U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–404 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 109–1134 

THE STATE OF THE U.S. TRAVEL 

AND TOURISM INDUSTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE, TOURISM, AND 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2006 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE, TOURISM, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 22, 2006 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 2 

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Davidson, Todd, Executive Director, Oregon Tourism Commission; Chairman, 

National Council of State Tourism Directors; Past-Chair, Western States 

Tourism Policy Council ........................................................................................ 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Jacksta, Robert M., Executive Director, Traveler Security and Facilitation, 

Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Lavin, Hon. Franklin L., Under Secretary for International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce ........................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

LeDuc, James W., Ph.D., Coordinator for Influenza, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services ................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Nesbitt, Hon. Wanda L., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 

Consular Affairs, Department of State .............................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Pressler, Virginia ‘‘Ginny’’, M.D., MBA, FACS, Senior Vice President, Strategic Business Development, Hawaii Pacific Health ......................................... 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Letter, dated June 16, 2006, to Dr. Virginia Pressler, M.D., Senior Vice 

President, Strategic Business Development, Hawaii Pacific Health from 

Robert W. Schulz, M.D., Plastic Surgeon, Straub Clinic & Hospital ........ 56 

Rasulo, Jay, Chairman, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts; Chairman, Travel 

Industry Association; Chairman, U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board .. 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Tisch, Jonathan M., Chairman, Travel Business Roundtable; Chairman/CEO, 

Loews Hotels ........................................................................................................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

APPENDIX

Bray, Charles W., President/CEO, International Association of Amusement 

Parks and Attractions, prepared statement ...................................................... 59 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to: 

Robert M. Jacksta ............................................................................................. 86 

Hon. Franklin L. Lavin .................................................................................... 64 

James W. LeDuc, Ph.D. ................................................................................... 74 

Hon. Wanda L. Nesbitt .................................................................................... 69 

Virginia ‘‘Ginny’’ Pressler, M.D., MBA, FACS ............................................... 85 

Jay Rasulo ......................................................................................................... 79 

Jonathan M. Tisch ............................................................................................ 87 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gordon H. Smith to: 

Todd Davidson .................................................................................................. 83 

Hon. Franklin L. Lavin .................................................................................... 63 

Hon. Wanda L. Nesbitt .................................................................................... 66 

Jay Rasulo ......................................................................................................... 77 

Jonathan M. Tisch ............................................................................................ 81 

(1) 

THE STATE OF THE U.S. TRAVEL 

AND TOURISM INDUSTRY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE, TOURISM, AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Dorgan and I and 

the Co-Chairman, Senator Inouye, welcome you all here. We call 

this hearing to order. 

This is the Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development. Today’s hearing will examine the state of the U.S. travel and tourism industry and potential barriers that may affect 

America’s competitiveness. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for rearranging their schedules to appear before the Subcommittee. I especially want to welcome Todd Davidson, from the Oregon Tourism Commission, for 

taking the time to be here today. We thank you very much. 

Travel and tourism has become one of the world’s most important sources of employment. It stimulates enormous investment in 

infrastructure and provides governments with substantial tax revenues. Most recent statistics show that travel and tourism is one of 

the United States largest employers, with 7.3 million jobs and a 

payroll of $163 billion. Travel expenditures reached nearly $600 

billion and generated almost $100 billion in tax revenues for local, 

State, and Federal Governments last year. 

In my State of Oregon, travel and tourism is the number one 

contributor to the gross state product and ranked among the top 

three industries of Oregon, employing over 89,000 of my fellow Oregonians. 

Travel and tourism is firmly established as the number one industry in many countries and the fastest growing economic sector 

in terms of foreign exchange earnings and job creation. In fact, 

many new tourism jobs and businesses are created in small communities and often help those living in small communities to be 

able to remain in those small communities. But, despite its robust 

economic performance, tourism’s contribution to the prosperity of 

2 

American life has not been fully realized or taken advantage of as 

a powerful driver of jobs, community development, small business 

growth, and generator of export income. As the world is traveling 

in record numbers, the United States has not taken full advantage 

of this potential. 

I’m concerned to hear that the U.S. has now fallen behind France 

and Spain as only the third most popular travel destination in the 

world, and may soon slip behind China. As we focus on the development of a coordinated national travel and tourism campaign, we 

must also review some of our burdens and policies which may prevent international travel to the U.S. Our international visitors need 

to know that America has secure borders, but also open doors. 

Again, we welcome you. And, Senator Dorgan, your comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I 

think this is a very important hearing to hold. 

I really think it’s time for us to rethink what we’re doing in this 

country with respect to travel and tourism. The tourism industry 

is a very important industry. You described the jobs and the contribution to the country’s economy. But that industry now labors 

under the shadow of 9/11, with all of the resulting issues that have 

attended post-9/11 policies and concerns here in this country. 

I’ve spent a fair amount of time recently working on the issue of 

cross-border travel with Canada. How difficult will we make it for 

routine cross-border travel between the U.S. and Canada? We have 

70 million people that come south every year, and the proposition 

of ‘‘maybe they all ought to have a passport’’ was a proposition that 

I know will dramatically reduce the cross-border travel for tourism 

and for commerce. So, I mean, that’s just one part of this. I’ve been 

working with the State Department, the Commerce Department, 

and Homeland Security, on those issues. 

But I think, given what is happening in the world, given the fact 

that we know America, at this point, is not very well thought of 

in much of the world, there is concern about our country and its 

policies, and some anger, and so on, I think we should, at this 

point, consider what kind of—what kind of impact a different kind 

of public policy might produce. We need a public-sector/private-sector new partnership to promote travel and tourism. You know, we 

appropriated, I think, $6 million to have some—a campaign to market the United States as a travel destination. That’s a tiny drop out 

of a small faucet. And I think the opportunity, one, to entice foreign visitors to come to this country as a destination, and, two, at 

the same time to describe this country in very positive ways at a 

time when we need that description across the world, I think, 

should cause us to reevaluate what we have done in the past and 

what we’re doing now. There was a time when we had a department and a full-blown campaign in the public-sector, saying, ‘‘This 

is, in significant ways, our responsibility, as well.’’ I don’t think it 

is solely our responsibility, but I would like to see us engage now 

in a new approach with the private sector in a public-/private-sector partnership with an entirely new campaign and a new approach 

and new resources. I know it’s hard to find those new resources, 

3 

but one of the things that’s very important is what the rest of the 

world thinks of this country. I can’t think of a better way to address some of that than through the right type of advertising, 

internationally, about the United States, its advantages, its wonders, and its ability to serve as a wonderful travel destination once 

again. 

So, I’m really pleased you’ve called this hearing. You’ve got some 

great witnesses. I have, down on the third floor, just below us, an 

Energy hearing going on at exactly the same time, so I won’t hear 

all of the witnesses, but I’m anxious to work with you and see if 

we can’t develop a fresh approach and a new direction with respect 

to these issues. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Senator SMITH. Thanks, Senator Dorgan. 

Senator Inouye? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator INOUYE. First, congratulations on scheduling this hearing. And after listening to the profound remarks of my colleague, 

Senator Dorgan, I’d just like to add this. I’d like to welcome the 

witness from Hawaii—she’s on the second panel—Dr. Pressler. But 

the remarks of our colleague, I think, makes good sense. The time 

has come for reappraisal. 

And, with that, may I ask that my statement be made part of 

the record? 

Senator SMITH. Without objection. It’ll be included. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome our witnesses, and in particular, 

Dr. Virginia Pressler of Hawaii, who will share with this committee her unique perspective on tourism and healthcare. 

Travel and tourism is an essential industry not only for my state but also for the 

Nation. Travel and tourism is this country’s second largest services export industry 

and its third largest retail sales industry, generating a $4 billion balance of trade 

surplus. 

While the travel and tourism industry has shown resilience since the terrorist attacks of September 11, America has become a less desirable destination for international travelers. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, in 1992, the 

U.S. attracted 9.4 percent of all international tourist arrivals from around the 

world. In 2004, the U.S. attracted only 6 percent of total international arrivals. Accordingly, our trade surplus related to tourism was $22.2 billion in 1992, but only 

$4 billion today. 

The tourism industry provides a tremendous economic benefit to our Nation, and 

like all industries, we must make necessary capital investments to stay competitive. 

In fact, prior to 1997, the Federal Government made capital investments in tourism 

through coordinated advertising to international markets, and we held our own 

against the world in attracting international visitors. However, the decline in international visits began in 1997 when the U.S. stopped providing funds for international advertising. The Federal Government reinstated funding for international 

advertising in 2003, but we have a long way to go to recover the lost market. 

Another essential component is to ensure our borders are protected for both Americans and visitors, but we must secure our borders in a manner that still allows our 

international friends to feel welcome. Many in the travel and tourism industry have 

expressed concerns with the ongoing efforts of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to improve border security. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about how to balance these important goals. 

4 

Senator SMITH. So, we’ll turn now to our first panel. We’re 

pleased to be joined by the Honorable Frank Lavin, Under Secretary for International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. And Ambassador Wanda Nesbitt, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the 

U.S. Department of State, welcome. And Mr. Robert Jacksta, who 

is the Executive Director of the Traveler Security and Facilitation, 

the Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

And Dr. James LeDuc, Influenza Coordinator, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, out of Atlanta, Georgia. 

Mr. Secretary, why don’t we start with you? 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANKLIN L. LAVIN, 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. LAVIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and 

Co-Chairman Inouye, I’m grateful for this opportunity to speak on 

this topic. I’m very much in sympathy with the sentiment of your 

remarks, opening up, and I want to thank you for your leadership 

on this issue. 

Let me offer some general comments on the industry. 

I think, as a starting point, simply stated, our view is that the 

travel and tourism industry in the United States is strong, because 

the United States has the most innovative and the most diverse 

travel and tourism industry in the world. We have a range of experiences as varied as New York City to the Alaskan wilderness to 

Disney World to Yellowstone to Waikiki to our Nation’s Capital, 

that no one can match. And, on top of that, being a tourist destination second to none, we think we have a support industry that is 

second to none with the dedication to quality service, marketing, 

and entertainment. And so, it is no surprise that the statistics 

show that the number of international visitors to the United States 

is on track to set a record-high number this year. 

But, having said all that, the travel and tourism industry in the 

United States also faces its share of challenges. As the Senator alluded, the impact of 9/11, international pandemics such as SARS, 

and even consolidation in the U.S. airline industry have all contributed to the challenge the industry faces. But I’ll, if I can, elaborate 

on the statistics, then talk a bit about the challenges. 

This industry is a major contributor to our Nation’s economy. It represents some 2.6 percent of our GDP, generated some $1 trillion 

in sales in 2005, and our figures show that one out of every 16 

Americans is employed by travel- and tourism-related business, 

and 94 percent of those businesses are classified as small businesses. 

In 2005, the United States exported some $100 billion in traveland tourism-related goods and services to 49 million international 

visitors. For perspective, total exports to trading partners such as 

Germany and the United Kingdom were $54 billion and $83 billion, 

respectively. 

So, while the industry is strong and growing, in recent years it 

has had to grapple with core challenges. Due to the tragic events 

of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent impact of SARS, the 

United States travel and tourism receipts and international visitor 

5 

arrivals declined sharply. We have a chart which shows the receipts declined some 22 percent from the peak of 2000 to the 

trough of 2003. So, this chart gives you an indication of an industry, although fundamentally strong, that has suffered in recent 

years from these events. In fact, we could say few industries in the 

United States might have felt the impact of that terrible day as 

much as this particular industry. 

Both the U.S. Government and the industry itself have responded with a range of initiatives to protect our country and to 

help the industry. The bottom line is this, nothing is more important than the safety and security of Americans and those who visit 

our Nation. We don’t see an inherent conflict between the goal of 

security and the goal of tourism facilitation. And, indeed, an efficient system would underpin both objectives. And I want to compliment my colleagues here at the table who are looking at initiatives such as the Model Airport Initiative and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which we think meets both those objectives. It also calls to mind the Visa Waiver Program, which stands 

out as a mechanism that protects our country’s security and helps 

tourism. And it should be no surprise that 68 percent of our visitors come from Visa Waiver Program countries. I think we need to 

continue to search for ways to improve our visa process so we do 

safely guard our borders, while providing responsive service to legitimate travelers. 

Looking ahead, we have several areas where we’re trying to focus 

our efforts. First, we are focused on facilitation of Chinese group 

leisure travel to the United States. It is currently part of our trade 

negotiations. The United States is not an approved destination for 

Chinese tourists, and we’re working with Chinese officials to see if 

we can get that changed and tap into the Chinese tourist market. 

Second, in our view, two of the key drivers of tourism to the 

United States are the Open Skies agreements and the Air Traffic 

Liberalization agreements, and we continue to pursue those in concert with the Department of Transportation. 

Third, as the Senator alluded, we are conducting a Tourism Promotion Program. We have had a 2-year run of advertisements in 

the U.K., and we are launching in Japan. If the Committee is interested, we have a tape of the advertisement, which we would be 

happy to play at the conclusion of my remarks. 

And, fourth, we are looking at how we best market to the emergence of specialty tourism in areas, such as healthcare and education, to take care of our very strong service industry and those 

key sectors. 

Finally, I would like to make a comment, if I may, on the impact 

of Hurricane Katrina. We have had a special program in the Gulf 

region to help promote tourism to that key market. Airline traffic 

dropped to almost zero after Katrina. It has now recovered about 

two-thirds. We’ve got another chart. We can see the impact of 

Katrina. We’ve made a grant for tourism promotion, just to help 

the people of the New Orleans region. 

In conclusion, the industry in the United States is rebounding 

from the shocks of 9/11. Since the last quarter of 2003, both arrivals and receipts have been on the rise. The sector is on track to 

surpass the 2000 highwater mark, in 2006. The U.S. industry is 

6 

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts. 

2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts. 

growing at twice the world rate in global arrivals, and we want to 

create a positive climate by removing business barriers at home 

and abroad, building bridges to new markets, working with the 

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to identify these impediments, 

and finding these public-private solutions the Senator has alluded 

to. We are committed to ensuring that the United States remains 

the finest travel and tourism destination in the world. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lavin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANKLIN L. LAVIN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR

INTERNATIONAL TRADE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Chairman Smith, Chairman Stevens, and members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to update you on the status of the United States travel and 

tourism industry. Thank you also for your leadership in this important sector of our 

economy. 

The travel and tourism industry in the United States is strong. Simply stated, the 

United States has the most innovative and the most diverse travel and tourism industry in the world. We offer experiences as varied as New York City to the Alaskan 

wilderness, Disney World to Yellowstone National Park, and Waikiki beach to our 

Nation’s Capital. The United States is a travel destination second to none. The travel and tourism industry in the United States is the most capable in the world, with 

a dedication to quality service, marketing and entertainment. The prospect that 

international visitors in the United States might set a new spending record this 

year is testament to these facts. 

The travel and tourism industry in the United States also faces its share of challenges from the impact of 9/11, to international pandemics such as SARS, to the 

continuing economic uncertainty of the airline industry. 

