are building an integrated system across the whole of the EU
with secure external borders, allowing bona fide travellers access to
our territory, while keeping others out. We are developing laws and
networks to deter, prevent and punish serious crime, including
terrorism.
As Ambassador J. Cofer Black stated before the Senate Foreign
Relations Subcommittee on Europe little over a month ago, ``neither the
U.S. nor Europe can fight the war against terrorism alone.'' This is a
message we have also received from many American friends this week. It
is one we share fully. Building on what was already a sound
relationship, we have developed close and unprecedented cooperation
with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism since the tragic events of
11 September 2001. The awful attacks in Madrid on 11 March this year
made it abundantly clear to us all that the fight against terrorism is
global and far from over.
In the area of border and transport security we have established a
high level policy dialogue between the EU and the U.S. The U.S. is
represented in this forum by the Departments of State, Homeland
Security and Justice. The group first met on 26 April 2004. Under
Secretary Asa Hutchinson led the U.S. delegation, while I had the
honour to chair the meeting on the EU side. We had a very good meeting,
discussing issues such as biometrics, sky marshals, visa policies and
information sharing. We intend to meet at least twice a year and to
make the group a lasting vehicle for cooperation between the EU and
U.S. in these areas.
BIOMETRICS
One of our most important common endeavours is to make travel
safer. We want to improve the security of documents by integrating
biometric identifiers.
Nearly all travellers nearly all the time are going about their
business as law-abiding citizens. Transatlantic relations, business and
personal, are of great importance to us all. Our aim should be to make
travel safe and prevent criminals and terrorists from abusing our open
societies.
By the end of this year, we intend to adopt laws and technical
rules to introduce biometric data into EU visas and residence permits
issued to foreigners and into our own passports in a harmonised,
coherent and interoperable way.
We understand the reasons for the extension of the U.S. Visit
program to all travellers arriving in the U.S. We hope that the Visa
Waiver program will be maintained and eventually extended to all 25 EU
countries.
BORDER CONTROL
We are busy enhancing the control and surveillance of our now
expanded external borders. We are resolute in fighting against illegal
immigration, trafficking of all kinds and of course international
terrorism. But at the same time the new, enlarged EU is open for
business and we welcome friendly visitors.
We are setting up a ``European Agency for the Management of
Operational Co-operation at the External Borders of the Member States
of the European Union.'' This Agency will coordinate operational
activities at our external borders, assisting national border guards by
providing common training and risk analysis, as well help on
procurement of equipment and research matters. The Agency will also
cooperate with international organisations and foreign countries,
including of course the United States, on matters relating to its
tasks. The Agency will not have a law enforcement role, but is expected
to be a key player in our border management system.
PNR
We share the U.S.'s determination to strengthen border and aviation
security, while facilitating the free movement of legitimate
travellers. I expect decisions to be taken in the next few days whereby
the Commission will make an adequacy finding under our data protection
rules and the Council of Ministers will adopt the International
Agreement on the transfer of PNR data to the U.S. authorities. This
will end a period of legal uncertainty for European air carriers. We
take data protection very seriously and believe that we have struck the
right balance after arduous negotiations with our U.S. counterparts. As
you know, the European Parliament has not shared this view and
litigation before the European Court is still a real prospect.
We agree that the advance scrutiny of air passengers is a key
element in border security. We have adopted common rules on an advanced
passenger information system (APIS), requiring airlines to provide
border authorities with passenger data prior to the arrival of
aircraft. This system will enable national authorities to keep bona
fide travellers moving smoothly, while boosting law enforcement
efforts.
These shared objectives require constant exchanges of information
and effective shared risk analysis. We are preparing legislation for
the use of passenger manifest data for internal security purposes,
creating an obligation for air carriers to transmit these data to law
enforcement authorities. This will provide a sound legal basis to
enhance information sharing with the U.S. for law enforcement purposes.
SKY MARSHALS
We share the view that special security measures have to be taken
when a flight is under terrorist threat. Who could possibly think
otherwise?
Some of our Member States use sky marshals, others do not and lack
the facilities for training them. We have agreed with our U.S. friends
that other special security measures could be used. Exchange of PNR can
be considered as one of these measures.
The Commission has proposed guidelines for this purpose, which will
be discussed soon with Ministers. They have taken account of
discussions in the G8 SAFTI group. Valuable work is also being done by
ICAO.
EXCHANGE OF DATA ON LOST AND STOLEN TRAVEL DOCUMENTS VIA INTERPOL
We suggested to the U.S. that we feed our data on lost and stolen
passports into an Interpol data base.
This week the U.S. forwarded 330,000 entries from its Consular Lost
and Stolen Passport (CLASP) system to Interpol. We will follow suit
shortly. We will visit Interpol in Lyon, France soon and have invited
the U.S. to join us there.
These are just some of the areas we are working on together. Of
course we do not always agree on everything immediately, but there
should be no doubt about our common determination and resolve. We are
open societies united by common democratic values. We will continue to
promote movement of people across the Atlantic while uniting in the
fight against terrorism and crime of all sorts.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Faull.
Let me ask both of you some questions here. First, just an
observation. It is great to have both of you here because we
are going to have to cooperate. The final paragraph of your
remarks about we are both open societies with democratic values
should make this easier. It really should make it much easier
insofar as a variety of issues, particularly in privacy.
Mr. Verdery, I am going to put your full statement in the
record. I know you paraphrased it, which is fine, for brevity.
Dealing with the issue on the biometric passport deadline
that is October 26 of this year, Mr. Faull mentioned extending
it. Just for the oral record, the administration is in favor of
extending this deadline for another 2 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Verdery. That is correct and Secretary Powell and
Secretary Ridge testified in the House Judiciary Committee
about this issue about 3 weeks ago. If you like, I can go into
the reasons why we are supporting this.
Senator Allen. Supporting the biometrics or the extension?
Mr. Verdery. The legislative extension.
Senator Allen. Yes. I think it would be good to elaborate
on it.
Mr. Verdery. Sure. It basically falls into two camps. On
the first side, the countries that would be affected, the visa
waiver countries, almost all of them, if not all of them, are
going to be unable to meet the October 2004 deadline for
reasons that are outside of their control. It is not a lack of
will. It is a technical challenge. The international standards
that need to be set to facilitate the construction of and
program development for biometric passports is not sufficiently
in place to allow them to build the systems and issue the
passports that would meet the deadline. It is a question of a
technical problem. So we do think, though, that the 2-year
delay would allow those standards to be put in place that would
allow the countries to meet the deadline. Depending on their
progress, we think they would fall somewhere in the mid-2005 to
mid-2006 range and by extending 2 years that we would be fine.
From the security side, it is very important, when we have
to deploy the readers at ports of entry to read the biometric
passports, that we have a single reader that we can deploy that
can handle all 27. We do not want a situation where the
standard is so loose that Germany has one standard and that UK
has one and Australia has another and we have a series of boxes
sitting on these ports of entry that then have to be wired up
together. It would be a wiring and systems nightmare. The 2-
year delay gives us the ability to make sure it is complete and
effective.
Now, we understand that we need to enhance the security of
the visa waiver travelers and therefore we have announced that
we will begin enrolling the visa waiver travelers in US-VISIT
at airports and seaports in September and at land ports at the
end of this year. So we are going to, in some ways, fill the
gap by using the enrollment, and I can get into that a little
bit more if you would like.
But yes, we are strongly in favor of the extension and hope
that the Congress will move expeditiously.
Senator Allen. Well, I am a sponsor of that legislation and
we expect it to pass. I know that Mr. Faull brought that up in
his testimony. It is good to hear both sides recognizing that
action needs to be taken, also recognizing the practicality. It
is good to have deadlines because otherwise, without a deadline
or without a goal, things will get sloughed off and nothing
will happen or will move slowly.
But one also has to be practical, and it is good to hear
both sides understanding, recognizing that 2 years will be
sufficient. I know Mr. Verdery says that 2 years is more than
adequate to get this done. Mr. Faull, do you believe that the
European Union countries will be able to all comply by then?
Mr. Faull. Yes, I do, sir. I think that the legislation
that we are putting in place will ensure that for all of our 25
countries, which is a considerable proportion of the visa
waiver group, that our passports will meet the necessary
requirements in time, yes.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Faull.
Mr. Verdery, could you expand on what we will be doing for
enhanced security for those who are on the visa waiver program,
which is very important, particularly important for tourism,
but also for businesses. Much transatlantic business is
concerned. I consider the visa waiver program absolutely
essential. We cannot have folks queuing up around embassies and
consulates. They will simply not come over. There is enough of
an aggravation taking commercial aviation as it is without that
agony. So in the interim period before the biometrics are
available, how do you all envision enhancing the security while
keeping the visa waiver program?
Mr. Verdery. Well, as you mentioned, the program is
absolutely essential for our transatlantic commerce. The amount
of traffic is astounding--people who are used to visa-free
travel, and so we have to continue that.
In addition, I did not mention in my prior remarks, the
State Department does not have the capability to issue the
visas that would be required. Were they begin to have to issue
visas, it would quickly create backlogs of extraordinary
proportions with our most popular trading partners.
So in terms of the security enhancements we are going to
do, as I mentioned, the US-VISIT enrollment will begin
approximately September 30 for people entering at airports and
seaports, which is the overwhelming majority of visa waiver
travelers. We will deploy that also at land borders at the end
of this year at the biggest 50 land ports of entry and smaller
ones the following year. So that is the main enhancement, that
we will have the biographic and biometric check of people when
they arrive at the port of entry to find out if a visa waiver
traveler is a match against a terrorist or criminal data base.
The biometric hit for US-VISIT we can get into perhaps a little
later.
But the amounts of hits we have had so far on the visa
travelers is quite remarkable, over 300 people who were caught
solely by the biometric. That is again in addition to the
people we catch due to the biographic information, but the
biometric hits are people whose papers are in order or appear
to be in order and have fake ones, and we find them solely
based on the finger scan. So that is the first step, the
expansion of the enrollment for US-VISIT.
The second part is the advance passenger information. The
ability to have the critical information, both the PNR, which
is essentially what is in your travel file and your APIS
information, which is on your passport, ahead of the time the
plane takes off is critical for deciding if there is a person
who should not be boarded. That is essentially in lieu of the
visa check.
So we are doing these checks at the National Targeting
Center of Customs and Border Protection on travelers and that
is an enhancement that is being developed as we speak. We are
vetting all flights of interest now and all others are vetted
as the plane is in the air. We are working on enhancing that
both with PNR and APIS information throughout this enhanced
threat period this year.
Senator Allen. You mentioned 300 that were intercepted or
caught. Could you give some examples of those with the current
system and additional scrutiny and screening, what type of
individuals, what kind of criminals you all have been able to
intercept?
Mr. Verdery. All kinds. There have been convicted
murderers, rapists, money launderers, drug traffickers, many
people who have been removed previously from the country and
are inadmissible. There have been some entertaining stories of
people who had come back and forth to the country literally
dozens of times with phony documents and they were caught only
due to the biometric. So they had a false name, a false
passport, false documents, but the fingerprint gave them away
the first time they tried to come back in after January 5 when
US-VISIT came into play. So we had people who had come under 10
different names, who had come back and forth 60 times, having
escaped from Federal prison. So basically you have your laundry
list of criminals and immigration violators. In fact, it
happens so often now, it is almost not even remarkable. Every
single day there are people who are caught due to the
biometric.
Senator Allen. Well, it doesn't hurt as a matter of
deterrence for criminals or those who may wish us ill or for
the peace of mind for the American people and our European
friends to know that even though it is not implemented yet
presently, these are the improvements that are being made.
One thing that arises with the records and the names of
travelers is the question of privacy. We care about it as
Americans. The people in European countries care as well.
Mr. Faull, with the traditions--and I can tell from your
accent you may be from Britain. There are some relations we had
years ago before we seceded from you all.
At any rate, regardless of whether you are under English
common law or the Code Napoleon, the issue of privacy does
matter. How would you suggest we handle this issue, the concern
of privacy? It is one thing to check names off and be able to
do that criminal records check or that background check very
quickly, but do you have any suggestions as to what we can do,
you can do, us together, as well as for other countries? This
does not apply just to the United States and European Union. It
applies to people coming from Japan or Korea or Taiwan or India
and Pakistan. Now, granted, not every one of those is on the
visa waiver program. However, checking those passenger lists
and making sure that it is not being misused in any way
whatsoever, invading privacy, what suggestions would you have
to protect that concern of privacy, which I think is a very
legitimate concern?
Mr. Faull. It is indeed a legitimate concern and one which
I have no doubt we share. We have different rules. As you said,
there are different legal systems on either side of the
Atlantic. We have not only our different national legal
traditions among our member states of the European Union, but
we have now developed common rules together as well. They are
different from yours, although I am quite sure that we are all
pursuing the same goals and reflecting the same fundamental
democratic values.
There is a balance to be struck and the way we strike it
relates to the precise data which are provided to the
authorities, to which authorities they are provided, for how
long they are kept and for what purposes those authorities may
use them. Now, I believe on both sides of the Atlantic, air
travelers understand very well that there is an important
security policy purpose behind providing information to the
authorities about the identity of those about to get on a plane
before the plane is taking off. That I think is fully
understood.
In our negotiations, which Stewart was leading on the
American side, on PNR, the debate was very largely about the
issues I just referred to, what information, for what purpose,
for what authority, for how long should the data be kept. I
think we have arrived at a very sensible and commendable
result. I hope, as I said, in the next few days that on the
European side the European Commission and the Council of
Ministers will take the necessary steps to authorize the
conclusion of the agreement we reached.
But in each and every issue which arises in what you call
the Homeland Security field and Justice and Home Affairs for
us, there is a detailed analysis to be carried out of the
privacy data protection concerns raised. It is not an issue, it
seems to me, which can be resolved by an application of one
all-encompassing general principle except at the most abstract
level of values. It is one which requires careful attention and
weighing of the balance between the various policy purposes
being pursued in each and every case.