Tourism and the U.S. Economy 

Let me give a brief overview of the industry before discussing existing challenges. 

The travel and tourism industry is a major contributor to our Nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Travel and tourism represents 2.6 percent of GDP and generated more than $1 trillion of sales in 2005 alone. 1

In 2005, the United States exported nearly $103 billion in travel and tourism-related goods and services to more than forty-nine million international visitors. For 

perspective, total exports to trading partners such as Germany and United Kingdom 

were $54 billion and $83 billion respectively. 2

It is no surprise that the travel and tourism industry is one of America’s largest 

employers. Indeed, one out of every sixteen Americans is employed by travel and 

tourism-related businesses, ninety-four percent of which are classified as small businesses. 3

Recent Trends and Challenges 

While the United States tourism industry is strong and growing, in recent years 

it has had to grapple with core challenges. 

Due to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent impact of the 

SARS outbreak, the United States’ travel and tourism receipts and international 

visitor arrivals sharply declined. As the accompanying chart shows, receipts declined roughly 22 percent from the peak in 2000 to a trough in 2003. However, the 

industry has proven its resiliency recovering since 2003 to nearly record levels. 

Through 2005, we are .5 percent (one half of 1 percent) off our record receipts (exports) in 2000 and our arrivals are down just 4 percent from the all-time high in 

2000. 

Let me now touch on how we are responding to the post–9/11 environment. 

Safety and Security 

When it comes to transportation policy, nothing is more important than the safety 

and security of Americans and those who visit our Nation. I would like to compliment the work of the Departments of Homeland Security and State on this effort. 

We see no inherent conflict between our goal of tourism facilitation and the goal of 

7 

4 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. 

security. Indeed, in our view, an effective system can move people in a rapid, friendly manner while concurrently focusing on security. Allow me to briefly review a few 

examples in this regard. 

First, as an example of security initiatives that are efficient and tourist-friendly, 

the Departments of State and Homeland Security recently announced a ‘‘model airport’’ project to be implemented at both the Houston International Airport and the 

Washington Dulles International Airport. The goal of this initiative is to ensure a 

more welcoming environment for foreign visitors through improved entry procedures 

and passenger assistance measures. 

Second, we are anticipating the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which will require all travelers, including U.S. citizens, traveling to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda to have a passport 

or other accepted document that establishes the bearer’s identity and citizenship to 

enter or re-enter the United States. Technological advances will allow us to 

strengthen border security and streamline the process to provide efficient entry into 

the United States. 

Third, we are also working with the Departments of Homeland Security and State 

to assess various policies regarding the movement of people across our borders 

should a pandemic influenza occur. Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the United States is reaching out to its neighbors to collaborate on a coordinated policy regarding this issue. We are also collaborating with the Department 

of Health and Human Services in the development of guidelines for industry response should an outbreak occur. 

Visas 

One of the challenges to increasing tourism is the reluctance of foreign travelers 

to accept the greater investment in time and effort necessary to obtain a visa after 

9/11, due to the heightened security requirements and changes in the visa process. 

For example, the process now requires an in-person interview. 

It is in the U.S. interest that visa applicants have ready access to our services. 

We support our colleagues at the Departments of Homeland Security and State in 

their efforts to administer a system that safely guards our borders while providing 

responsive, friendly service to potential visitors who we welcome. 

Over the last few years, the Department of State has taken a number of steps 

to improve the transparency, efficiency and predictability of the visa process. These 

efforts have included adding new consular positions, investing in automating outdated systems, and finding new ways to streamline the visa process, while maintaining all necessary security measures. 

Over 68 percent of our overseas travelers come to the United States from Visa 

Waiver Program (VWP) countries and 60 percent of all receipts (exports) come from 

VWP countries. 4 VWP enables nationals of 27 countries to travel to the United 

States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. 

This is an important program to the U.S. travel and tourism industry and the discontinuation of VWP would severely affect the industry. 

For citizens of non-VWP countries, a visa is necessary for entry to the United 

States. We must ensure that our visa policy excludes those who would do our country harm, but be vigilant that legitimate travelers are permitted entry. The Departments of State and Homeland Security are working every day to strike the right 

balance between ‘‘Secure Borders and Open Doors.’’ 

Tourism Export Expansion 

It is important for us to also consider various policies and promotion issues affecting tourism. 

Facilitation of Chinese Group Leisure Travel to the United States 

There is significant potential for growth of Chinese tourism in the United States. 

The impediments to this expansion lie in requirements imposed on leisure travelers 

by the Chinese government. Specifically, Chinese policies do not permit travel and 

tourism advertisements for destinations, such as the United States, that do not have 

an ‘‘approved destination status’’ agreement with China. This is currently part of 

our trade negotiations, and we are hopeful that we will achieve progress. 

Air Linkages 

The liberalization of air services between countries generates significant additional opportunities for the airlines, consumers, travel and tourism, and other industries. To date, the U.S. Government has initiated and completed over 70 Open Skies 

8 

bilateral agreements with foreign countries. In addition, more liberalized (but not 

yet ‘‘Open Skies’’) agreements are in place with China and Japan. In November 

2005, the United States and the European Union reached an ad-referendum agreement on an Open Skies agreement that would affect all of its member countries. 

Travel and Tourism Promotion 

In the United States, the private-sector, states, localities and destinations provide 

the bulk of travel and tourism promotion. Having said this, in 2004, Congress directed the Department of Commerce to conduct a $6 million campaign to market 

the United States as a travel destination. A private-sector Travel and Tourism Advisory Board was established, and they recommended allocating the funds to a pilot 

program in the U.K., which is our Nation’s largest tourism export market which had 

suffered a decline after 2001. 

The objectives for the Department of Commerce’s U.S. Tourism Promotion Program were to: (1) increase awareness of the United States as a travel destination; 

(2) increase positive perception of the United States as a travel destination; (3) increase interest and future intent to visit the United States; and (4) increase economic benefits from visitation. 

A campaign was developed using the tagline ‘‘You’ve Seen the Films, Now Visit 

the Set TM ’’. Using films featuring U.S. destinations as a vehicle to showcase America as a desirable and exciting long-haul destination for U.K. travelers. The cooperation of all of the movie studios and actors resulted in securing these film clips and 

images at no cost to the government. 

An independent research schedule was developed to ensure the highest standards 

of accountability for the campaign. The reports concluded that the campaign met all 

of our goals. The advertising increased awareness by reaching approximately 12.8 

million people in the U.K.. The advertising increased by 10 percentage points the 

number of people who mentioned the United States as a ‘‘dream destination’’ (above 

those who did not see the campaign.) The campaign increased the number of those 

who said they intend to travel to the United States by approximately 2 million people. A high percentage of those intended travelers actually converted into sales, with 

362,000 visitors who saw the campaign booking a trip to the United States. 

This program was continued for a second year in the U.K., and a second pilot program is being launched in Japan this month, again with funding directed by Congress. An additional $4 million has been appropriated, and we will continue to work 

with the Advisory Board to devise the best use of these funds. 

We hope that the private sector will consider these results as they develop their 

own marketing strategies. 

Specialty Tourism 

A developing phenomenon in the U.S. tourism industry is in the emergence of specialty tourists who visit our Nation to take advantage of specific services, such as 

our healthcare and higher education systems. While not necessarily a pure tourism 

purchase decision, some elements of the travel and tourism industry play an important role in the consumer decision-making process. 

Medical 

The United States continues to be the top destination for advanced medical treatment and features many of the world’s leading hospitals and clinics. By 2001, foreign visitors to the United States spent approximately $1.9 billion on medical treatment. Following a sharp drop-off related to 9/11 and SARS, among other factors, 

these services exports totaled $1.46 billion in 2002, $1.571 billion in 2003 and 

$1.661 billion in 2004. 

Foreign competition for these patients and others who might in the past have preferred to visit the United States for treatment has been growing in recent years. 

Education 

Travel to the United States for university, college, and community college degree 

programs and specialized training courses by foreign visitors represents another 

specialized form of travel. Education, or ‘‘educational tourism,’’ represents more than 

$14 billion in U.S. services exports and is recovering from the setbacks of 9/11. 

In both medicine and education, we believe strongly that the United States offers 

the finest systems and institutions in the world and encourage people to come here 

for their education and for advanced medical treatment. These two areas provide 

some of the best ways to build the reputation of the United States. 

Gulf Coast Region 

We are aware that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have devastated the tourism industry in the Gulf Region. The challenges that affect many businesses there are no 

9 

less profound for the travel and tourism industry. The Commerce Department has 

made a grant of $500,000 to the Southeast Tourism Society to market the region 

to travelers. Our Travel and Tourism Advisory Board held its first meeting after rechartering in New Orleans in March. At the Secretary’s request they have submitted a strategy for recovery of tourism in the region. The Secretary has shared 

this document with the 16 members of the Tourism Policy Council and they will discuss these recommendations at their next meeting in July. 

Travel to the affected parts of the Gulf Coast Region is increasing. Airport operations at the New Orleans International Airport dropped precipitously following 

Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005. Airline arrivals and departures declined 93 

percent in September 2005 compared to September 2004. Airline passenger traffic 

has since grown to over 500,000 passengers a month from a low of 43,000 in September 2005. 

Conclusion 

The travel and tourism industry in the United States is rebounding from the 

shocks of 9/11, and SARS, and is dealing effectively with the continuing economic 

challenge of the airlines. Since the last quarter in 2003, both arrivals and receipts 

have been on the rise. We anticipate, all other things being equal, that the sector 

will surpass the 2001 benchmark in 2006. The U.S. industry is growing at twice the 

world rate in global arrivals. 

We believe that the appropriate role for government is to create a positive business climate by removing barriers within our own government and working with 

other governments to remove market impediments and build bridges to new markets. We are working with the private sector to develop a national tourism strategy 

that will further identify impediments to growth, and public-private solutions. We 

have taken and continue to take action to support the recovery of the travel and 

tourism sector in the Gulf Region. We are in discussions with our trading partners 

to facilitate market access. Our goal is to develop a comprehensive travel and tourism policy framework to foster the development of the finest travel and tourism industry in the world. 


622LAVIN1.eps
10 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Ambassador Nesbitt? 

STATEMENT OF HON. WANDA L. NESBITT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador NESBITT. Chairman Smith, Co-Chair Senator 

Inouye, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to talk 

about the efforts of the Department of State, and specifically the 

Bureau of Consular Affairs, to meet our commitment to the policy 

of secure borders and open doors. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summarized this commitment at her confirmation hearing when she said, and I quote, ‘‘Our 

interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not 

a monologue, and America must remain open to visitors and workers and students from around the world. We do not, and will not, 


6221.eps 622l2.eps
11 

compromise our security standards, yet we cannot close ourselves 

off from the rest of the world.’’ 

We, in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, are very cognizant of how 

our work impacts the travel and tourism industry. Our mission is 

to strive for the ideal balance between protecting our borders and 

promoting a vibrant, open, and global society here at home. The 

challenge is not an easy one, but we firmly believe that these objectives are not contradictory, that when America is more secure for 

Americans, it is more secure for everyone. 

We are also very much aware of the economic benefits generated 

by international visitors. When Assistant Secretary Maura Harty 

or I speak to consular officers who are in training, for example, we 

remind them that last year the United States welcomed approximately 49 million foreign visitors, who spent over $100 billion here 

on travel-related expenses. We know that, beyond the dollar signs, 

the goodwill that we engender among foreign visitors who come to 

the United States either to attend school, do business with us, or 

experience some of our cultural and tourist opportunities, that 

their experience is priceless. 

At the same time, we must balance the security requirements of 

protecting our homeland. The context for today’s U.S. visa policy 

and security posture is September 11, 2001. In the period following 

9/11, we took a long, hard look at visa procedures, and we implemented many changes. We continue today to review those procedures regularly to make sure that we are doing everything possible 

to make this country more secure for our citizens and our guests. 

Consular officers posted overseas are responsible for adjudicating 

more than 7 million visa applicants annually in a manner that 

both protects U.S. borders and facilitates the travel of legitimate 

visitors and immigrants to the United States. This work is the 

backbone of our ‘‘Secure Borders and Open Doors’’ policy. 

Today, 97 percent of approved travelers receive their visa in 1 to 

2 days. We have streamlined the clearance process for those applicants who are subject to additional screening so that they, too, can 

expect a prompt response. We continue to make improvements by 

automating and updating visa processing systems, with a view to 

achieving greater transparency, efficiency, and predictability. 

Since 9/11, we have added 515 new consular officer positions 

around the world, we’ve enhanced training programs and interviewing techniques and counterterrorism detection, while continuing to emphasize the need for efficiency and the importance of 

facilitating legitimate travel. We are also exploring ways to use 

cutting-edge technology to facilitate the visa process even further. 

Just a few recent examples of some of the actions that our Embassies and Consulates abroad have taken to facilitate travel include things we’ve done specifically for the business community. 

Many of our posts abroad now have formal programs which they 

use to enroll major companies, and this permits their employees to 

obtain expedited appointments. It permits those foreigners who 

American businesses are inviting to the United States to essentially go to the front of the line so that there is no delay in their 

processing. 

Here in Washington, we’ve created a Business Visa Center to 

provide information to businesses who are inviting foreigners to the 

12 

United States for either business or other types of conventions. We 

have made many efforts to increase the transparency of the visa 

process for every category of visitor. All of our posts maintain 

websites that provide up-to-date information on how to apply for a 

visa, on what the wait time is for an appointment so that they can 

plan ahead and they can obtain the services they need well in advance of their trip. 

We are also working to implement, in as smooth a manner as 

possible, new legal requirements passed by the Congress as part of 

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2002. As 

I’m sure you know, Mr. Chairman, that Act requires that all travelers, including Americans, present a passport or other secure document denoting identity and citizenship to enter the United States. 

We plan to implement the requirement through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and, from the outset, we have reached out 

to business, to industry, and to the general public to solicit their 

views. And we will continue to do so. 

From those interactions, we’ve learned, for example, that many 

residents of border areas see a need for a less expensive and more 

convenient travel document than a traditional passport book. Those 

interactions were the genesis for the development of a passport 

card, which was announced by Secretaries Rice and Chertoff this 

past January. We continue to work with our partners at DHS on 

the development of this card, and we are confident that it will be 

a useful facilitator of cross-border travel. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that the Bureau 

of Consular Affairs is an active participant in the Department of 

State’s Avian Flu Working Group, chaired by Ambassador John 

Lange, our Special Representative for Avian and Pandemic Influenza. Our role is to provide, and to make sure, that information is 

available to Americans who are residing or traveling abroad, so 

that they can take whatever steps they deem necessary to prepare 

for a potential outbreak. And, in the event of an avian flu outbreak, 

Consular Affairs will stay in contact with, and will assist Americans abroad, as much as possible, within the limits of our authority. 

I thank you, once again, for giving us this opportunity to describe 

the measures that we are taking to improve the passport and visa 

adjudication processes, and I’ll be happy to take any questions you 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Nesbitt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WANDA L. NESBITT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Chairman Smith, distinguished members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about the efforts of the Department of State and in particular, the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA), to balance 

border security objectives with our commitment to ensuring the United States remains ‘‘Open for Business.’’ 