Mr. Verdery. Chairman Allen, if I could just take a minute
on that because I think it is a very appropriate question. We
understand that the acquisition of this personal data does
raise privacy concerns and we both inherited and have put in
place strong privacy protections. Customs and Border
Protection, the former Customs and INS being merged together,
has a very robust privacy program, disciplinary procedures in
place for any type of misuse of data. The US-VISIT program
similarly has a privacy program that has been widely praised
within the privacy community. And in the Department at large,
we have the first statutory privacy officer, Newla O'Connor
Kelly, and her team is implementing privacy policies throughout
the Department, is very involved in our decisionmaking and very
important and is a close advisor to Secretary Ridge.
As was mentioned, the PNR deal itself with the Europeans is
very elaborate in minutiae on redress mechanisms for passengers
on how European data protection authorities have ability to be
involved in this process, a review period for the arrangement.
So it was these types of privacy enhancements which I think
led to the soon to be successful conclusion of this
negotiation. But it is a very appropriate question and it is
something we are keeping a close eye on.
Senator Allen. I would hope that those of us in the United
States, as well as our counterparts in the European Union, as
this moves forward--and it looks like a positive movement in
this regard, but we always can improve. And if we find that
there are any abuses or any concerns on it, if there are ways,
whether--our courts or our prosecutors can handle data, make
sure the data is being handled properly, but if there are other
ways of doing it that is less intrusive but, of course, still
meeting the same level of security, I am sure you, on behalf of
the people of both continents, will want to get that done.
Now, let me switch to something that has just come up and
it is this 52-page report of the Office of the Inspector
General, Mr. Verdery. One of the problems that was outlined in
this report from the Inspector General--and it may be, Mr.
Faull, that you will want to maybe make a comment. I am first
going to go to Mr. Verdery--is that some European countries
have what you might call lenient or easily attained or acquired
citizenship or naturalization laws that would allow a third
country national to come in and in some countries, in as little
as 3 years, enable them to become a citizen of that country.
That is not the United States, but there are some European
nations where that is allowed. So somebody wishing to do harm,
whether to a European country or to the United States, could
wash their background in only 3 years.
And you would say, well, gosh, somebody is going to spend 3
years. That seems like a long time. When you look at some of
the methods of operation of these terrorists, there is this
very long-term planning, and 3 years in a country, 4 years in a
country, that is just part of their planning for some of these
terrorist cells.
So what is the Department of Homeland Security and the EU's
plan to address this problem? If you would like, in the midst
of addressing that, if you wish to address the Inspector
General's report, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Verdery. Well, if I could take the first crack at this.
We received the IG's report earlier this week, as you did.
In many ways the conclusions reached therein have been overcome
by events. They were reached months ago and events since that
time have overtaken the conclusions in them. Not all the
recommendations, but certain important ones. For example, the
IG recommends that we plan to enroll visa waiver travelers in
US-VISIT. Of course, we have announced that that is going to
happen about a month ago, and the Secretary has testified to
that effect.
Also, importantly, the report indicates that we have no
plan in place to handle the required country reviews which are
statutorily required by Congress to review each of the visa
waiver countries every 2 years, and we do indeed have a plan in
place to do those 22 remaining country reviews. In fact, our
first team of inspectors are going on their onsite visits
starting next week. So the plan is in place. It is being
executed and we will have the reviews completed by the deadline
in the fall, again as Secretary Ridge has publicly testified
to.
These reviews are not perfunctory. When our predecessor
organizations did reviews prior to our Department being
developed, three of the six countries that were reviewed did
not pass their review essentially. Belgium was put on probation
and two additional countries lost their status in visa waiver.
Now, I do not want to make any predictions on what the reviews
are going to come up with for the remaining countries, but they
are serious reviews and we are going to treat them that way
throughout this year.
The questionnaire to these countries has already gone out
to solicit information to decide whether or not they are
meeting the criteria. They are set for participation in the
visa waiver program which relate to things like reporting of
lost and stolen passports, overstay rates, whether or not
terrorism is present in the country, and the like.
More specifically about your question of somebody washing
their identity by moving into a visa waiver country, again once
you arrive at a port of entry, you have the same check, once
US-VISIT is fully enrolled, whether or not you are a visa
waiver traveler or not. So there is no difference whether or
not you moved into a visa waiver country or whether you are
coming from a non-visa waiver country. There is no difference
in the port of entry procedure.
Currently, until US-VISIT is employed, we are doing the
biographical check. So that is a difference right now, but that
is in the process of being ameliorated, as I mentioned.
Second, our watch lists do not differentiate based on
nationality. We do not have some kind of lesser standard for
showing up on a terrorist watch list because you happen to come
from a visa waiver country. They are based on name or
fingerprint or other identifiers, not nationality.
The last thing I mentioned, which is relevant here again,
is the PNR and APIS information. That is the advance passenger
scrub that we need to have of visa waiver travelers before they
come to this country that will help us find people, again,
before they get to the country. Once they get here, we are
going to have the same check. It is that advance check that
really helps.
So, again, we are going to respond to the IG's report. We
welcome the chance to do that, but again some of the key
conclusions really have been overcome by events.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Well, Mr. Faull, would you like to comment? I am not going
to ask you to comment on the Inspector General's report that
came 48 hours ago. I will get a followup conclusion, but I want
to hear your views on the security issue of somebody coming
into a European country that has a very lenient naturalization
policy and why we should or should not be concerned about that.
Mr. Faull. Well, thank you very much. I have to say that I
have not had an opportunity to read the Inspector General's
report, so I could not possibly comment on it.
I would also say just by way of information that issues of
citizenship and acquisition of citizenship are a matter within
the jurisdiction of each of our member states solely and there
is no coordinated European policy or law on that matter.
I would be very happy to have a look at a copy of the
Inspector General's report and to consider it in any way I can
and pass it on to people who may have something to offer by way
of explanation, but I cannot say much more than that at this
point.
Senator Allen. Let me ask you all this question. I think,
Mr. Verdery, you brought this up, and you may have answered. I
just want to make it clear or clearly understand your answer to
this concern.
You mentioned Belgium. Belgium is one of the countries
where you just have to live there for 3 years and become a
citizen. In this country, by the way, Mr. Faull, states all
have different laws as far as residency. Some you can become a
resident in a few days. Some take months and months. So the
fact that there are different views or prerogatives of people
in states is perfectly understandable here.
But were you saying as a practical matter--I am
paraphrasing, Mr. Verdery--that whether one is in a visa waiver
country or not, that the scrutiny of that person coming into
this country would be the same because of the biometrics and
because of the records and the cross-checking of criminal
records, terrorist lists, and so forth? If one comes from a
visa waiver country--say they are one of our European states,
or they come from one who is not a visa waiver country, the
scrutiny is exactly the same?
Mr. Verdery. It will be exactly the same at a port of entry
on September 30 when we begin applying US-VISIT to that
expanded visa waiver traveler. Currently visa waiver travelers
are checked biographically but not biometrically. So if we have
indicia in our terrorist data bases or criminal data bases by
name or a date of birth, there is no difference. But if we only
had a fingerprint and no biographic information, there would be
a difference in this interim period between now and September
30 at airports. That is the difference at a port of entry.
Senator Allen. Right now we have what? I want to get this
clear. Right now we are having biographical?
Mr. Verdery. Everybody is checked biographically and has
been for quite a while.
Senator Allen. Which is their place of birth, where they
have lived throughout their life?