Introduction 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summarized this commitment during her confirmation hearings when she stated ‘‘Our interaction with the rest of the world must 

be a conversation, not a monologue, and America must remain open to visitors and 

workers and students from around the world. We do not and will not compromise 

our security standards, yet if our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we cannot 

close ourselves off from the rest of the world.’’ 

13 

As the Secretary’s words illustrate so well, the Department of State recognizes 

that this country is at its best when we remain true to our finest principles, to our 

history, and our common ideals. America is a Nation of immigrants, and has always 

welcomed visitors from all over the globe, whether they come for tourism, business 

or study. We recognize that our Nation’s well-being is fortified by the contributions—both the quantifiable and those we cannot measure—that visitors make to 

our society. 

The Department of State is cognizant of the economic benefits generated by international visitors to the United States. Last year we welcomed approximately 49 million foreign visitors and they in turn spent over $100 billion here on travel-related 

expenses. On the academic front, international students contribute approximately 

$13 billion annually to our economy as they pursue a wide range of educational opportunities available in this country. Furthermore, we continue to facilitate legitimate business travel to the United States. Beyond the dollar signs, the good will 

that we engender among foreign visitors who visit the United States, attend our 

schools, do business with us, visit their family members, and experience some of the 

cultural, economic and tourist opportunities that this country has to offer, is priceless. 

At the same time, however, we must balance the security requirements of protecting our homeland. The context for today’s U.S. visa policy and security posture 

is, quite simply, September 11, 2001. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. 

Government moved quickly to shore-up our Nation’s border security and reassure 

American citizens and international visitors alike that our Nation was safe and secure. After conducting a top-to-bottom review of visa procedures and implementing 

myriad changes since 2001, we continue working day after day to make sure we 

have the strongest possible shield in place to protect our country, our citizens—and 

our guests. 

Our mission is to strive for the ideal balance between protecting our borders and 

promoting a vibrant, open, and global society here at home. While the challenge is 

not an easy one, we firmly believe that these objectives are not contradictory. And 

when we make this country more secure for American citizens, we make it more 

secure for everyone. 

Visa Processing 

Consular officers overseas in our Embassies and Consulates serve literally on the 

front-lines of the global war on terror. We have the responsibility for adjudicating 

immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applications in a manner that protects U.S. borders and deters illegal immigration, while continuing to ensure that family members 

of American citizens can join them in the U.S., and allowing us to continue to welcome legitimate visitors into our country. This is the essence of the work we do and 

the backbone of the ‘‘Secure Borders, Open Doors’’ policy. 

Today, 97 percent of approved travelers receive their visa in one to 2 days. For 

the two-and-a-half percent of visa applicants who, for national security reasons, are 

subject to additional screening, the Department has streamlined the interagency 

process so that even this small percentage of the overall number of applicants can 

expect an answer promptly. We continue to make improvements by automating and 

updating visa processing and screening systems so the overall result is greater 

transparency, efficiency and predictability—for all our valued visitors—while at the 

same time promoting security. For example, we are working diligently to transition 

to 10-print biometric collection and screening for both visa applicants and visa waiver travelers. 

In order to adjudicate over 7 million visa applications annually, the Department 

of State has created more than 515 consular positions since September 2001. The 

Department has enhanced the training of consular officers overseas in interviewing 

techniques and counterterrorism, while continuing to also emphasize the need for 

efficiency and the facilitation of legitimate travel. We are also exploring ways to use 

cutting-edge technology to transform traditional visa application methods. For example, at many posts applicants can use an Electronic Visa Application form that 

reduces our data-entry times. 

Despite numerous improvements and encouraging statistics on the increased 

number of visas applications abroad, misperceptions about the visa process still persist. This is true overseas, as well as here at home. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

along with all U.S. Embassies and Consulates, has been engaged in a variety of outreach efforts, particularly to international students and the business community. 

We want business people, exchange visitors, and tourists to know that America’s 

welcome mat is still out. We want everyone to know that the Department of State 

is committed to ensuring that the visa application process, or a misperception of it, 

does not serve as an impediment to legitimate travel to the United States. 

14 

Travel Facilitation 

The Department of State recognizes that business visitors and tourists are essential to the economic security of our Nation. For that reason, we have instructed all 

of our overseas posts to facilitate legitimate business and urgent travel and we regularly survey them on their efforts. Our Embassies and Consulates have responded 

in innovative ways. Many have established formal business facilitation programs 

that enroll major companies and permit their employees to obtain expedited appointments, or expedited processing on the day of interview. Others expedite appointments for groups or schedule group appointments, and establish specific time 

blocks when business groups may appear for an interview. Still others set aside specific time blocks to allow certain categories of nonimmigrant visa applicants to appear without a scheduled interview slot. 

The Bureau has made efforts to increase the transparency of the visa process to 

benefit every category of nonimmigrant visa applicants. All our posts maintain 

websites that provide information on how to apply for a visa. Each posts strives to 

make their website as useful as possible; some have even worked directly with host 

governments to get feedback on how their citizens navigate the site and how the 

United States Government’s information could be better communicated to that audience. On the websites, visa applicants can also find estimated wait times for a visa 

interview appointment. This feature enables business people and tourists alike to 

plan and make arrangements for their trip—regardless of whether they will spend 

that trip in an office building or at an amusement park. 

In addition to these initiatives, many of our Embassies and Consulates have established business facilitation units to serve as a point of contact for the business 

community. And our posts around the world have integrated regular business visa 

training for consular officers into their normal operations to update consular officers 

on a country’s economic conditions, provide information on the structure of the country’s business community, and discuss business visa interviewing techniques. 

In Washington, the Bureau has partnered with our Embassies and Consulates to 

create a Business Visa Center, to assist U.S. companies and convention organizers 

by explaining the visa process when they invite employees or current and prospective business clients and partners to the United States. The Business Visa Center 

provides information to U.S. companies about the application process for visitor 

visas for those seeking to travel to the U.S. for business purposes and works with 

both the companies and the consular officers, when needed, to communicate information effectively between U.S. businesses and posts worldwide. 

Here are some more specific examples of how our Embassies and Consulates overseas are extending the welcome of the United States to business travelers and tourists: 

• In addition to conducting active outreach with business organizations, Mission 

India operates a very successful Business Executive Program (BEP) designed to 

facilitate legitimate business travel, develop relationships with business with 

strong ties to the United States, and help visa officers make more informed decisions. Employees of the hundreds of companies in India registered in this program have separate lines for screening and interviews. 

• Over 600 companies that are members of AmCham China have been accepted 

into the Business Visa Program managed by Embassy Beijing. Member companies’ employees may apply at the Embassy any day of the week and bypass the 

standard waiting period for a visa interview. Over 10,000 business visa applicants were processed through this channel last year. 

• Embassy Singapore instituted a walk-in procedure allowing applicants to apply, 

be interviewed and (if approved) obtain their visas within 1 day in many cases. 

They also discussed establishing a business traveler facilitation program in conjunction with AmCham Singapore, but the AmCham indicated that such a program was not necessary or desirable as the international business community 

is satisfied with Post’s current visa processing procedures and speed! 

• Our Consulate General in Sao Paulo established a Business Travel program 

that includes U.S., multinational and well-known Brazilian companies that routinely send business travelers to the United States. The Consulate General receives requests directly from the companies’ H.R. departments by e-mail and 

sets special, expedited appointments for prospective business travelers in the 

afternoons. Any business traveler whose company is not a participant in the 

business travel program may also obtain an expedited interview by sending a 

faxed or e-mailed request. 

• And finally, Embassy Seoul has enrolled 141 companies into its Business Referral Program. Companies routinely conducting business activities in the U.S. or 

15 

with U.S.-based businesses are eligible for the program. Member company employees receive expedited visa appointments and speedier processing the day of 

the interview. 

• CA’s own statistics also show that visa issuances are on the rise. The number 

of business and tourist visas issued rose to 3 million in 2005 and are being 

issued even more efficiently in 2006. 

These are only a few of the many ways that the Department of State supports 

business relationships between U.S. firms and their potential clients, partners and 

customers all over the world. 

Passports and WHTI 

Another central component of our border security efforts is the adjudication and 

issuance of U.S. passports. This document is among the most valuable citizenship 

and identity documents in the world. As the global community becomes more connected all the time, the demand for passports continues to grow. Last year, we 

issued over 10 million passports and we are well on the way to issuing about 13 

million this year. More recently, and in response to the surging demand, the Bureau 

received approval to hire an additional 130 government personnel to adjudicate 

passport applications. The Department has also made commensurate increases in 

private sector staff at our passport facilities. 

We are also working on a significant initiative called the Western Hemisphere 

Travel Initiative or WHTI that will affect travel to the U.S. by American citizens 

as well as citizens of Canada, Mexico and Bermuda. WHTI is our plan to implement 

a provision in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that 

established a legal requirement for American citizens and travelers from other countries in the Western Hemisphere to enter the United States, beginning January 1, 

2008, with a passport or other accepted form of documentation denoting citizenship 

and identity. This requirement will apply to travel to the United States from Canada, Bermuda, the Caribbean and Mexico as well. 

The goals of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative are to strengthen our border security and facilitate re-entry into the United States for American citizens. 

This requirement streamlines the review process so only a limited number of documents that denote citizenship and identity can be presented at Ports of Entry, rather than one of more than 8,000 different versions of documents currently in use 

today. 

The Department of State is also engaged with our hemispheric neighbors to make 

sure that they are aware of the requirements of WHTI. We want to ensure that 

WHTI does not hinder the legitimate flow of people and goods between our nations. 

Because WHTI represents a significant change to current practice, we are planning 

to roll it out in phases, and provide advance notice to the public to help people get 

a passport or other secure document in time for their planned travel. 

Throughout this process, we have been engaging the public, including citizens, 

business leaders, and local government. Many residents of border areas requested 

a less expensive, more convenient travel document than the traditional passport 

book for land border crossings. 

As part of the Rice-Chertoff Initiative, Secretaries Rice and Chertoff announced 

in January the development of a passport card that carries the rights and privileges 

of a standard U.S. passport. The passport card will be adjudicated and issued by 

the Department of State to the exact same standards as the traditional book-style 

passport. The card will be produced as part of a system of Border Management travel documents called People, Access, Security, Service (PASS). 

Conclusion 

It is our government’s fundamental commitment to balancing our security needs 

with the openness of the United States that the Department of State is striving to 

maintain each day. We have taken extraordinary measures to make the passport 

and visa adjudication processes more efficient and more accessible and we have 

done so with an unwavering commitment to highest security standards. We believe 

these actions benefit American public at home and abroad, as well as the foreign 

citizens that visit our country by facilitating their legitimate travel. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I thank you again for inviting me to 

participate in this hearing and to explain the Department’s efforts to promote exchange through travel and trade within the context of our commitment to Secure 

Borders and Open Doors. 

I look forward now to answering your questions. 

16 

Senator SMITH. Ambassador Nesbitt, just to clarify, will the passport card replace the old passport? 

Ambassador NESBITT. No, it will not. We would issue both. 

Senator SMITH. You’d issue both because the card can’t be used 

everywhere. 

Ambassador NESBITT. That’s correct. 

Senator SMITH. But where it can be used, it’ll just be done electronically, and, I suspect, easily. 

Ambassador NESBITT. That’s our hope, certainly. 

Senator SMITH. That’s the hope, OK. 

Mr. Jacksta? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. JACKSTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

TRAVELER SECURITY AND FACILITATION, OFFICE OF FIELD 

OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. JACKSTA. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman 

Inouye. I am pleased to be here to represent DHS and Customs 

and Border Protection today and to talk a little bit about what 

we’re doing with facilitation of travelers, as well as making sure 

that our borders are secure. 

The United States has over 7,000 miles of shared borders with 

Canada and Mexico. We have 325 ports of entry. And each day, 

CBP officers at the ports of entry must inspect close to 1.1 million 

travelers coming into the United States. 

With that, last year we welcomed over 431 million international 

travelers to the United States. During Fiscal Year 2005, we saw 

close to 86 million travelers coming to our airports. And that’s the 

first year that we actually saw an increase over the pre-9/11 numbers. 

As the guardian of our borders, CBP is charged with the management, control, and protection of our Nation’s borders, both at and 

between the official ports of entry. CBP employs highly-trained, 

professional personnel, resources, and law enforcement authorities 

to discharge our priority mission of preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. Carrying out our 

important mission entails not only improving security, but also extending our zone of security out from the United States. 

Our strategy uses advance electronic information and an automated risk-management system that identifies and targets highrisk travelers well before their arrival into the United States. CBP 

has also initiated partnerships with other governments and the private sector, and created trusted, vetted traveler programs to identify low-risk travelers and allow them to quickly pass through our 

borders. 

At our Nation’s ports of entry, CBP uses sophisticated detection 

technology to rapidly screen high-risk cargo for weapons, radiation, 

and other contraband. In addition, all CBP officers receive 

antiterrorism training, which enables them to recognize, identify, 

and interdict individuals who pose a risk to the United States. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, over 84,000 individuals were apprehended 

at the ports of entry trying to cross the border with fraudulent documents. On an average day, CBP intercepts more than 200 fraudulent documents, arrests over 60 people at the ports of entry, and 

17 

refuses entry to hundreds of noncitizens, a few of which are criminal aliens and are attempting to enter the United States. 

Currently, there are thousands of different documents that a 

traveler can present to CBP officers when attempting to enter the 

United States, creating a tremendous potential for fraud. Standard 

documents will eliminate the time-consuming, manual process of 

reviewing and validating a host of distinct birth certificates and 

driver licenses. Having standardized documents will enable an 

automated reading and vetting of the information, which will enable us to increase traveler facilitation. 

As part of our layered approach to border security, CBP employs 

a host of trusted-traveler programs. This includes the SENTRI program, which is down on the southern border, the Free and Secure, 

FAST program, which is for commercial travelers on the northern 

border and on the southern border, as well as the NEXUS program, 

on our northern border. These programs facilitate the crossing of 

low-risk travelers and commercial truck drivers at the land borders 

through dedicated lanes. To date, approximately 225,000 individuals are enrolled in these programs and are currently using the 

systems. These are programs that have been worked, together with 

the Canadians and the Mexicans, who both participate in the program with us. 

At the center of our targeting is the CBP’s National Targeting 

Center, where CBP personnel use automated targeting systems to 

analyze advance information about passengers before they arrive in 

the United States. This allows us to take appropriate action when 

flights arrive at our ports of entry. 

Today, CBP collect biometrics on certain non-U.S. citizens at air, 

land, and sea locations, through the US–VISIT system. This system 

checks the individual against a fingerprint-based watchlist of 

known or suspected terrorists and other criminal information. The 

US–VISIT program has substantially added to CBP’s screening capabilities to process travelers in a timely fashion. 

We also have the Immigration Assistance Program, where we 

have officers stationed overseas to screen individuals before they 

get on planes to the United States. We have the Carrier Liaison 

Program, which is a program that we work with the industry. We 

have trained their employees to discover fraudulent documents and 

to discover possible individuals trying to enter the United States illegally. We have trained close to 1,200 individuals this past year. 

In addition, we have various working programs with the Department of State and with other agencies, trying to ensure that we 

protect the borders by making sure that our officers are aware of 

the various responsibilities and the laws that are needed to be enforced. 

We have the Model Ports of Entry Program, where we’ve identified both the Dulles and Houston Airports as locations where we 

are going to work with the industry and the airport authorities to 

improve the processing. 

And, finally, we are working with CDC/HHS to ensure that we 

have a plan, a program, and a response to a possible threat of 

avian flu. 

These are some of the programs that we are trying to ensure we 

can facilitate low-risk travelers, and, at the same time, make sure 

18 

that individuals that are a threat are identified, and appropriate 

actions are taken at our ports of entry. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacksta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. JACKSTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRAVELER

SECURITY AND FACILITATION, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND

BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Dorgan, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving forward on programs that will provide 

traveler facilitation while still providing the level of security required to protect the 

United States. This is an enormous challenge. We have over 7,000 miles of shared 

borders with Canada and Mexico, 325 official ports of entry, and each day DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers must inspect more than 1.1 million passengers and pedestrians. However, last year alone, CBP welcomed over 431 million 

travelers through official ports of entry. During Fiscal Year 2005, CBP processed a 

record 86 million air passengers arriving from abroad, the first year that the number of air passengers has exceeded pre-9/11 levels. 

CBP is charged with the management, control, and protection of our Nation’s borders, both at and between the official ports of entry. As America’s front-line border 

agency, CBP employs highly trained and professional personnel, resources, expertise 

and law enforcement authorities to discharge our priority mission of preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons for entering the United States. Carrying out our extraordinarily important mission entails not only improving security at and between 

our ports of entry along the entire length of our land and maritime borders, but also 

extending our zone of security beyond our physical borders. 

CBP has implemented a ‘‘smart border’’ strategy to provide security and enforce 

U.S. laws both at and between ports of entry, as well as extending our security zone 

beyond our own borders. This strategy uses advance, electronic information and an 

automated risk management system that identifies and targets high-risk cargo and 

people well before arrival in the United States. CBP has also initiated partnerships 

with other governments and the private sector trade community, and created trusted, vetted traveler programs, to identify low-risk cargo and people and allow them 

to quickly pass through the border, thereby freeing up CBP resources to focus on 

unknown, higher-risk traffic. At the ports of entry, CBP uses sophisticated detection 

technology to rapidly screen high-risk cargo for weapons, radiation, and other contraband. All CBP officers receive antiterrorism training to better enable them to recognize, identify, and interdict individuals who pose a terrorist risk. 

The standardization of travel documents is a critical step in securing our Nation’s 

borders. Currently, there are thousands of different documents that a traveler can 

present to CBP officers when attempting to enter the United States, creating a tremendous potential for fraud. Standardized documents will also eliminate the timeconsuming, manual process of reviewing and validating a host of distinct, and sometimes illegible and unverifiable, birth certificates and other identity documents. 

Having standardized documents will enable automated reading and vetting of the 

information, which will also be essential to increased traveler facilitation. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, over 84,000 individuals were apprehended at the ports of 

entry trying to cross the border with fraudulent claims of citizenship or documents. 

Moreover, on an average day, CBP intercepts more than 200 fraudulent documents, 

arrests over sixty people at ports of entry, and refuses entry to hundreds of noncitizens, a few dozen of which are criminal aliens that are attempting to enter the 

United States. 

On March 23, 2005 in Waco, TX, President Bush, along with Canadian Prime 

Minister Martin and Mexican President Fox, unveiled the Security and Prosperity 

Partnership for North America (SPP), a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous 

continent. The Leaders agreed on an ambitious security and prosperity agenda, 

which will keep our borders closed to terrorists and open to trade. The three leaders 

established ministerial-level Security and Prosperity working groups. Secretary 

Chertoff chairs the security agenda while Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, 

chairs the prosperity agenda. 

The Leaders met again this year on March 31 in Cancun to review progress and 

renew commitment to enhance the security, prosperity, and quality-of-life of the citizens within North America. The leaders announced the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The Council will be made up of members of 

the private sector from each country who will meet annually with security and prosVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
19 

perity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing 

basis. CBP looks forward to its role in working with the NACC. 

As part of a layered approach to border security, CBP employs a host of programs. 

CBP’s existing ‘‘trusted traveler’’ programs are also being evaluated for expanded 

use at our land borders. These include the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers 

Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), Free and Secure Trade (FAST), and NEXUS programs. 

These programs facilitate the crossing of low-risk, frequent travelers and commercial truck drivers at the land borders through exclusive, dedicated lanes. To enroll 

in these programs, travelers must provide proof of citizenship, a Border Crossing 

Card (BCC) or other visa, if required, as well as other identity documentation, such 

as a driver’s license or ID card. An intensive background check against law enforcement databases and terrorist indices is required, and includes fingerprint checks 

and a personal interview with a CBP officer. To date, approximately 225,000 

SENTRI, NEXUS, and FAST cards have been issued. Over the next few months, 

we expect to increase the number of locations at which they can be used. These programs are implemented in partnership with the governments of Canada and Mexico, 

and many citizens of these countries participate in the programs. 

At the center of our targeting efforts is CBP’s National Targeting Center (NTC), 

where CBP personnel use the Automated Targeting System (ATS) to analyze advance information about passengers before they arrive in the Untied States. The 

NTC employs sophisticated risk assessment rules and algorithms based upon strategic intelligence about terrorist threat, and incorporates data from numerous national intelligence and law enforcement databases, to screen all passengers traveling 

to the United States for potential terrorist connections or terrorist risk factors. 

CBP collects biometrics on certain non-U.S. citizens at primary in-air and sea 

ports and at secondary in-land ports and, through the US–VISIT system, checks the 

individual against a fingerprint-based watchlist of known or suspected terrorist, 

wants and warrants, immigration violations, and other criminal history information 

as well as to determine whether the person is the same one previously encountered 

by DHS or State. The US–VISIT Program has substantially added to CBP’s screening capabilities without impacting CBP’s ability to process travelers in a timely 

fashion. At the ports of entry, CBP’s Counter-Terrorism Response Unit can conduct 

intensive questioning and inspection, search, and interview of individuals. CBP has 

developed clear and comprehensive policies for responding when we encounter a terrorist watch-listed individual or suspected terrorist. 

In partnership with the private sector and state and local governments, DHS and 

the Department of State have introduced a pilot ‘‘model airport’’ program to ensure 

a more welcoming environment for foreign visitors. The pilot projects at the Houston 

and Dulles airports entail such features as customized video messages for the public 

with practical information about the entry process, improved screening and efficient 

movement of people through the border entry process, and assistance for foreign 

travelers once they have been admitted to the United States. 

The Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) extends our zone of security outward 

by screening overseas passengers before they board aircraft destined for the United 

States. IAP teams identify high risk and terrorist watch-listed passengers using the 

Automated Targeting System in CBP’s National Targeting Center, and advise the 

airline whether the passenger will be admissible to the United States upon arrival. 

The Carrier Liaison Program (CLP) was developed to enhance border security by 

increasing commercial carrier effectiveness in identifying improperly documented 

passengers destined to the United States. The primary method for accomplishing 

this mission is by providing technical assistance and training to carrier staff. Technical assistance includes publication and distribution of information guides, document fraud summaries and alerts. In addition, CBP is developing the 24/7 Carrier 

Response Center phone line that provides real-time entry requirements and document validity advice to carrier staff worldwide. The U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL) supports CLP in multiple ways, 

to include providing FDL Document Alerts to the CLP for distribution to airline personnel. 

The CLP provides training on U.S. entry requirements, passenger assessment, 

fraudulent document detection and imposter identification using state-of-the-art document examination material, equipment and training tools. Training is customized 

to meet the needs of specific carriers or locations based on performance analysis or 

emergent circumstances. Training is delivered at U.S. ports of entry and at airports 

abroad by experienced CLP officers. CLP officers also assist carriers to develop and 

implement strategies to reduce travel document abuse. 

In January 2005, CBP created the Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit (FDAU) 

to collect documents, provide the ports with analysis of document trends and intelligence information, and to target persons being smuggled into the United States 

20 

using fraudulent documents. By the end of December 2005, the FDAU received 

40,875 fraudulent documents confiscated at ports of entry and mail facilities. Working with the FDAU, CBP will increase this number in the future. 

As you are aware, Avian Influenza, or ‘‘bird flu,’’ is a highly contagious viral infection that has the potential to threaten our economy and the public health. The goals 

of the Federal Government’s response to a potential pandemic are to stop, slow, or 

otherwise limit the spread of a pandemic to the United States and to sustain our 

infrastructure and mitigate the impact to our economy. CBP must be prepared to 

maintain essential services, mitigate against the spread and consequences of a pandemic, and protect our workforce and the public. CBP is working with our DHS 

partner agencies, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

to develop an effective strategy for entry-exit procedures and travel restrictions during a pandemic. 

CBP officers are committed to the highest standards of professional conduct. We 

want to assist the millions of legitimate travelers who pose little or no threat, in 

gaining proper entry into the U.S., both safely and efficiently. As part of this effort, 

CBP recently implemented a campaign to educate travelers. Here are some of the 

best pieces of advice CBP can provide to travelers to help them have a safe, efficient 

and enjoyable trip abroad: 

Declare everything you are bringing in from abroad, even if you bought it in a 

duty-free shop. All passengers arriving on a plane must complete a CBP declaration 

form. This declaration prevents the unintentional introduction of prohibited items, 

such as fruits and food products that could introduce devastating diseases and pests 

into the United States, and severely damage U.S. agriculture. If items purchased 

abroad are intended for personal use or as gifts, they are eligible for duty exemptions. If they are intended for resale, they are not. If any duty is owed, a CBP officer 

will assist you in paying that duty. 

Many travelers look forward to bringing home special food items from abroad. 

However, it is important to ‘‘know before you go’’ which items can and cannot be 

brought into the United States from abroad. Every food product, fruit and vegetable 

must be declared to a CBP officer, and must be presented for inspection. It is important to remember that the rules and regulations are in place to protect the American economy, plant and animal wildlife, and the health of the American people. 

Members of the Subcommittee, I have outlined a broad array of initiatives today 

that, with your assistance will help CBP continue to protect America from terrorist 

threat while fulfilling our other important traditional missions. But our work is not 

complete. With the continued support of the Congress, CBP will succeed in meeting 

the challenges posed by the ongoing terrorist threat and the need to facilitate an 

ever-increasing number of legitimate shipments and travelers. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Doctor—— 

Dr. LEDUC. LeDuc, yes. Jim LeDuc. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. LEDUC, PH.D., 

COORDINATOR FOR INFLUENZA, 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Dr. LEDUC. Good morning, Senators. Thank you for the invitation. 

It’s my pleasure to discuss with you today the very important 

global threat that we face in pandemic influenza. During my comments, I’ll summarize for you, very briefly, the worldwide situation 

with regard to avian influenza, then describe some of the preparedness activities that we’ve undertaken, both within the United 

States and globally. 

Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza infections in both animals and humans have spread significantly since the beginning of 

this year. The World Organisation for Animal Health, the OIE, has 

received reports of millions of infected domestic poultry and wild 

birds in more than 50 countries in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, 

21 

and Africa. As of the 20th of June of this year, the World Health 

Organization has reported a total of 228 human infections, and 

more than half of those have ended in death. 

Almost all human cases have been directly or indirectly associated with exposure to sick or dying poultry, although limited 

human-to-human transition cannot be ruled out in a few instances. 

Ongoing careful laboratory analysis of virus isolates from these 

outbreaks has documented continued genetic and antigenic changes 

in the viruses. But, importantly, there’s no evidence to suggest that 

the virus has acquired the ability to be easily transmitted from person-to-person. 

As part of our global preparedness efforts, we continue to work 

very closely with the World Health Organization and other international organizations to build national capacity within nations at 

risk so that they are better prepared to recognize and investigate 

possible outbreaks of avian influenza. This involves assistance in 

training and outbreak investigation techniques and building adequate laboratory capacity so that appropriate clinical specimens are 

obtained and fed into the WHO Global Influenza Network for comprehensive characterization. This critical first line of defense is essential for early recognition of a potential pandemic and will allow 

us to attempt to aggressively control an outbreak early on, onsite, 

before it spreads. This foundation of international collaborations is 

the first pillar of our national strategy to defend against pandemic 

influenza. An outbreak anywhere is a threat everywhere. 

We are making similar investments with State and local governments to better prepare for the possibility of pandemic influenza. 

We have built upon the existing laboratory response network, first 

created to diagnose diseases of bioterrorism potential, so that they 

can also rapidly and accurately diagnosis avian influenza, should 

suspect cases occur in their communities. And we’re working very 

closely with State and local officials to develop and exercise plans 

to respond to pandemic influenza. Part of these efforts is the augmentation of the Strategic National Stockpile to include stocks of 

antiviral drugs and other essential items that will help each community respond to a potential pandemic. 

And, finally, significant investments have been made to enhance 

our national vaccine production capabilities so that a vaccine 

against pandemic influenza can be produced and delivered as 

quickly as possible. It’s important to stress, however, that we will 

need to have the virus causing the pandemic in hand before we can 

make an effective vaccine; thus, a critical product of our international collaborations is to ensure that we have access to pandemic virus strains early on as quickly as possible. 

In closing, let me say that we clearly recognize the devastating 

economic and societal impact that a global influenza pandemic 

would have on all sectors of our national economy. We take our responsibility as the protector of our Nation’s health very seriously, 

and our goal is to provide the most accurate information, guidance, 

and recommendations as quickly as possible, based on solid scientific facts and proven intervention strategies. We’re working hard 

to coordinate our efforts, as you’ve heard, with other government 

agencies, with State and local communities, and with the private 

sector, as well as with our international partners. The investments 

22 

that we are making will help us to better prepare for pandemic influenza, and they’ll also help us to address the threat of bioterrorism, as well as the next SARS or other emergent diseases. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. LeDuc follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES W. LEDUC, PH.D., COORDINATOR FOR INFLUENZA, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today 

to provide an update on the potential for an influenza pandemic and to give you 

a status of public health preparedness, specifically related to travel and trade 

issues. Although most of my testimony will focus on the current threat of avian influenza A (H5N1), it is important to keep in mind that a pandemic could emerge 

from other influenza strains and that continued national and global vigilance is essential. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are leaders in this effort, working in close 

partnership with colleagues from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, 

and Homeland Security, state and local leaders, and many other organizations in 

the United States and throughout the world. 

The Current Status of H5N1 Influenza Virus 

Highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in both animals and 

humans has spread significantly since the beginning of 2006. As of June 21, 2006, 

the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) had received reports of infections 

in millions of domestic poultry and wild birds in more than 50 countries in Asia, 

the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. As of June 21, the World Health Organization 

(WHO) had confirmed human cases of H5N1 influenza in 10 countries: Azerbaijan, 

Cambodia, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam. 