Mr. Verdery. Right. It is the machine-readable part of
their passport, so name----
Senator Allen. Place of birth and present residence. That
is it.
Mr. Verdery. The biographic information, yes.
Senator Allen. That biographic information does not
necessarily say, all right, they are born in one country, go to
another country for a period of years, then to another for a
period of years, and then become a resident of another. If you
have place of birth and present residence, does it include
where they have been since the day they were born?
Mr. Verdery. It will not be in their travel documents
itself, of course. It is limited data. But again, if we know of
a person based on a biographic piece of information, that would
be resident in our screening systems.
Senator Allen. Biographic. That is what I am trying to
figure out. What is biographic other than where they presently
reside and where they were born?
Mr. Verdery. Name and date of birth are principally the
indicia. Essentially if you show up on a terrorist watch list,
it is going to be a name-based system like a phone book, but
there might be backup information. We might very well have
information about where they have been, their associates, their
travel record, their criminal history, all kinds of things. But
it is based on a name or a date of birth. The difference is the
person that we do not have anything on biographically but
happen to have just the fingerprints.
Senator Allen. Well, matching them together will certainly
help.
Mr. Verdery. Yes.
Senator Allen. But just saying, yes, this person is who he
says he is without knowing what the danger is is one thing.
Are you presently able to cross-check these persons--I just
want to make sure we are getting your testimony accurately--
cross-checking for any terrorist list and any criminal lists?
Mr. Verdery. Yes. Customs and Border Protection at a port
of entry has access to all of our terrorist watch lists and all
the criminal data bases with serious crimes, excerpts of IAFIS,
the FBI's data base, our immigration data bases, a whole slew
of them. That has been in place for years. US-VISIT is the
biometric expansion of that.
Senator Allen. To prove that they are who they say they are
because otherwise you could have somebody with a false name,
and of course none of his records or danger will ever be known.
Mr. Verdery. Exactly. Again, the principal difference is if
you have to get a visa, you have to go have a short interview
at a consular office overseas in Pakistan or any of the
countries that is not a visa waiver, and you are checked at
that time. If it is visa waiver, you do not have that. We have
made a decision that certain countries, due to the bulk of
travel, the importance of travel, their low risk, do not
require interviews, and that is where we collect the biometrics
at the time of the interview. So there has been a decision made
for certain countries not to do that.
We are enhancing the security, though, of those travelers
by the use of advance passenger information before and while
they are on the plane and then by the US-VISIT expansion when
they show up at the port of entry.
Senator Allen. Yes, Mr. Faull.
Mr. Faull. Perhaps if I could just add, by way of
information, that this is reciprocal of course. Our countries
do not require visas from U.S. travelers on the basis that you
do not require visas from our travelers.
Senator Allen. That is important to note.
The bottom line, though, is whether one is coming from a
visa waiver country or not to the United States, the key
information that we would want to know, insofar as an
individual's background or propensity to commit crimes or
terrorism, by this fall--you said September 30--that
information will be there. So either way, that visitor will
have the same sort of scrutiny and the same information
available to our authorities to make a judgment as to whether
or not that person ought to board that airplane, for example.
Mr. Verdery. Essentially. I am trying to make sure the
record is accurate. Again, I do not want to leave the
impression that visa waiver travelers are not checked now
because they are checked extensively at the time of arrival
through all their machine-readable travel documents and the
like and, in certain cases, by their advance passenger
information and APIS information before or while the plane is
in the air. The VISIT expands that to somebody who essentially
is an imposter, somebody who is not who their documents say
they are or had somehow otherwise fooled the system. That is
what it is designed to find, is the bogus travel document or
the stolen document.
Senator Allen. All right. I am being a lawyer on this. Just
to get the bottom line summary for the security of the people
of this country. I understand on the biometrics. And
understand, I am for the visa waiver program, as you well know.
The concern is if it is going to be easy--and just looking at
the way some of these terrorist cells hibernate for a while and
embed in certain areas and become citizens and staying here for
a long time sometimes as well, the point, though, is whether
one comes from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or India or any
countries that are not visa waiver countries or they come from
a European visa waiver country or, for that matter, Japan, the
information and the background information on these individuals
would be the same. Granted, they do not have to go to a
consulate and go through some cross examination, but you will
still have the same amount of information to make a judgment as
to whether or not this person should come into this country or
not. Is that correct?
Mr. Verdery. At the port of entry, yes.
Senator Allen. All right. So the whole thing you are
talking about, whether you are doing it before they get on the
airplane or in flight or whatever.
Mr. Verdery. There are essentially three different
screening points.
Senator Allen. Right, understood.
Mr. Verdery. There is the visa process. There is the
boarding process for an airplane, and there is the port of
entry process. The visa waiver countries do not have the first
part. The second part is the same for everybody. In fact, it is
probably more intense for most of the European travelers just
because we have better connectivity to their airlines. And at
the port of entry, as of September, it will be identical. There
is that difference for those few months on the biometric
application of US-VISIT.
Senator Allen. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Verdery.
Mr. Faull, unless you have something more you would like to
add, I want to thank both of you all for your leadership, for
your testimony here, but most importantly for your very
cooperative will to get this done. Our countries, whether in
Europe or here in the United States, are very fortunate to have
both of you with your principled expert leadership. Thank you
both so much.
Mr. Verdery. Thank you very much.
Mr. Faull. Thank you very much.
Senator Allen. I would like to have our second panel come
forward. Thank you, gentlemen. I would now like to introduce
our second panel here before we hear their testimony.
First, Mr. Bill Connors has had more than 17 years of
experience in the travel and tourism industry. He currently
serves as executive director and chief operating officer for
the National Business Travel Association. Mr. Connors joined
the staff of the National Business Travel Association in 2003,
having previously served as senior vice president of Meetings,
Education, and Member Services at the American Society of
Travel Agents [ASTA]. Prior to joining ASTA, he was vice
president of Marketing and Relationship Management for the
Travel Institute and now sits on its board of trustees.
Mr. Connors got a start in the travel business as a
steamship captain for the Lake George & New Orleans Steamboat
Company. He still holds his masters license as a cruise ship
captain.
In addition to his extensive association and travel agency
experience, Mr. Connors has held several leadership positions
in academics and serves on numerous industry boards and
councils. I am happy to say that Captain Connors now lives in
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Our second panelist will be Chris Koch who, prior to
joining the World Shipping Council, served as senior vice
president and general counsel for Sea-Land Service Incorporated
where he was responsible for legal, regulatory, and government
affairs. While at Sea-Land, Chris worked with the maritime
industry in the development, enactment, and implementation of
numerous maritime policy initiatives, as well as assisting Sea-
Land develop and implement its business plan and commercial
strategy.
Prior to Chris' involvement with Sea-Land and CSX, he
served as Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission from 1990
to 1993 as an appointee of President George H.W. Bush. He came
to the Federal Maritime Commission after a decade on Capitol
Hill where he served as counsel to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Chief of Staff to
Senator Slade Gorton and Senator John McCain.
Gentlemen, welcome to you both, and it is great to have
you. We would first like to hear from you, Captain Connors, if
I can call you Captain.