As of June 21, WHO had confirmed a total of more than 225 human cases since 

January 2004, with an overall fatality rate of greater than 50 percent. Although almost all cases of human infection with the H5N1 virus appear to have resulted from 

some form of direct or close contact with infected poultry, some clusters indicate 

that the possibility of limited human-to-human contact, particularly infection within 

family clusters, merits close attention. In addition, scientists at CDC, WHO, and 

other organizations have documented ongoing genetic changes in the virus. These 

changes have important implications for our preparedness efforts in developing influenza pandemic vaccine. 

Despite the detection of some genetic changes, scientists have not yet observed 

fundamental changes in the virus’s genetic structure that might allow H5N1 viruses 

to be transmitted more efficiently from person to person. If such changes were to 

occur, they would heighten our concern about the virus attaining the capacity for 

sustained, rapid human-to-human transmission, which is necessary for a pandemic 

to occur. What we have begun to see is an increasing number of situations where 

limited human-to-human spread may have occurred among family members who 

have had close contact with individuals infected with the virus. 

Whether the H5N1 virus evolves into the next pandemic or a pandemic originates 

from another highly pathogenic influenza strain, continued preparedness is essential. Seasonal influenza causes about 200,000 hospitalizations and 36,000 deaths in 

the United States each year. In economic terms, seasonal influenza in the United 

States costs about $37.5 billion annually in healthcare costs and lost productivity. 

Based on evidence from influenza pandemics in the 20th century, computer models, 

and other research, CDC estimates that a moderate influenza pandemic could cause 

about 865,000 hospitalizations and 209,000 deaths in the United States. A severe 

pandemic could cause an estimated 9.9 million hospitalizations and 1.9 million 

deaths in the United States. In addition, unlike seasonal influenza, a pandemic 

could begin at any time of year and could seriously disrupt both domestic and global 

travel, trade, and other social and economic infrastructure for months or years. It 

is extremely difficult to calculate estimates of the economic impact a moderate or 

severe influenza pandemic may have on the United States or on other nations. 

Comprehensive, Highly Collaborative Preparedness Planning 

CDC and scientific colleagues throughout the world generally agree that as the 

influenza virus continues to evolve, an influenza pandemic is likely at some point 

and could be extremely difficult to contain. The comprehensive, highly collaborative 

preparedness planning now underway is vital to minimize the impact of such an 

23 

event. CDC plays a major role in executing public health strategies established by 

HHS and other departments. These strategies are focused on: ensuring early detection and reporting; a high capacity for laboratory and epidemiological investigations; 

containment and rapid responses to outbreaks; and sharing of and training on best 

practices to benefit from lessons learned as we move forward. Public health is one 

component of much broader preparedness planning founded on guidance from the 

World Health Organization and the President’s National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Strategy. CDC public health preparedness fits within the framework of 

the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan published on 

May 3, 2006, by the White House Homeland Security Council (HSC), ongoing coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of 

State (DOS), and execution of strategies described in the HHS Pandemic Influenza 

Preparedness Plan released in November 2005. CDC and other HHS agencies are 

finalizing and exercising their own internal operations plans in conjunction with the 

strategies, objectives, and performance measurements contained in overarching preparedness plans developed by HSC, DHS, HHS, and other departments and organizations. 

Preparedness Measures Related to Trade and Travel Issues 

Using the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 emergency supplemental funds that Congress appropriated to further public health preparedness for an influenza pandemic and its 

regularly appropriated funds, CDC has begun implementing key projects, many in 

partnership with other organizations. These projects are grouped broadly under the 

areas of increasing laboratory capacity and research, improving domestic and international surveillance, strengthening resources for containment and rapid response, 

and strengthening public communications activities. I will describe a few of the 

projects that relate most directly to trade and travel. 

Laboratory Capacity and Research 

The capacity on early detection and reporting of outbreaks caused by H5N1 and 

other highly pathogenic influenza viruses depends first on strong laboratory capacity and research. The results of these initiatives would have a major impact on travel and trade concerns: 

• CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within HHS, and global partners 

such as WHO have made significant progress in monitoring changes in the 

H5N1 virus since they first caused human infections in 1997 and have continued to develop pandemic influenza vaccine reference candidates. CDC and NIH 

are cooperatively testing candidate reference vaccines, including a series of preclinical and clinical trials to evaluate their safety and dosage requirements. The 

number of H5N1 vaccine doses on hand is calculated on the basis of different 

dosage requirements. Interested manufacturers are working closely to prepare 

limited quantities of these candidate vaccines. This research will be essential 

both to promptly identify an actual pandemic influenza strain that can be used 

to make an appropriate vaccine and to have manufacturing and other resources 

ready to test, produce, and distribute a pandemic vaccine as quickly as possible. 

• CDC and its partners regularly monitor the effectiveness of antiviral medications that could be used to help with treatment during early and later stages 

of an influenza pandemic. Limited epidemiological evidence suggests that one 

group of antiviral medications, neuraminidase inhibitors, may be effective in 

fighting H5N1 virus infection when administered promptly and in sufficient 

quantities. No clinical evidence to date suggests that resistance in H5N1 viruses 

to neuraminidase inhibitors is present among viruses circulating in birds or untreated humans. Current neuraminidase inhibitors licensed for use in the 

United States are oseltamivir (TamifluTM) and zanamivir (RelenzaTM). CDC 

works closely with several manufacturers to maintain these antiviral medications, along with other vital resources, in the U.S. strategic national stockpile, 

for distribution domestically when needed to high-risk priority groups. HHS, 

DOS, and the Department of Defense (DOD) also work together to help place 

strategic antiviral supplies in areas of the world where outbreaks are likely to 

happen, in an effort to contain early pandemic influenza outbreaks as closely 

as possible to their source. 

• CDC has as one of its major responsibilities the development and testing of new 

rapid diagnostic tests. CDC distributes these tests to the domestic Laboratory 

Response Network (LRN) laboratories and to those the LRN certifies for use in 

making preliminary identifications of H5 viruses. This saves time in the diagnosis by allowing more efficient and rapid provisional diagnosis locally at the 

LRN labs, with CDC providing subsequent confirmatory testing in its BSL–3- 

24 

enhanced laboratories. Since December 2005, CDC has made major advances in 

new rapid diagnostic tests and is now supplying diagnostic tests for H5N1 virus 

to LRN-certified laboratories. The FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental funds are 

making it possible for CDC to increase the pace of its research in this area. 

• CDC continually analyzes genetic sequence data as the H5N1 virus evolves and 

supplies viruses and the sequence data, in coordination with WHO and the 

countries of origin, to certified public and private scientific facilities in the 

United States and throughout the world. 

• HHS recently announced contracts to further both current egg-based vaccine development technology and novel, cell-based technology. The egg-based research 

will help scientists and manufacturers develop interim solutions that could be 

particularly important should a pandemic begin in the next one or 2 years. The 

new emphasis on cell-based research could advance a process to significantly increase the quantity of influenza vaccine produced during a similar amount of 

time as egg-based technology takes. Funding for both types of research continues to be an essential component of the Nation’s comprehensive national 

pandemic influenza preparedness. 

Domestic and International Surveillance 

Domestic and international surveillance networks are essential in analyzing and 

reporting on potential threats to travel and trade: 

• CDC has worked with numerous partners since 1990 to strengthen its domestic 

surveillance network for seasonal influenza and other public health threats. 

Now, as part of the comprehensive National Response Plan, CDC continues to 

enhance this network and is facilitating active partnerships between states and 

private healthcare facilities, such as hospitals, that detect and report cases of 

suspected influenza infections. Although our role in this area is limited, it is essential that states and private healthcare facilities work together to build greater overall capacity to detect and report potential pandemic influenza outbreaks 

as quickly as possible. The system depends on strong, longstanding working relationships among many health professional groups, as well as on utilizing advances through technologies. 

• International surveillance is equally critical in preparing for an influenza pandemic. CDC serves as one of the four WHO Global Collaborating Centers for Influenza. In this capacity, CDC plays a vital coordinating role in ongoing global 

surveillance of continually evolving influenza viruses. To strengthen its own 

international surveillance, CDC has invested for a number of years in country 

and regional training for many nations that now are directly affected by H5N1 

influenza. With the help of FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental funds, CDC is 

establishing an on-ground regional presence with Global Disease Detection 

(GDD) Response Centers in five key global areas: Egypt, Guatemala, Kenya, 

Thailand, and PR China. This is part of CDC’s efforts to strengthen global surveillance capacity by establishing a network of Global Disease Detection and 

Response Centers strategically placed in each of the six WHO regions. Each 

GDD Response Center will design and implement key interventions aimed at 

the early identification and containment of pandemic health threats, whether 

an act of terrorism or the natural emergence of a deadly infectious pathogen 

like pandemic influenza. To provide additional support internationally, the 

agency has enhanced collaborations with WHO regionally and in its Geneva 

headquarters and has made resources available bilaterally to 13 countries, with 

more targeted in the coming months. The agency also has posted expert influenza coordinators within three countries that have been hit by the H5N1 virus: 

Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Posting additional influenza experts in countries 

and regions that have been hardest hit in recent months is a high priority of 

the agency. Within the Federal Government, CDC coordinates this and other efforts with DOS and DOD. In particular, the U.S. Naval Medical Research Units 

(NAMRU) in Indonesia and Egypt are playing a valuable role in prompt confirmatory testing of H5N1 samples from human cases. 

• Surveillance of wild and migratory birds, as well as small and large flocks of 

poultry, has become increasingly important as the H5N1 virus has spread 

across continents. CDC is working in concert with many groups, including the 

Wildlife Conservation Society, the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and international organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and OIE to assure comprehensive global surveillance of poultry and miVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
25 

gratory bird pathways, and in collaboration with Federal partners to ensure the 

importation and exportation of healthy poultry and fowl. 

Containment and Rapid Response 

Protection of travelers and integrity of safe trade depend on containment and 

rapid response actions. This is one of the most important areas in which CDC is 

strengthening its capacity: 

• CDC is a leader in a USDA-coordinated multi-agency, scenario-based plan to 

help ensure a seamless response to the first animal and human outbreaks 

caused by H5N1 virus or other highly pathogenic influenza strains in the 

United States. A ‘‘playbook’’ of possible scenarios for first outbreaks has been 

developed, and CDC will participate with other agencies in conducting exercises 

with these scenarios in the coming months. 

• Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, CDC also works with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors on public health issues related to the detection and 

containment of influenza virus infection at out borders. CDC serves on a border 

working group that includes representatives from Canadian and Mexican public 

health departments to plan and implement border guidance. 

• CDC regularly updates HHS regulations to prohibit the transfer of dangerous 

select agents into the United States. In the case of highly pathogenic influenza 

strains such as the H5N1 virus, CDC is acting quickly to prohibit entry of birds 

and bird-products from countries with confirmed or suspected cases. 

• Using regularly appropriated funds and Supplemental Emergency funds from 

FY 2005 and FY 2006, CDC has significantly enhanced vital quarantine stations at key points of entry, which provide first-line defense to detect and evaluate potentially infectious diseases arriving in the United States. Key roles for 

the quarantine stations include working in concert with state and local health 

departments and with other Federal partners to address community mitigation 

of outbreaks due to highly contagious diseases, and preparing for influenza 

pandemics using 21st century approaches to traditional non-pharmaceutical 

interventions. These types of interventions include voluntary isolation and quarantine, social distancing, and infection control strategies. The partnerships are 

essential to prevent importation and interstate spread of communicable diseases 

through U.S. ports of entry and in ensuring a coordinated, effective response to 

emerging disease threats. Sixteen of these quarantine stations currently are in 

international airports across the United States, and two others are located at 

major points of entry across the southern land border; two additional stations 

are scheduled for opening by the end of Calendar Year 2006. Depending on resources, CDC plans to increase the number of quarantine stations to as many 

as 25 in FY 2007. 

• Through $350 million in FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental funding, CDC is administering HHS collaborative agreements with 62 grantees—50 states, six U.S. 

territories, and six large metropolitan areas. The collaborative agreements are 

helping these grantees move forward on their preparedness efforts, including 

identification of potential gaps and carrying out exercises of components of their 

preparedness plans. 

• CDC is working closely with partners at the Department of Labor and HHS to 

identify research gaps regarding personal protective equipment for use during 

an influenza pandemic and to update guidance for the public, first responders, 

and other health professionals. Developing effective guidance is a high-priority 

area that also is highly complex, requiring unified national guidance on use of 

masks, respirators, and other resources, as well as decisions about how to store, 

distribute, and replace these materials quickly during an influenza pandemic. 

• CDC and other agencies also are developing practical guidance on non-pharmaceutical interventions that will be especially important during the early months 

of an influenza pandemic. This includes guidance for healthcare facilities and 

general public infection control, social distancing practices, isolation procedures, 

criteria for school and business closures, and voluntary quarantine measures if 

necessary. Additionally, CDC is enhancing its research agenda around the effectiveness of various non-pharmaceutical interventions that will be necessary to 

mitigate the impact and contain a pandemic influenza virus internationally, at 

our borders and within communities in the United States. 

Communications 

Travel and trade concerns are closely allied with the need for timely, accurate information for the public, health professionals, businesses, and other groups. HHS 

26 

and CDC work closely together to provide a broad-based approach to public communications activities, including efforts that incorporate risk communications principles that will be essential when a pandemic occurs. This system of communications activities already is helping alert and educate the public, health professionals, 

authorities, and others about practical action to take in preparation for an influenza 

pandemi:. 

• The HHS www.pandemicflu.gov website, the CDC Traveler’s Health web section 

(www.cdc.gov), the CDC Information Hotline, the Health Alert Network, and 

the Epi-X alert network are primary components of a multi-faceted public communications initiative. 

• CDC and other agencies also collaborate with DHS on developing practical guidance for the private sector, educational institutions, and other priority groups 

preparing for a pandemic. 

• HHS is nearing the end of a series of comprehensive state pandemic influenza 

planning summits across the country that have significantly raised awareness 

of the potential impact of an influenza pandemic. These summits have served 

in many cases as an initiative for new levels of contacts between the Federal 

Government and state and local preparedness groups. CDC has been a leader 

in each of these events and continues to follow-up with states, territories, and 

tribal leaders. 

• From a communications perspective, the administration of the state and local 

collaborative agreements noted above provides a highly effective forum for CDC 

and grantees to communicate frequently, which helps to integrate effective risk 

communications principles into overall pandemic communications planning and 

activities. 

Challenges 

Despite these important strides, our Nation is not yet where we need to be in our 

public health preparedness for the next influenza pandemic. HHS has led advances 

in many areas that will contribute to a quick and effective response. CDC, NIH, the 

Food and Drug Administration, and other HHS agencies are committed to the best 

possible preparedness and response to an influenza pandemic. The advances we are 

making have resulted from three major factors: dedication to the highest sciencebased standards, a spirit and history of collaborative learning and action, and the 

necessary public and private support of required fiscal and human resources. 

We face some significant challenges. A pandemic will require rapid response on 

many levels—from U.S. communities to areas across the world. Rapid outbreak response requires rapid detection, seamless reporting, prompt, transparent information sharing, and strong, ongoing core laboratory and research capacity. The next 

influenza pandemic is a multi-year threat that requires a multi-year approach to fiscal and human resources. This is particularly important as the Federal Government 

seeks ways to encourage ongoing involvement of partners such as vaccine manufacturers, as well as continued state and local preparedness. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information with you. I am happy to answer your questions. 

Senator SMITH. Doctor, we read of bird flu in other countries 

among those handling chickens and ducks and other things, and 

I’m wondering, do we have any instance of that coming into the 

U.S.? I’m not aware of one. 

Dr. LEDUC. There have been cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the United States, but only in poultry. I’m unaware of 

any human cases—— 

Senator SMITH. Human, yes. 

Dr. LEDUC.—in the United States. 

Senator SMITH. So, nothing as it relates to travel that has 

been—— 

Dr. LEDUC. No, no. 

Senator SMITH.—brought through an airport, that you know of. 

Dr. LEDUC. No, not that I’m aware of. 

Senator SMITH. OK. 

Mr. Secretary, I know there is always a debate as to what the 

role of tourism ought to be within the Federal Government, whethVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
27 

er you leave it to the market or government can do more to make 

it a sparkplug. Some countries even have Cabinet-level secretaries 

in charge of tourism. Do you believe tourism has a sufficient place 

in the Federal Government? 

Mr. LAVIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree that tourism definitely 

needs a strong voice in the Federal Government. I can assure you, 

the Secretary of Commerce—beyond my particular role, the Secretary himself—has personally committed to seeing that the tourism industry in the United States is strong and successful. And I 

know he participates personally with our Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. He charged the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to 

develop a national tourism strategy. He personally convened the 

meeting of the Advisory Board in New Orleans after Katrina to, 

again, ask them what could be done to put a recovery program into 

place. So, he is personally committed to the success of that industry. 

Senator SMITH. It’s my understanding that the Department of 

Commerce recently received the results from a one-year tourism 

promotion campaign in the United Kingdom. Is that correct? 

Mr. LAVIN. That is correct, sir. 

Senator SMITH. Can you share any of the results of that $6 million we spent in the U.K.? 

Mr. LAVIN. Right. We’ve spent $6 million in advertising in the United Kingdom, and then we are in the middle of a $4 million 

campaign right now in Japan. And we run a series of surveys before and after, to test the effectiveness. And we ended up with a 

number of statistics that we thought were significant, in terms of 

the impact they had on awareness of the U.S. as a tourism destination and the number of tourists who’ve subsequently visited the 

U.S. and had seen those ads. And I think, in the latter category, 

we ended up with something like 380,000 or 360,000 tourists who 

had visited the U.S. and had seen the ads. Is that correct; 360,000? 

In the former category, I think we determined that awareness of 

the United States went up by just over 10 percent. 

Senator SMITH. Was there any uptick, in terms of tourism from 

the United Kingdom to the United States because of this? 

Mr. LAVIN. Well, there certainly is an uptick because of tourism 

advertising from the United Kingdom, and we can also discern that 

a number of these tourists saw the ads. It’s—— 

Senator SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. LAVIN.—a bit more conjectural, Mr. Chairman, to—— 

Senator SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. LAVIN.—determine how to—how do we ascribe the role of the 

ad in shaping that decision? 

Senator SMITH. Sure. I also understand you have a clip. 

Mr. LAVIN. We do have. I’d be happy to show the Senators the 

ad. 

Senator SMITH. We’d love to see it. 

[Video presentation.] 

Senator SMITH. The only way that could have been any better, 

is if Oregon had been mentioned. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. Hawaii, too. 

[Laughter.] 

28 

Senator SMITH. Very good. 

Senator Inouye, questions? 

Senator INOUYE. I note in your testimony that 97 percent of visa 

applications are processed in 1 or 2 days. Is that correct, Madam 

Secretary? 

Ambassador NESBITT. Not exactly, sir. The 97 percent are people 

who have been interviewed and approved for a visa. Once they’re 

approved, then they get their visa within 1 to 2 days. 

Senator INOUYE. Is the visa policy uniform throughout the world, 

or are certain countries favored? 

Ambassador NESBITT. It’s uniform throughout the world, in the 

sense that there is set legislative criteria that every applicant has 

to meet in order to qualify for a visa, and that criteria is the same 

everywhere throughout the world. 

Senator INOUYE. Now, for example, do you have group issuance 

in all countries? 

Ambassador NESBITT. No, we don’t have group issuance anywhere. We interview, and we’re required to interview, every individual and make a judgment about every individual. 

Senator INOUYE. You don’t have any group issuance? 

Ambassador NESBITT. Not to my knowledge, sir. There are many 

instances in which there are performers, and we would have the 

entire group come at the same time. But we—— 

Senator INOUYE. Then why are we working on a special program 

for the Chinese for group issuance? 

Ambassador NESBITT. That’s a little bit different. We do not—we 

are not considering group issuance. The Chinese—and perhaps my 

colleague from Commerce would like to discuss it a little further— 

the Chinese do have certain agreements under their approved destination status program. And, some of the agreements that they 

currently have provide for group issuances. One of the reasons we 

have not reached an agreement with the Chinese is that we can’t 

do group issuances. 

Senator INOUYE. Do we have pre-clearance in most countries? 

Ambassador NESBITT. The Department of State does not have 

pre-clearance during the visa process, but the Department of 

Homeland Security has pre-clearance or pre-inspection in 14 locations in 5 countries at present. 

Mr. JACKSTA. I think I can answer that, sir. We have pre-clearance in Canada, Aruba and in the Bahamas, where we have CBP 

officers stationed in those locations to inspect the individuals before 

they get on the plane to the United States. When the flight arrives 

in the United States, that allows them to go to the domestic terminal directly. 

Senator INOUYE. None in the European countries? 

Mr. JACKSTA. In the European environment, we have what we 

call the IAP program, the Immigration Assistance Program, where 

we station officers—a few officers over in Poland, in the Netherlands, and the U.K. They work with the airlines to assist with the 

review of documentation to ensure only individuals that have the 

proper documentation get on the planes to the United States. 

Senator INOUYE. Do we do that in Latin America? South America? 

29 

Mr. JACKSTA. Right now, there is nothing that we do in those locations with the pre-clearance or the IAP programs, but we are 

looking at additional locations, and hopefully we’ll be able to expand the programs to those locations that are the highest risk for 

possible fraudulent documents and individuals using fraudulent 

documents to get into the United States. 

Senator INOUYE. Do we have that in Asia? 

Mr. JACKSTA. In Asia, right now, we do not. But we’re also looking at certain airports overseas, in Asia, that we think would be 

the right places to go to have our officers do prescreening of certain 

travelers to ensure that there aren’t fraudulent documents being 

utilized to get into the United States. Our strategy is to extend the 

border out and to stop the individuals before they get on the airlines, which poses a security risk. 

Senator INOUYE. I’ve been receiving communications from the Republic of Korea about special visa arrangements. What is the status of those discussions? 

Ambassador NESBITT. I believe you’re talking about the Visa 

Waiver Program, sir. South Korea has been interested, for many 

years, in qualifying for the Visa Waiver Program, and we have ongoing discussions with them about what the requirements are. Ultimately, that’s a decision that would be made not purely by the 

State Department, but in conjunction with DHS, once Korea meets 

all of the legislative criteria for the Visa Waiver Program. 

Senator INOUYE. I was told that we discontinued our program we 

had in selling tourism in Europe, internationally. Is that correct? 

Mr. LAVIN. The active promotional program run by the Federal 

Government is the ad campaign which we’ve run for 2 years in the 

United Kingdom. There are a range of other promotional programs. 

Most tourism promotion in the United States is handled by localities or municipalities or by private companies. But, at the Federal 

Government level, the only program we’ve run is this 2-year program in the U.K., Senator. 

Senator INOUYE. Is it true that most European countries have 

the person in charge of tourism in a Cabinet position? 

Mr. LAVIN. I couldn’t speak to what most European countries do. 

I think we are probably one of the largest markets in the world 

that doesn’t centrally direct tourist promotion from a national level. 

And if you look in markets such as Australia or Germany, it is 

typically done through a national body; whereas, in the United 

States it is typically done by states and localities. 

Senator INOUYE. I see. Well, things have improved. 

My last question is to the Doctor, here. Are we prepared? 

Dr. LEDUC. Are—— 

Senator INOUYE. I know this is a broad question. 

Dr. LEDUC. Are we prepared for a—— 

Senator INOUYE. A pandemic. 

Dr. LEDUC.—pandemic of avian influenza? We’re certainly more 

prepared than we were yesterday, and we continue to be making 

efforts to prepare both the Nation and globally. 

There clearly is a tremendous amount of work yet to be done. 

And I think the magnitude of the problem is such that it’s not 

going to be an easy fix. I think this is a marathon, as opposed to 

a sprint, as our Director likes to say. 

30 

Senator INOUYE. I believe I saw a movie, not too long ago, where 

a plane was approaching the United States and it was discovered 

that one of the passengers had avian flu, or something like that, 

and they didn’t know what to do. What would you suggest, if that 

ever happened? 

Dr. LEDUC. We have in place a number of quarantine stations 

at our international air facilities. I think the total number of quarantine stations are 18 today, and will be 20 by the end of either 

this year or next year, I forget which. And I know that there is a 

desire to increase that number to at least 25 so that all the major 

air and land crossings have a quarantine station. The scenario 

would be that if there was a—and this happens with some regularity—if there’s a passenger that becomes ill on an airline, they 

call in advance, the airplane is met, the individual is handled locally at the airport, put into isolation, if appropriate, and taken directly to medical facilities. We have medical officers at many of our 

quarantine stations, and the goal is to have them at all of them. 

Senator INOUYE. And that process is now in place? 

Dr. LEDUC. Yes, sir. There are 18 in place today. Not all of those 

have medical officers, but the majority do. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Inouye. 

Ambassador Nesbitt, I just have one question, then need to get— 

one additional question—then we need to go to the second panel 

before—I think some votes are scheduled shortly after 11. 

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is nearing a deadline 

without any clarification on how this will be tested or implemented. 

At least that’s my understanding. The cruise industry is also very 

concerned about the phasing-in of this Travel Initiative, beginning 

with air and sea travel in December 2006; and then land travel in 

2007. They’re concerned about confusion of the passengers on what 

documentation they will need, and when. I wonder if you agree 

with that concern, and how we can avoid all the confusion that 

might result. 

Ambassador NESBITT. We’re certainly aware of the concern, and 

we understand the concerns associated with it. The January 1, 

2008, deadline is set in law, so we are doing our best to try and 

meet that deadline. The division between having an implementation date that applies to air and sea, versus land-border crossings, 

that decision was arrived at in an effort to try and obtain the benefits of going to a reduced number of documents as soon as possible. 

And since most travelers who fly internationally already use a 

passport, the thinking was that it would be less burdensome and 

could be implemented earlier, and that we would then be able to 

give people more time to prepare for the land-border crossings. 

But, yes, we’re aware that there are concerns about that, and we 

will try to address them. 

Senator SMITH. That’s great. 

Thank you all for your testimony. We want to express our appreciation for what you do to promote tourism and to facilitate it. And 

thank you so very much. 

Our second panel will have four witnesses: Mr. Jay Rasulo, 

Chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts; Mr. Jonathan Tisch, 

31 

who is the CEO and Chairman of Loews Hotels; Mr. Todd Davidson, Executive Director, Oregon Tourism Commission; and, finally, 

Dr. Virginia, or ‘‘Ginny,’’ Pressler, Senior Vice President of Strategic Business Development at Hawaii Pacific Health, and she is 

Senator Inouye’s witness. 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Rasulo, why don’t we start with you? 

STATEMENT OF JAY RASULO, CHAIRMAN, WALT DISNEY 

PARKS AND RESORTS; CHAIRMAN, TRAVEL INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION; CHAIRMAN, U.S. TRAVEL AND TOURISM 

ADVISORY BOARD 

Mr. RASULO. Great, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our Nation’s travel and tourism industry, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss 

America’s competitive position within the fast-growing world travel 

and tourism market. 

I speak today from three perspectives. First, as 2006 Chairman of the Travel Industry Association, which represents the $600-billion U.S. travel industry, I also serve as Chairman of the U.S. 

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. This is a panel of the industry’s top CEOs that is charged with advising the Department of 

Commerce on the creation of national strategy to compete for a 

greater share of the world’s growing travel and tourism market. 

And, finally, I’m Chair of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, which 

operates 11 theme parks on three continents, a top-rated cruise 

line, and 32,000 hotel rooms. Here in the U.S., our vacation businesses are responsible for creating 175,000 jobs, while contributing 

nearly $9 billion in economic revenue each year to their local economies. 

In each of these roles, I’ve spent a lot of time assessing the future of the world travel and tourism market. There are three realities about that market that I’d like to share with you today. 

The first reality is that, in terms of future job creation and economic impact, travel and tourism is one of the most significant 

growth industries in the world. Country-to-country travel is expected to double over the next 15 years, driving a huge share of 

the world’s job creation, economic growth, and tax revenue. This is 

a market that is well worth the United States winning. 

The second reality is that, within this fast-growing market, consumer expectations, their behaviors, and their booking patterns are 

evolving at breakneck speed. Today’s world travelers not only have 

more money to spend, they have an increasing number of worthwhile destinations to choose from, they have better access to information, and they expect a higher level of service and ease of movement than ever before. In short, they expect travel destinations to 

compete for their business. Countries that adapt to these two realities will position themselves to reap a windfall of new jobs and economic growth. 

And that brings me to the third reality: The United States will 

have to adopt a much more competitive mindset in order to reap 

the benefits of the windfall I’ve just described. The days in which 

we were able to rely simply on reputation and word-of-mouth to attract international travelers are long gone. In order to succeed in 

this new world market, we have to compete. 

32 

To illustrate this reality, I’d like your permission to show a short 

video that has been prepared by our sister brand at Disney, ESPN, 

which illustrates the high stakes involved in this growing competition. 

Senator SMITH. Go right ahead. 

[Video presentation.] 

Senator SMITH. Hence, the need of this hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RASULO. So, that’s clearly an outcome that we do not want 

to see. But my fear is that we will, unless we adjust our game plan. 

Although visitation continues to rise in the U.S.—and this year, 

we are projected to reach an all-time high—the rest of the world 

is doing even better and outpacing our growth. In fact, since 1992, 

America’s share of the world travel market has fallen 35 percent. 

Had the U.S. grown as quickly as the rest of the world over this 

period, we could have added $286 billion in economic revenue to 

the U.S. economy and millions of additional jobs. 

In order to recapture our share of this growing market, there are 

two investments that we must make. First, we must ask people to 

visit us by investing in a nationally-coordinated marketing strategy 

to move the United States higher on the list of dream destinations. 