STATEMENT OF BILL CONNORS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND COO, NATIONAL
BUSINESS TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Connors. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a proud resident
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Chairman Allen, I am honored to be here today to testify
before this subcommittee on behalf of the National Business
Travel Association. You have our submitted testimony there and
I will refrain from reading it to you, but I would like to make
some brief remarks and I welcome your comments or questions.
NBTA is the world's largest association of corporate travel
managers and a majority of our Nation's Fortune 1000 companies
are represented within our membership. Our members purchase
some $150 billion in travel services annually. The fact that
you have asked NBTA to be here today shows that this
subcommittee values the input from our corporate travel
managers and millions of business travelers that they
represent.
NBTA is also a charter member of the Paragon Alliance of
Business Travel Associations, which includes sister
organizations in the UK, Germany, Finland, and other nations
around the globe.
NBTA would like to address three areas of concern
pertaining to today's discussion.
First, NBTA supports the CAPPS II initiative but wants to
be sure that certain concerns are addressed. Specifically, we
would want to make sure that the eight operational and privacy
issues identified by the U.S. Congress are addressed. These
eight are detailed in the written testimony that we have
submitted, but let me emphasize three areas of particular
concern to our members.
The determination and verification of the accuracy of the
data base to be used by the CAPPS II system is an important
priority.
The identification and addressing all privacy concerns is
an important priority.
The development of a process whereby passengers impacted by
CAPPS II can appeal those decisions and correct erroneous data
is also an important priority.
Furthermore, NBTA would like to see a study addressing the
possible cost implications to the private sector induced by
CAPPS II.
Our second issue. NBTA joins with others in requesting the
October 26, 2004 biometric passport deadline for visa waiver
countries be extended immediately. We have outlined the
negative economic and political implications that an October
2004 deadline would have on this Nation, and we urge Congress
to take action to extend this deadline as soon as possible.
Additionally, NBTA has been supportive of the DHS and the
TSA in their remarkable efforts in making US-VISIT a
nonintrusive and rapid screening procedure for visitors to the
United States. We want to be sure, however, that as the summer
travel season approaches, our borders are fully staffed and
wait times do not increase. Anything that slows the healthy
exchange of commerce between the United States and our trading
partners may jeopardize our current economic recovery.
Finally, we are delighted to see that this committee
understands the importance of the travel industry and the role
it plays for the United States, for Europe and for the world
economies. Here in the United States, one in seven employees
works in our industry. We are the third largest taxpayer sector
in America, and the old saying ``what's good for GM is good for
the country'' I think has been replaced in this service economy
with ``what's good for the travel industry is good for this
country.''
And our industry now overshadows in size and scope many of
the traditional key economic sectors like agriculture and
manufacturing and others. Yet, it has no official home in the
Federal Government. NBTA and numerous other travel industry
organizations would love to see a high level, permanent
advisory type board for the travel industry to be able to offer
input on issues like the ones that you are discussing today, as
well as hundreds of other important economic and political
questions that affect our industry. We would especially like to
see a place for the business travel community within such a
body, as business travel represents one of the largest players
in the travel industry.
In conclusion, we again thank you, Senator Allen, and the
subcommittee for this opportunity. We are honored to be here
with our friends from Europe that preceded us and with the DHS,
and to talk about how to keep the global economic recovery
continuing while still making the traveling public safe and
secure.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connors follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Connors
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members; I am honored to
testify before the committee today. Thank you for allowing me to
present the views and concerns of the customer at today's very
important hearing. My name is Bill Connors, and I am the Executive
Director & COO of the National Business Travel Association (NBTA). NBTA
represents over 1,900 corporate travel managers for the Fortune 1000
companies, and over 8 million domestic and international business
travelers.
CURRENT ENVIRONMENT
Prior to September 11th, 2001, international business travelers
were becoming an integral part of our economy. Even today,
multinational corporations like Microsoft, General Motors, IBM and AT&T
provide consistent services and support to the United States from
offices across the globe. While the national security ``hassle factor''
seems to be decreasing and the U.S. economy seems headed for a rebound,
there are still remnants of the fallout of September 11th that are
threatening the resumption of international travel and the restoration
of a solid economy.
NBTA has strongly supported the various efforts of the government
to enhance aviation and transportation security, and it will continue
to do so. Whether it has been the federalization of airport screeners,
the Transportation Security Administration's efforts to move towards
100% baggage and cargo screening, or the Department of Homeland
Security's efforts as lead agency for protecting our cities, borders
and skies, NBTA has fully supported the government's strategies in both
domestic regulation and in international agreements.
Enhancing international transportation security, while maintaining
the efficient flow of commerce, is a very large, complex and multi-
faceted task, and this Committee's oversight of that effort is very
appropriate. In my remarks this morning, I would like to address three
issues that will have a huge impact on the efficient flow of commerce:
CAPPS II; new Visa and Passport Rules; and greater private and public
cooperation in the area of travel and tourism.
PASSENGER DATA TRANSFERS AND CAPPS II
NBTA is very concerned about the recent international data transfer
agreement between the United States and Europe and the implementation
of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II).
Under its current form, CAPPS II clearly could deter the gains that we
have experienced over the last eight months. While we recognize the
need to fortify our international borders, no one would wish to give up
all the benefits--openness and efficiency--of our modern international
travel system. In fact, the prosperity that the market economies of the
world enjoyed prior to September 11th was dependent on open and
efficient travel facilitation systems.
NBTA is very concerned that the recent changes to enhance the
security of our passenger prescreening system could damage open and
efficient travel facilitation and slow our economic recovery. NBTA is
presently partnered with the business travel associations of
Australasia, Brazil, Canada, Europe, Finland, Germany, and the United
Kingdom. NBTA observes with concern the recent developments in travel
regulations. We welcome all sincere efforts to establish better
security measures but also see the need to implement policies, programs
and practices which are in accordance with protection of civil
liberties and do not burden business travelers and their companies with
unnecessary costs. It would be totally intolerable if new trade
obstacles were introduced camouflaged as travel security measures.
In order to continue the process of economic recovery, NBTA urges
for satisfactory solutions to the major questions concerning CAPPS II.
We recommend that:
1. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security address the eight
operational and privacy issues identified by the U.S. Congress
(a) Determine and verify the accuracy of the database to be
used by CAPPS II
(b) Stress-test and demonstrate the accuracy and
effectiveness of all search tools to be used by CAPS II
(c) Develop sufficient operational safeguards to reduce the
opportunities for abuse
(d) Establish substantial security measures to protect CAPPS
II from unauthorized access by hackers and other injuries
(e) Adopt policies to establish effective oversight of the
use and operation of the system
(f) Identify and address all privacy concerns, and
(g) Develop and document a process under which passengers
impacted by CAPPS II can appeal decisions and correct erroneous
data.
NBTA is also recommending that a study is commissioned to look into
the costs to the private sector induced by CAPPS II. NBTA understands
that ultimately CAPPS II will allow the U.S. Government to focus more
on the real threats and less on the millions of frequent travelers who
are going about the nation's business. However, NBTA believes that
there is a need for a clear and stable regulatory framework to
guarantee free movement of personal and corporate data. More
importantly, this framework must be designed so that the private sector
is not required to assume additional administrative and security costs.
visa and passport issues
NBTA advocates that Congress extends the October 26, 2004 biometric
passport deadline for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries by at least
one year and ensure that the US-VISIT program is properly funded and
staffed.