Second, we must invest in creating a first impression of hospitality 

and friendliness at our borders. Relatively small investments in 

these two areas will yield very high returns. 

For each 1 percent of market share that we gain back, $12.3 billion is added to the U.S. economy, 150,000 more jobs are created, 

and $2.1 billion in additional tax revenue is raised. And I’m 

pleased to say that the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board is now 

engaged in putting together a recommended national strategy to 

address these two areas. We expect to formally submit this recommended strategy to Secretary Gutierrez later this summer. 

I’ll conclude by highlighting an even greater reward, the opportunity to win hearts and minds around the world by signaling that 

our doors are open and that our welcome mat is out. 

We all took notice of the recent Pew Global Attitude Survey, 

which found that the opinion of the United States had fallen in 

many parts of the world. In today’s environment, America’s image 

and reputation matter more than ever, and the Pew Survey was a 

wake-up call that a great—the greater character of our country and 

the friendliness of our people are not adequately reflected in world 

opinion. 

I suggest that my industry, the travel and tourism industry, can 

be a powerful partner to help overcome these misperceptions. I also 

add that the simple act of asking people to visit us, whether 

through marketing or friendlier borders, will communicate a great 

deal about our country, as well. It will demonstrate to the world 

that we’re an open, welcoming, and friendly society, and the millions of travelers who accept the invitation will then meet our people and experience our values firsthand, generating the kind of 

positive word-of-mouth that marketers can only dream of. With 

apologies to Von Clausewitz, tourism is diplomacy by other means. 

Considering the world we live in today, we simply can’t afford 

not to invest in this type of grassroots public diplomacy. With the 

33 

right investment, we can lay out the biggest, brightest, and most 

alluring welcome mat the world has ever seen. 

Thank you, and I’m happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rasulo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAY RASULO, CHAIRMAN, WALT DISNEY PARKS AND

RESORTS; CHAIRMAN, TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION; CHAIRMAN, U.S. TRAVEL

AND TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Nation’s travel and tourism industry, I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you to discuss America’s competitive position within the fast-growing world travel and tourism market. 

I speak today from three perspectives. 

First, as 2006 Chairman of the Travel Industry Association, which represents the 

$600 billion U.S. travel industry. 

I also serve as Chairman of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, a panel 

of the industry’s top CEOs that is charged with advising the Department of Commerce on the creation of a national strategy to compete for a greater share of the 

growing world travel and tourism market. 

And finally, I am Chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, which operates 

11 theme parks on three continents, a top-rated cruise line, and 32,000 hotel rooms. 

Here in the U.S., our vacation businesses are responsible for creating 175,000 jobs, 

while contributing nearly $9 billion in economic revenue each year to their local 

economies. 

In each of these three roles, I have spent a great deal of time assessing the future 

of the world travel and tourism market. There are three realities that I’d like to 

talk about today. 

The first reality is that in terms of future job creation and economic impact, travel 

and tourism is one of the most significant growth industries in the world. Countryto-country travel is expected to double over the next 15 years, driving a huge share 

of the world’s job creation, economic growth and tax revenue. 

This is a market that is well-worth winning. 

The second reality is that within this fast-growing market, consumer expectations, 

behaviors and booking patterns are evolving at breakneck speed. Today’s world travelers not only have more money to spend, they have an increasing number of worthwhile destinations to choose from, they have better access to information, and they 

expect a higher level of service and ease of movement than ever before. 

In short, they expect travel destinations to compete for their business. 

Countries that adapt to these two realities will position themselves to reap a 

windfall of new jobs and economic growth. 

And that brings me to the third reality: The United States will have to adopt a 

much more competitive mindset in order to reap the full benefits of the windfall I’ve 

just described. 

The days in which we were able to rely on reputation and word-of-mouth alone 

to attract international travelers are long gone. In order to succeed in this new 

world market, we will have to compete. 

To illustrate this reality, I’d like your permission to show a short video, produced 

by our sister brand, ESPN, which illustrates the high stakes involved in this growing competition: 

[ESPN VIDEO] 

This is an outcome we do not want to see. But my fear is that we will . . . unless 

we adjust our game plan. 

Although visitation continues to rise in the U.S., and this year we are projected 

to reach an all-time high, the rest of the world is doing even better and outpacing 

our growth. 

In fact, since 1992, America’s share of the world travel market has fallen 35 percent. 

Had the U.S. grown as quickly as the rest of the world, we could have added $286 

billion in economic revenue to the U.S. economy, and millions of additional jobs. 

In order to re-capture our share of this growing market, there are two investments we must make. 

First, we must ask people to visit us, by investing in a nationally-coordinated 

marketing strategy to move the United States higher on their list of dream destinations. 

Second, we must invest in creating a first impression of hospitality and friendliness at our borders. 

34 

Relatively small investments in these two areas will yield a very high return, 

bringing billions in revenue and millions of additional jobs to the United States. 

And I’m pleased to say that the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board is now engaged in putting together a recommended national strategy to address these two 

areas. 

We expect to formally submit this recommended strategy to Secretary Gutierrez 

later this summer. 

I will conclude by highlighting an even greater reward—the opportunity to win 

hearts and minds around the world, by signaling that our doors are open and our 

welcome mat is out. 

We all took notice of the recent Pew Global Attitudes Survey, which found that 

opinion of the U.S. has fallen in many parts of the world. 

In today’s environment, America’s image and reputation matter more than ever. 

And the Pew Survey was a wake up call that the great character of our country 

and the friendliness of our people are not adequately reflected in world opinion. 

I suggest that my industry—the travel and tourism industry—can be a powerful 

partner to help overcome these misperceptions. 

And I’d also add that the simple act of asking people to visit us—whether through 

marketing or friendlier borders—will communicate a great deal about us as a country. 

It will demonstrate to the world that we are an open, welcoming and friendly society. 

And the millions of travelers who accept the invitation will then meet our people 

and experience our values firsthand, generating the kind of positive word-of-mouth 

that marketers can only dream of. 

With apologies to Von Clausewitz, tourism is diplomacy by other means. 

Considering the world we live in today, we can’t afford not to invest in this form 

of grassroots public diplomacy. 

With the right investment, we can lay out the biggest, brightest, most alluring 

welcome mat the world has ever seen. 

Thank you. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Tisch? 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN M. TISCH, CHAIRMAN, TRAVEL 

BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE; CHAIRMAN/CEO, LOEWS HOTELS 

Mr. TISCH. Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman Inouye, thank you for 

the invitation. 

I’m Jonathan Tisch. I am the Chairman and CEO of Loews Hotels. I’m also the Chairman of the Travel Business Roundtable, an 

organization with 85 members representing various aspects of the 

travel and tourism industry, retail, sports, publishing, and our mission is to educate our policymakers about the significant economic 

and social contributions our industry makes to this country. 

I also wear a third hat. I serve as Chairman of NYC & Company, 

which is New York City’s travel, tourism, and visitor’s agency. 

Along with our strategic partner, the Travel Industry Association 

of America, the Travel Business Roundtable represents all sectors 

of the $650-billion U.S. travel and tourism industry. As you’ve 

heard, 5 years after 9/11, the good news is that people are traveling, once again. But the real promise of travel and tourism lies 

not in what has occurred, but what we can still achieve. International travel is on the rise; however, we are uncertain if we will 

reach pre-9/11 numbers this year. In addition, the uptake in international visitation, it should be noted, is largely attributable to increases in visitors from Canada. 

Today, I’d like to discuss some of the barriers that impede travel 

within, but especially to, the United States, their consequences on 

our Nation’s economy, social and homeland security issues, and 

35 

ways which the industry can help lift the barriers while helping to 

secure our borders. 

Please be mindful that there is no industry more committed to 

finding the proper balance between security at our Nation’s borders 

and facilitating free and open commerce and travel across those 

same borders. As we saw on 9/11, a terrorist attack can cripple our 

entire industry. 

The four barriers I’d like to discuss today are the WHTI, entryexit procedures and visa policy, the perception of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, and, as Jay mentioned, the deteriorating image of 

U.S. around the world. 

The travel and tourism industry fully supports the homeland security intent of WHTI, which calls for fewer and more secure travel 

documents for those traveling across our borders. We have never 

questioned why, or if, WHTI should be implemented. We are concerned with how and when. The land-border deadline is approaching, but no procurement for alternate travel documents has been 

issued, nor has any testing of cards or readers been conducted, and 

time for mounting a public education campaign and issuing the 

cards to the millions who will need them is running out. 

TBR and TIA commend Chairman Ted Stevens and Senator Patrick Leahy for their amendment to the immigration reform bill extending the statutory deadline to June 1, 2009. We realize that a 

straight extension is not the entire solution to WHTI, but it’s a 

good first step to ensure that there is enough time to get it right. 

While the newly created visa business centers have helped alleviate some of the hassles of international travel, there are still 

under-staffed Consulates, long interview wait times, and very long 

trips to get to the interview. The average visa wait time in Brazil 

is 70 days, while the average in India is 132 days. These lengthy 

times are clearly unacceptable. 

Fortunately, wait times in countries such as China and Korea 

have been reduced, due to additional staffing and expansion of 

interview hours. Being in the hotel business, we all understand 

that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. 

When a guest arrives, he should be looked in the eye, greeted with 

a smile, and offered world-class service. If our front desk agent 

does that, I increase my odds of the guest returning to my hotel. 

The same should apply to visitors to our country. 

CBP and Transportation Security Administration inspectors, as 

well as consular officers overseas, should receive customer service 

training and be evaluated based on their performance in keeping 

with new professional standards. In addition, staffing levels should 

be closely monitored to utilize inspectors’ efficiency and avoid backlogs. 

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it wiped out one of 

the Nation’s most vibrant and rapidly growing travel and tourism 

economies. There will be a long recovery time. Unfortunately, international travelers and Americans alike still perceive the devastation and despair immediately following Katrina as the current 

norm. We must reverse this image. Travel and tourism was the 

heart and soul of the Gulf Coast. The region is beginning its recovery, but the area still vitally needs additional housing for workers 

to return to the area, and, more importantly, aid for changing the 

36 

negative perception of the area. A promotion campaign to let the 

world know the once-devastated region is now open for business is 

desperately needed. We suggest a one-time appropriation to the 

Mississippi Gulf Coast and New Orleans Convention and Visitors 

Bureau to support this effort. 

The final barrier I’d like to mention is one that Jay mentioned 

a moment ago, and that’s America’s deteriorating image abroad. 

The impediments we erect at our borders contribute to the everworsening image of our country overseas. Studies consistently show 

that when international travelers come to our country and experience American culture and hospitality firsthand, their perceptions 

of America, and Americans, change, almost without exception, for 

the better. 

So, in addition to serving as an important economic generator, 

travel and tourism is a very, very vital vehicle for diplomacy. As 

a Nation, we are not using this vehicle effectively. At a time when 

the U.S. is the travel bargain of the world, we are still losing international travel market share. Worldwide international travel increased at a rate of 52 percent between 1992 and 2004, but, as 

you’ve heard, our overall market share has declined by 35 percent. 

Now that I’ve laid out our most difficult obstacles, let me pose 

a few solutions. 

The following are recommendations for Congress on how to alleviate the negative, unintended impacts of these barriers while 

continuing to strengthen border security. 

Grant an extension for WHTI, and work closely with State and 

DHS to effectively implement it. 

Direct the State Department and DHS to work with travel and 

tourism experts to include customer service and hospitality training in CBP and consular office curriculum and to assist in evaluating the inspection area for more effective queuing techniques and 

smarter use of staffing. 

And appropriate one-time funding to promote the Gulf Coast as 

a travel destination that is, as we say in New York City after 9/ 

11, open for business. 

As you’re aware, Secretary of State Rice and DHS Secretary 

Chertoff announced their joint vision for Secure Borders and Open 

Doors on January 17. Our industry fully endorsed this initiative 

and was encouraged by the announcement. We are now awaiting 

government action. The industry can play a significant role in both 

consular and customs officer training in the Model Ports of Entry 

program at Washington, Dulles, and Houston airports to help carry 

out this vision. 

The industry is also working with the Commerce Department 

through the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. We’re currently devising the Gulf Coast tourism revitalization recommendations and comprehensive national tourism policy recommendations, 

both commissioned by Secretary Gutierrez. It is essential that the 

public- and private-sectors work together to remove the barriers 

facing legitimate travelers wishing to visit the U.S. 

Marketing and promotion are also key pieces to the overall strategy. As an industry, we believe that a nationally-coordinated marketing strategy is a crucial investment that we all must make. It’s 

37 

1World Travel and Tourism Council. 

not enough to alleviate the burdens on travelers; we must also notify those travelers that the welcome mat has been rolled out. 

My final recommendation is one that Senator Dorgan mentioned 

while he was with us this morning, and that is for the private sector and the public sector to work more closely together. We, at the 

Travel Business Roundtable, for the past 5 years, have been calling 

for a Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism, comprised of public, private, and nonprofit-sector individuals, and Federal, State, and local officials, whose goal it is to advance policy 

matters that impact tourism development. Most major nations, as 

you’ve heard, have made travel and tourism promotion and policy 

coordination of tourism issues centerpieces of their national economic growth plan. The United States must make the travel and 

tourism industry’s growth a national priority, as well. 

In summary, the travel and tourism industry is an integral part 

of making America’s economy, borders, and international relations 

strong. Our impact is clear. We must maximize our potential. 

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to answering any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tisch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN M. TISCH, CHAIRMAN, TRAVEL BUSINESS

ROUNDTABLE; CHAIRMAN/CEO, LOEWS HOTELS

Introduction 

Good morning. I am Jonathan Tisch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 

Loews Hotels, and Chairman of the Travel Business Roundtable. Loews Hotels, 

headquartered in New York City, operates 16 distinct properties across the United 

States and 2 in Canada, including The Loews Regency in New York City and our 

most recent addition to the Loews family, The Madison, a Loews Hotel, here in 

Washington, D.C. The company employs more than 7,000 people across the U.S. The 

Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) is a CEO-based organization originally established to continue the momentum of the 1995 White House Conference on Travel 

and Tourism. TBR’s mission is to educate elected officials and policymakers about 

the importance of our industry on the Nation’s economic and social well-being. Along 

with our strategic partner, the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA), we 

represent all sectors of the U.S. travel and tourism industry. 

Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Dorgan, thank you for holding this important hearing on the state of the U.S. travel and tourism industry. It was my honor 

to have testified before this Subcommittee almost 4 years ago to report on the industry as it was beginning to recover from the horrific effects of September 11, 2001. 

At that time, our industry united to focus on getting travelers back on planes, in 

hotels and restaurants and to our theme parks, museums and shopping centers. The 

collective efforts of diverse travel and tourism interests have helped restore a great 

deal of confidence in travel to and within the U.S. 

Current State of the Industry 

The travel and tourism industry defines the service economy across the globe, expecting to generate $6.5 trillion of economic activity around the world in 2006. 1 Our 

industry creates jobs and careers; we fulfill important social policy goals, such as 

moving people from welfare to work; we contribute more than $99 billion in tax revenue for local, state and Federal Governments that support essential services; and 

we are one of very few industries that creates a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. 