According to new policies of the State (DOS) and Homeland Security
(DHS) departments, all citizens of countries participating in the Visa
Waiver Program (VWP) who wish to enter the country visa-free must
present a machine-readable passport beginning October 1, 2004.
Travelers from these countries who do not hold such passports must
obtain a U.S. non-immigrant visa, and the process involves undergoing a
visa interview. In addition to the new passport format requirements,
the State Department and DHS are requiring Visa Waiver countries to
utilize the new US-VISIT immigration tracking program.
According to the Department of Commerce, twenty-eight percent of
all international visitors come to the United States for business. The
same survey shows that international business visitors spend an average
of over $1,700 per person on each visit. However, due to the nature of
the business world, business travelers finalize their plans for
international travel closer to the departure date than leisure
travelers. In 2002, on average, international business travelers coming
to the United States made their airline reservations less than 20 days
before their departure date. Clearly, the implementation of a complex
visa process would cause the delay or cancellation of thousands of
international business trips to the Untied States each year, costing
American businesses across the country hundreds of millions of dollars.
The United States must continue to provide a welcoming environment
for our international visitors. While the early reports from the US-
VISIT program show no significant delays, the upcoming summer travel
season and the incorporation of an additional 13 million annual
visitors from VWP countries into US-VISIT will provide the first real
stress to the system. A properly funded and staffed US-VISIT program
will increase the chances a positive experience for our foreign
visitors. It will also allow the State Department to take a more
proactive stance in educating the citizens of VWP countries--our most
frequent visitors and best trading partners--of what they can expect
when they visit the United States.
ADVISORY BOARD
Although travel and tourism is one of very few industries that
creates a multi-billion dollar trade surplus for our country, the
United States continues to lose market share making us the third most
visited destination in the world behind France and Spain. NBTA and its
members would like to work in partnership with the Bush Administration
and members of Congress to help revitalize the travel and tourism
industry and to send an important message to the world that we want
them to come and visit. In the past, NBTA has supported mediums that
would seek to provide guidance to the Federal Government on matters
involving national tourism development.
NBTA believes that it is crucial for Congress and the
Administration to create formal external advisory groups that would
provide expert advice and recommendations to the DHS, State Department,
Department of Commerce and other agencies that stroke travel and
tourism issues. These groups would draw upon their expertise in
creating, implementing and evaluating performance measurement standards
and will make recommendations regarding the types of measures and
benchmarking systems that agencies can employ most effectively to track
travel and transportation programs performance.
Specifically, NBTA believes there needs to be a Presidential
Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism, which would call upon the
expertise of the corporate and leisure travel industries in the areas
of transportation security, destination marketing and travel
facilitation. Only through a public and private partnership will we be
able to alleviate the barriers of international commerce and trade and
restore the United States as the gateway for international travel.
CONCLUSION
While travel continues its rebound from the post-September 11
fallout, additional barriers to travel, and especially business travel
and international commerce, would only serve to slow the current
recovery. International business travel helps facilitate trade of goods
and services from all over the United States to every corner of the
globe. We must ensure that the lanes of business travel with our most
important trading partners and allies remain free and clear. Therefore,
we urge Congress to carefully review CAPPS II; extend the October 26,
2004 biometric passport deadline for VWP countries; continue to monitor
the US-VISIT program; and create an advisory board for travel and
tourism issues.
From 2001 to 2002, international travelers to the United States
dropped 44.9 million to 41.9 million. International visitor spending in
the United States over that time decreased from $71.9 billion to $66.5
billion. And our travel trade surplus of $26 billion in 1996 plummeted
to $5.5 billion in 2002. We must make sure that government-imposed
homeland security changes do not result in direct costs to the U.S.
economy.
NBTA understands that ultimately the Federal Government and the
private sector must work together to strengthen security while ensuring
that travel is safe, efficient and cost-effective. I, again, thank the
committee for the opportunity to testify on this vital subject and I
look forward to your comments and questions.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Captain Connors. I may have some
questions for you, but now I would like to hear from Mr. Koch.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER L. KOCH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WORLD
SHIPPING COUNCIL
Mr. Koch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to be outdone by the
Captain, I would like to have the record reflect I too am from
the great State of Virginia.
Senator Allen. Well, I figured you must be because of Sea-
Land and you had that wonderful facility down in Portsmouth and
then they sold it to Maersk, a wonderful company that is
expanding that port.
Mr. Koch. And Maersk has been able to invest quite a bit
more money than we were able to.
Senator Allen. I know, but it was a good partnership and I
consider CSX and Sea-Land to have great Virginia bloodlines.
Mr. Koch. They do indeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us here today. The
World Shipping Council's members are those shipping lines that
run regularly scheduled service between the U.S. and foreign
countries with liner service, most of that being containerized
cargo.
Today the value of the waterborne commerce of the United
States is over $800 billion per year. Now, two-thirds of the
value of that commerce is carried in containers, or close to
that two-thirds number. That approximates into a little over
$1.3 billion of goods each day going through U.S. ports.
Since 9/11, the industry's highest priority has been to
work with the U.S. Government and other governments to deal
with the security challenge because this system clearly was not
built with that in mind. It was built for the efficient and
prompt transportation of cargo throughout the world.
In terms of dealing with the security initiatives, there
are really several different factors. One is to deal with ship
security. One, as you well know because of Norfolk and
Portsmouth, is to deal with port security, the security of the
facilities themselves. Another aspect of it is people security,
which has been touched on a little bit by the prior witnesses.
Finally, there is the fourth area of cargo security. That is
one of the more daunting and difficult challenges we face and
is the issue that you have asked me to testify today on, the
Container Security Initiative itself.
In the last several weeks, we have seen a welcomed step
forward in the Container Security Initiative with the European
Union and the Department of Homeland Security formalizing a CSI
agreement. That is a welcomed step forward. When CSI was first
rolled out with several individual European nations, in fact
the European Commission brought infringement actions against
those nations for entering into bilateral agreements with the
United States. The great story here is we have made enough
progress where now the European Commission is an active partner
to help make this a more coherent and more effective
infrastructure that will serve the trade of both sides of the
Atlantic.
What we are dealing with is building a security regime
really, as I said earlier, where there was not one before. No
single country can do this by itself. We are doing it through
unilateral measures, through bilateral measures, and through
multilateral measures, trying to get the World Customs
Organization to step up and become effective here as well.
As Stewart Verdery said, the purpose of the CSI program is
to ensure that all containers that pose a potential risk for
terrorism are identified as early as possible in the
international trade supply chain and before they are ladened on
board vessels destined for the United States. That is a
strategy and a program that our industry strongly supports. The
strategy of screening cargo before vessel loading in the
foreign port is the right strategy.
Today we implement that by giving U.S. Customs--24 hours
before loading in a foreign port--all the information that the
carrier has about a container. Customs screens 100 percent of
all those shipments. What CSI does is it provides a bilateral,
cooperative mechanism to address resulting issues. When you
have a question about a container of cargo, what do you do with
it? If you are going to inspect it in a foreign port, you have
to have relationships with those foreign customs authorities
that allow you to do that. That is what CSI is all about.
Today there are 38 ports that are covered by signed CSI
agreements, but it is important to recognize that this is a
program that is in its beginning evolutionary stages. Eighteen
of those 38 ports are currently operational. More will come on
line in the course of this year. And it is essential that
people recognize that this is an ongoing effort and that CSI
will continue to have to evolve.
What we need are common criteria amongst the U.S. and our
trading partners for screening. We need trust and cooperation
amongst the customs authorities. We need adequate equipment and
systems to perform the inspections when necessary, and
hopefully this will also lead to agreed and cooperative
contingency planning for how is it that we would keep trade
flowing, this huge volume of trade, in the event we had an
incident that required us to do so.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, I think that the European Union, the
United States, and many of our trading partners are doing what
they can to cooperate and the CSI initiative is an important
part of this effort. The industry is trying to support them in
any way we can, and we think they are going in the right
direction but there is still a lot of work to be done.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Koch. Let me ask you some
followup questions on the CSI. Is this all the European ports
or just Rotterdam and Marseilles? At all the European ports,
you said 100 percent of the containers are being inspected?
Mr. Koch. There are two parts of your question that I would
like to address.
The first is U.S. Customs screens 100 percent of all
containers in all ports before they are loaded on vessels
coming to the United States.
Senator Allen. All right. Describe what screening entails.
Mr. Koch. What that means is that the carrier provides all
of its bill of lading information to Customs and Border
Protection electronically 24 hours before it loads its vessel,
whether it is Rotterdam or Colombo, Sri Lanka, or Yokohama or
Shanghai. Every single port that a vessel destined for the
United States loads cargo at, 24 hours before that loading, the
carrier will provide this advance information to Customs.
Customs then will screen that information. If they have a
serious concern about a container, they will issue the carrier
a ``do not load'' message. If we receive a ``do not load''
message, we will not load that container.
Now, the CSI agreements are where U.S. Customs has
stationed its personnel in foreign ports, and we have a
formalized agreement with those other customs authorities. As I
mentioned, 38 ports presently have agreements; 18 are
operational. I believe nine European ports are presently
operational. Rotterdam is certainly one of them.
Senator Allen. So the screening is not one of a physical
screening, a sensoring sort of approach. It is looking at what
the manifest says or what is supposedly in the container and
who is supposedly shipping it or loading it.
What percentage, when they get screened, do you get one of
those ``do not load'' orders?
Mr. Koch. The most recent data I have seen is that Customs
physically inspects today 5.4 percent of all the containers,
which is probably getting close to 500,000 a year. The number
that are inspected in a foreign port before loading would be a
small percentage of that number, but I do not know exactly what
it is.
Senator Allen. Well, rather than the physical sensoring or
visual inspection, do you get many ``do not load'' orders? This
is just based on information.
Mr. Koch. We do not get many, no.
Senator Allen. And then when those occur, nonetheless, then
there is a physical inspection of it or further questioning
because of whatever seems problematic.
Mr. Koch. Correct. And the carrier will not load until they
then get a green light from U.S. Customs.
Senator Allen. Let me ask another question from you since
Captain Connors was in New Orleans and you know our Virginia
ports. Every port is different in this country. Of course the
European combined terminal in Rotterdam may still be--it
certainly was when I saw it--the most technologically advanced
port I have ever seen. It is just very, very efficient and high
tech. But every port is different.
And you are right. As far as the steamship lines, their
main concern is get those containers there and get the cranes,
get them off, and get them on the trains and get those trains
or trucks out of port, off the docks as quickly as possible.
There are those who say that every port ought to meet a
standard, which is fine, but every port is different. The port
of New Orleans is a completely different type of port than what
we have in Norfolk or what they have in Charleston or Long
Beach or Seattle. The key in all of this, in my view, is to
find the technologies, the sensoring technologies. Looking at
the manifest, looking at what is supposedly and verifiably
loaded into those containers is important. That is fine and can
be done simply. The question is whether there is falsification
of that, and there is a biological agent or there are some
radioactive agents, whatever may be on there. But the key to
all of this, in trying to secure these ports, is to do it in
whatever way will not slow down the movement of cargo or
containers.
Does your organization, which is obviously international,
see promising technologies that can get the movement of these
containers off the ships and out of the ports that are more
promising than others? And if you could share that with us as
evidence. I know this is a Foreign Relations Committee. I am
also on Commerce and port security is a big issue. I have you
all here and I would like to glean that insight from you all as
well.
Mr. Koch. I would be happy to try to take a stab at that.
There are different pieces of inspection and technology. One
piece is the nonintrusive inspection technology, commonly
called VACIS machines, which are deployed at ports where they,
in essence, give an x-ray or a gamma ray image of what is
inside this steel container. Those are at all major U.S.
seaports now. They are also deployed at many foreign seaports.
Those are what are used when you have a question about a box.
In Norfolk, for example, they are used quite frequently and
even talking to some of our customers, they are used so
frequently that it can cause a week's delay to get your box out
of the port if you have to go through a VACIS machine.
Senator Allen. So to go through this machine, they are not
examining every container. It is just those that are
suspicioned.
Mr. Koch. For the VACIS, that is correct.
For radiation screening----
Senator Allen. Hold it. Before we go to the radiation.
VACIS is like an x-ray.
Mr. Koch. Correct.
Senator Allen. And the containers that are x-rayed are
those that for some reason there is some suspicion or some
biometric, so to speak, or some reason you feel that those
containers ought to be--somehow the port thinks that you ought
to x-ray them.
Mr. Koch. That is correct with the caveat that I believe
Customs does use some random sampling as well so that some will
be pulled in for that that are just done on a random basis.
Senator Allen. And then in the event that that is done, it
is held up for a week?
Mr. Koch. In some ports it is longer than others. For
Charleston and Norfolk, we have heard some of our customers say
it can take a week. Other ports it is not so long.
Senator Allen. Well, that is unacceptable.
Then get on to the radiation.
Mr. Koch. The radiation portals, what Commissioner Bonner
has announced, is a program that hopefully by the end of this
year Customs hopes to have 100 percent of all containers
screened for radiation. Those devices are being put at the
gates at the terminals so that when it passes through, it will
be screened at the gate, which should be a very efficient way
to deal with it. It should not slow down commerce significantly
at all.
The challenge there, as you point out, is for on-dock rail
facilities, there is no gate that the box goes through, so
Customs will have to work with the terminal operator to figure
out for the rail cargo that goes straight on to a rail car how
that would be screened. But the objective is within the next
several months to be able to have radiation screening of 100
percent of all the containers.
Senator Allen. Not just those that are under suspicion.
Mr. Koch. Right.
Senator Allen. I have seen ideas of putting it on the
cranes themselves as they are offloading them from the ship,
but for some reason or another, that technology----
Mr. Koch. It has not proven to be workable up to this
point.
And then the third cluster of technology issues is what is
it that might be developed that would be the creation of a
``smart'' box, what would be a ``smart'' container. The
Department of Homeland Security is standing up, starting
tomorrow, an advisory committee with industry, shippers and
carriers, to try to deal with that issue and bring greater
definition to it. Technology is clearly coming in that regard.
There are many different aspects of this issue, however, and we
really need to get some definition of what is it we are talking
about, how it would be implemented, and what the technology
would be. So that is probably more a mid- to longer-term
solution than it is a short-term solution.
Senator Allen. Is there a technology or some scanning,
screening device to handle that that is on the horizon?
Mr. Koch. There are different kinds of sensors which have
gone through some levels of operational testing. Operation Safe
Commerce is one program set up that is being funded now to try
to test some of these devices and see how do they actually
perform in operation.
One of the challenges is to define what is it you want
sensed because you can build various different kinds of
sensors. Is it for radiological sensing? Is it temperature? Is
it humidity? Is it shock? Is it entry into the container? I
think the core issues they are trying right now to deal with is
making sure radiation scanning is done on boxes, and the most
important sensor on a container is likely to be an entry
sensor. Has the box been intruded into by any of the six sides
of the container? And there are different technologies as to
how you might get there, but that is I think the clearest
objective at this point.
Senator Allen. Yes, it would be an interesting one. At some
of the ports, as you were talking about, how this is going to
be effectuated, if you have an agreement with a port, say, with
Rotterdam or Marseilles or, for that matter, those that might
come into Halifax first and the way that the rotations work
from Europe and then New York, then say, Virginia or
Charleston. If it is to be loaded onto, say, a train--and
usually they know which way it is going to be conveyed. They do
not just have the ship come, offload the container, and well,
gosh, let us see how are we going to get this to Chicago. They
know it is going to be going on a train.
You are saying if there is radiation, how are you going to
do it on a train versus a truck leaving the actual port. If you
could do a sensing before it leaves. Now, of course, that would
be a bilateral port agreement or some sort of agreement. In
Rotterdam they do it. It seems to me they could. And it is
going to go on a train. You do not have to worry about it.
However, then you bring up, well, what if something happened to
it somehow in transit and then you would have to make a
determination has that box been breached or violated, so to
speak.
Well, it is a concern to me. I am hopeful the technology
can be implemented in ways that do not slow down commerce
because it is one of the biggest challenges of our ports. It
does not matter how long it takes them to offload one of those
containers and get it on a train or a truck, it is still way
too long as far as the steamship lines are concerned. These are
key security areas for which we have a great deal of concern in
this country. To the extent that we can implement technologies,
deploy them, the better.
Thank you for your comments.
Now, Captain Connors, you heard Mr. Verdery and Mr. Faull
before you. They have left. It seems like there is a great deal
of cooperation and understanding of all the sentiments that you
express for a very important part of our economy and many, many
businesses. Are you confident that all of this will be
implemented in a way that is satisfactory so far as the
leadership of our administration, as well as leadership from
Europe?
Mr. Connors. Well, again, Senator, I did listen to those
witnesses and felt very strongly and felt very favorably. I
sensed some cooperation that perhaps that you hear in the rumor
mills that you do not hear. But it was good to see the real
players are indeed cooperating and we hope that that continues.
Nevertheless, in my testimony we have suggested the
opportunity for more private sector folks like ourselves to be
involved and have some input over regulations before they come
out. NBTA stands ready to be one of those players. Within our
membership, we represent millions and millions of business
travelers through our corporate travel managers. Therefore, we
have access to all sorts of information about road warriors out
there and what they are going through.
Senator Allen. Let me give this opportunity to you. I will
tell you my general view of it, but I want to hear from you.
What is the current condition of business travel and how is
what I call the stress factor, aggravation factor, hassle
factor? How is that impacting the resumption of business travel
from your perspective?
Mr. Connors. Well, we are very optimistic about what has
been going on this year as far as a return of business travel.
As far as the hassle factor goes, most of our folks are
road warriors. They know the drill. They have been through it.
They understand it. They understand when they are going to the
airport early in the morning, they are going to be waiting.
When they are there in the afternoon, they are going to be
waiting. I think the frustration that they have is that often
they are in the same line with the infrequent traveler who does
not know the drill yet.
To that end, NBTA is very much in favor of the registered
traveler program which we know is being pilot tested, and we
are very supportive of that. We stand ready again to offer
volunteers around that program and would be very happy to be a
part of any kind of input regarding the registered traveler
program.
Senator Allen. I think that is absolutely essential. You
mentioned it. You understand this, Captain. Business travel is
absolutely key to the airlines. That is how they can have the
lower fares for folks that are traveling on some of their
better deals, let us say. To the extent business travel is now
taking commercial airlines, that affects all the jobs in the
airline industry unless they are one like Jet Blue or Southwest
that seem to be doing just fine, regardless of all this.
The registered travel I think is absolutely essential. They
are improving, as far as I can see, but boy, there is still a
long way to go with who has to go through certain things. It is
a shame.
You mentioned getting input from the private sector on some
of these different ideas that are coming forward. Do you feel
presently as different ideas are being put forward and
regulations being put in that you do not have an opportunity to
share, in making those decisions, your comments?
Mr. Connors. We have had a very warm relationship with TSA
and DHS. Let me say that at the outset. However, I think we
would enjoy having some sort of official body that we could be
a part of and that other associations like ourselves could be a
part of for regular input prior to regulations coming out.
Senator Allen. I understand that. Well, let me say I agree
with you, and it is not just me saying this. I was once
Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and we had our Travel
and Tourism Advisory Board. It was a formal board of
individuals. The tourism industry is a very diverse industry.
It is everyone from the big airline companies to those that run
places like Bush Gardens and Kings Dominion and Luray Caverns
and a variety of other small businesses.
I made it a priority and my wife, as First Lady of
Virginia, really made it a priority. We would go on trade
missions. While I would go to the ports and talk to the
steamship lines, the K lines and the Maersks and all of them,
my wife would be talking to all the travel and tourism folks to
have people from Japan or from France or Britain or Germany
come and visit Virginia for heritage tourism. So it was an
important part of our economic development in the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
This whole 2007 400th anniversary of Jamestown. I will say
today was the day in 1607 Jamestown was founded. All of that
heritage tourism that we wanted to make on the 400th is
tourism, it is history, it is education. It is great for jobs
and a lot of small businesses.
As a U.S. Senator, you cannot do the same things as you can
as an executive. Suffice it to say I am with you and I do think
that any executive, whether it is at the State or the Federal
level, would benefit a great deal from having an advisory
board. People would be proud to serve on it. And I think
decisions being made in the area of commerce would be improved
by having that formalized relationship. I am a U.S. Senator. I
just listen to you. I agree with you. We in our office have all
the brochures from all the facilities and places in Virginia
and try to assist folks going to all regions of our
commonwealth.
This at least gave you an opportunity to say it here. I
hope some day in the future, very soon, that the executive
branch will put together such an advisory board. I think it
would be very beneficial. I have seen it myself for my cabinet
secretaries as well as myself.
So I want to thank both of you all for being here. Thank
you for your comments, for your insight. I know, Mr. Koch, you
had short notice to be here, and I very much appreciate your
being a quick fireman to get here for this. But thank you both
so much.
Also, always feel free to contact me. This is an issue of
great concern to me and it also gets into just not the foreign
relations and bilateral European issues, these are
international issues. So consider me an ally on the Commerce
Committee as well, particularly on the port security.
Both gentlemen, again thank you all so very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]