We are a significant presence in all 50 states and 435 Congressional districts. 

Though the industry is comprised of approximately 18 distinct sectors, natural 

disasters, government mandates and global challenges can and do create industry 

unity. When Hurricane Katrina debilitated an entire region and destroyed once vibrant commerce, the industry united to help New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf 

Coast begin rebuilding. When the U.S. Government promulgated a biometric passport deadline that the U.S. Government could not meet, the industry united to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
38 

2Travel Industry Association of America. 

3Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

sure that Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries had sufficient time to produce the 

most secure travel documents possible. When studies showed (and continue to show) 

that the deteriorating international opinion of America and Americans could be 

changed when international travelers actually visit the U.S., the industry united to 

offer our services as a public diplomacy tool. 

Five years after 9/11, people are traveling again; industry employment is strong, 

directly providing 7.3 million U.S. jobs; and the industry continues to be an economic generator, accounting for roughly $645 billion in direct travel expenditures, 

$163 billion in direct travel-generated payroll and a $4 billion balance of trade surplus, to help offset a worsening national trade deficit. 2 So, you may ask, if the industry has recovered since 9/11 and is currently healthy, why are we here today to 

discuss the current state of the travel and tourism industry? Simply stated: We 

could do much more. 

The real promise of travel and tourism lies not in what has occurred but rather 

in what can yet be achieved—for America as an interdependent part of a global 

economy, in dissuading an increasingly hostile and skeptical world about our country and its people, and for border security policies that can protect our homeland 

without discouraging essential international commerce. 

International travel to the U.S., which reached its peak in 2000 with 51.2 million 

visitors, hit its low in 2003 with only 41.2 million visitors. Since that time, international travel has been increasing steadily, reaching 49.4 million in 2005; however, 

we are still uncertain if we will reach pre-9/11 numbers this year. 3 In addition, the 

uptake in international visitation is largely attributable to Canadian travel. In 

2005, Canadian travel surpassed pre-9/11 levels with an increase of 2 percent. However, travel from overseas was still far from hitting the 2000 mark, down 16.5 percent. Apparently, we have much work to do to get overseas travelers back to the 

U.S. In addition, our strongest travel market, Canada, faces new challenges with 

the impending implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

(WHTI). 

Today I would like to discuss some of the barriers that impede travel within— 

but especially to—the United States, their consequences for our Nation’s economic, 

social and homeland security, and the ways in which this industry can help lift the 

barriers while helping to secure our borders. It may sound like a contradiction in 

terms, but allow me to explain further. 

In April, the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC), in partnership with TBR 

and TIA, hosted the 6th Annual Global Tourism Summit here in the Nation’s Capital. Corporate and government travel and tourism leaders attended from all across 

the globe. It may surprise some of you to know that most developed countries have 

Cabinet-level officials focused solely on generating tourism, and more than 130 

countries have official, government-sponsored tourism offices. These nations have 

recognized that a coordinated national tourism policy fulfills numerous domestic 

goals, including job creation, expanding trade surpluses and creating economic vitality on a multi-regional basis within their countries. These nations also spend hundreds of millions of dollars on tourism promotion because they see a tremendous return on investment. 

During the summit, I frequently heard the question from our international counterparts, ‘‘Do you still want us to come here?’’ These visitors were asking in reference to the barriers—from the sometimes cumbersome visa process to the tighter 

requirements of WHTI to the long and unwelcoming inspections by Customs and 

Border Protection officials at U.S. ports-of-entry. International travelers are experiencing a certain ‘‘hassle factor’’ just to enter the U.S. that lends to a perception of 

‘‘fortress America.’’ 

As I enumerate the barriers that impede travel to the U.S. and hurt us in the 

global marketplace, please be mindful that there is no industry more committed to 

finding the proper balance between security at our Nation’s borders and facilitating 

free and open commerce and travel across those borders. As we saw on 9/11, one 

terrorist attack can and will cripple our entire industry. 

What follows should update the Subcommittee on where our industry currently 

stands and where it hopes to go. 

Barriers to Travel 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

The travel and tourism industry fully supports the homeland security intent of 

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, calling for Customs 

39 

and Border Protection officers to inspect fewer and more secure travel documents 

for those traveling across our borders. We have never questioned why or if the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, or WHTI, should be implemented. We are concerned with how and when. 

Our greatest concern about WHTI is Federal communication and cooperation. The 

Departments of State (State) and Homeland Security (DHS) are working together 

to release the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the air and sea WHTI 

deadline, scheduled for the end of this year. With that deadline only 7 months away 

and cruise travelers currently booking their winter trips, we do not know what the 

requirements will be. The absence of this rulemaking could cost the cruise lines millions in lost business. 

An even larger problem involves the January 1, 2008 deadline for land-border 

travel. TBR and TIA support the concept of a PASScard, which was introduced 

jointly by State and DHS in January, as a lower-cost, easier-to-obtain and easierto-carry variation of the passport. However, State and DHS cannot agree on what 

type of technology will be incorporated in the PASScard. Therefore, no procurement 

has been issued nor has any testing of cards or readers been conducted, and time 

for mounting a public education campaign and issuing the cards for the millions 

who will need them is running out. 

As the deadline approaches with no certain timeline in place from State and DHS, 

the travel and tourism industry is supportive of making sure there is sufficient time 

to implement WHTI effectively. If our northern border is congested on January 1, 

2008 due to a poorly implemented WHTI, not only will the security of our borders 

be compromised but our relationship with our largest trading partner will also be 

damaged. TBR and TIA commend Senators Ted Stevens (R–AK) and Patrick Leahy 

(D–VT) for their amendment to the immigration reform bill extending the statutory 

deadline by 17 months to June 1, 2009. We realize that a straight extension is not 

the entire solution to WHTI, but it is a good first step to ensure that there is enough 

time to ‘‘get it right.’’ 

The U.S. Government has done little to pursue a true bilateral solution to WHTI 

with Canadian officials. The success of the NEXUS frequent traveler program at our 

northern border argues for increased cooperation with the Canadian government. 

The arrests of 17 terrorists in Canada on June 2 and 3 illustrates that terrorism 

still threatens our borders. While this incident is disheartening, it is also encouraging in that these terrorists were apprehended before they were able to attack. The 

capture of these men was the result of cooperative counterterrorism investigations 

between U.S. and Canadian officials. This example shows us that working on a bilateral approach to WHTI with the Canadian government on the development of alternate travel documents is essential for ensuring our northern border is as secure 

as possible. 

As with biometric passports for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries one year 

ago, we must secure the appropriate amount of time to do the job at hand properly. 

Our allies around the world deserve that, and our security demands it. 

Perception of the Gulf Coast 

Almost one year ago, the worst natural disaster this country has ever seen ripped 

through our Nation’s Gulf Coast, destroying homes, families, businesses and a way 

of life. Hurricane Katrina, followed by Hurricanes Rita and Wilma also wiped out 

one of the Nation’s most vibrant and rapidly growing travel and tourism economies. 

Overall, in the affected areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the travel and 

tourism industry accounted for 260,000 jobs and a payroll income of $3.7 billion. In 

2004, the industry generated $18.3 billion in travel-related sales for the region. 

Many in our industry, like so many others, lost everything. 

In Katrina’s aftermath, the industry showed great leadership and cooperation. 

Travel and tourism was the heart and soul of the Gulf Coast. The region is beginning its recovery; New Orleans welcomed 350,000 visitors to Jazz Fest, and three 

of the Mississippi Gulf Coast casinos have reopened and are operating at full capacity. Unfortunately, international travelers and Americans alike still perceive the 

devastation and despair immediately following Katrina as the current norm. We 

must erase these images. TBR and TIA, on behalf of the industry, offered policy recommendations to Congress immediately following the hurricanes. Many tax provisions were included in the hurricane relief package passed by Congress and signed 

by the President in December, but tax incentives for conventions and other visitors 

to the area, additional housing for workers to return to the area, and most importantly, a promotion campaign to let the world know the once devastated region is 

now open for business are still desperately needed. 

The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (USTTAB), of which I am a member, has issued recommendations to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez at his reVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
40 

4 U.S. Department of Commerce. 

5World Tourism Organization. 

6The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index. 

quest that detail these lingering needs, and we would be happy to share them with 

the Subcommittee. 

Entry-Exit Procedures and Visa Policy 

As stated earlier, overseas visitors have been traveling to the U.S. less frequently 

since 2000. According to the U.K. Travel Barometer, since 2004, U.K. citizens are 

consistently attributing the top barrier to travel to the U.S. as entry procedures, 

from poor information about requirements to long visa processing times. 4

When an overseas traveler arrives in the United States, his first point-of-contact 

is a CBP officer, and it could take up to 2 hours in line before this exchange even 

takes place. Being in the hotel business, I understand that you never get a second 

chance to make a first impression. When a guest arrives, he should be looked in 

eye, greeted with a smile and offered world-class service. If our front desk agent 

does just that, I increase my odds of his returning to my hotel. The same should 

apply to guests of our country. CBP and Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) inspectors, as well as consular officers overseas, should receive customer service training, and be evaluated based on their performance in keeping with new professionalism standards. 

In addition, staffing levels must be closely monitored to utilize inspectors efficiently and avoid backlogs. As reported by USA Today on Monday, wait times in 

security lines still vary widely across the country. While TSA screener staffing has 

increased in locations such as Kahului Airport in Maui, where wait times are minimal, staffing has been decreased at Orlando International Airport, where wait times 

have in some cases exceeded 50 minutes. 

Leaders in the industry have offered our expertise in these areas to work with 

DHS and State to conduct training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and consult with airports on queue management and creating a more 

welcoming atmosphere. The industry is working closely with State and DHS on a 

Model Ports-of-Entry program using Washington Dulles and Houston as pilot airports. The objective is to begin carrying out the Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision, which 

I will discuss in more detail later in my testimony. 

While the newly created Visa Business Centers have helped alleviate some hassles of the international traveler, the burdens on travelers due to understaffed Consulates, long interview wait times and long trips to the interview are not eased. For 

instance, the average visa wait time in Brazil is 70 days, while the average in India 

is 132 days. Considering the informal goal within the State Department is not having wait times exceed 30 days, these lengthy wait times are unacceptable. Fortunately, not all the news is bad since wait times in countries like China and Korea 

have been reduced due to additional staffing and expansion of interview hours. Ultimately, it comes down to providing sufficient resources (staff, interview space, etc.) 

to both effectively screen visa applicants and efficiently process those individuals 

who simply wish to travel here for pleasure, business, study or exchange. 

The travel and tourism industry knows about hospitality and maximizing resources and staff. Our offer to extend our services to State and DHS still stands, 

and we hope to be called upon soon. 

Public Diplomacy 

In addition to serving as an important economic generator, travel and tourism is 

a vehicle for diplomacy. As a Nation, we are not using this vehicle effectively. At 

a time when the U.S. is the travel bargain of the world, we are still losing international travel market share. Worldwide international travel increased at a rate of 

52 percent between 1992 and 2004, but America’s share of that lucrative travel market declined by 35 percent. 5 America, formerly the most visited travel destination 

in the world, is now third, behind France and Spain and still declining. The U.S. 

used to be the most aspirational destination for international travelers; it is now 

sixth. 6 The barriers I have enumerated not only discourage travelers from coming 

here, they also contribute to an ever-worsening image of the U.S. abroad. Studies 

consistently show that when international travelers come to the United States and 

experience American culture and hospitality firsthand, their perceptions of America 

and Americans change, almost without exception, for the better. 

Unfortunately, our Nation’s image is continuing to deteriorate. In March 2005, the 

Lowy Institute conducted the most comprehensive national survey ever in Australia. 

Australians were asked to identify the most highly esteemed countries in the world. 

Japan, a nation at war with Australia just 60 years ago, ranked first; China came 

41 

7Travel Industry Association of America. 

in second; and the U.S. trailed significantly behind. Australians were then asked to 

name the two greatest threats to world peace. The overwhelming majority of Australians ranked both Islamic fundamentalism and the United States of America as 

the two greatest threats. The Pew Research Center reported that the percentage of 

British citizens having a favorable view of the United States fell from 75 percent 

in the Summer of 2002 to just 56 percent in June 2006. 

The new Pew Global Attitudes Project study released last week showed that these 

attitudes are not improving. The study examined opinions of the U.S. in 15 countries. Of the 11 countries surveyed in both 2005 and 2006, only 3 had a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than in the previous year. Significant downturns were seen 

in Spain, where only 23 percent of the Spanish public have a favorable opinion of 

the U.S., down from 41 percent last year. Another significant drop was in India, 

where 56 percent had positive views of America as opposed to 71 percent in 2005. 

Fortunately, travel and tourism can help to reverse those trends. A 1-percentage 

point increase in international travel would mean 7.6 million more visitors who 

could return to their home countries as Ambassadors for the United States. 7 That 

same mere 1 percentage point increase would have a huge impact on the U.S. economy: an additional $12.3 billion in spending across the U.S.; 150,000 more jobs; $3.3 

billion in new payroll; and $2.1 billion in new Federal, state and local tax revenues. 

The numbers speak for themselves. We must act now to create momentum on what 

will take years to rebuild. 

Airline Taxes and Airline Modernization Funding 

There are two critical areas of concern to the travel and tourism industry specifically facing the U.S. airline industry. First, airlines and their passengers paid almost $16 billion last year in 15 separate taxes and fees to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and DHS. These taxes have contributed to the difficulties U.S. 

airlines continue to face as they recover from the effects of 9/11. Congress should 

seriously assess the effects this significant tax burden has on business, leisure travelers and the aviation industry. 

Second, there is a critical need to upgrade the U.S. Air Traffic Control Organization. Last year, U.S. airline operations grew to a record 11.5 million departures with 

carriers transporting 736.6 million passengers. Experts are projecting the demand 

for air traffic control to triple over the next 20 years. The airspace above major metropolitan areas is already congested and is rapidly approaching saturation. This 

growth reinforces the need to modernize our antiquated ATC system and implement 

technology upgrades that will accommodate the growing demand being placed on the 

system. This Committee will have the opportunity to play a pivotal role in addressing these concerns next year when the Airport and Airways Trust Fund Act will be 

reauthorized. We strongly encourage you to use this historic opportunity to support 

the technologies and user-based funding that will accommodate the needs and 

growth of this vital part of our national infrastructure. 

State and Local Excise Taxes 

While not a Federal governance issue, another obstacle facing the travel industry 

throughout the Nation is the increasing tax burden that is being placed on the traveling public. 

Whether it is hotels, car rentals or any other travel-related service, these customers—both leisure and business travelers—are more and more the subject of discriminatory taxes imposed by state and local authorities, often to fill the general 

treasury. These taxes are politically expedient because they target ‘‘tourists’’ and 

other ‘‘out-of-towners.’’ Put another way, they are ‘‘visitors, not voters.’’ Worse yet, 

there is often no special benefit for travelers, nor a direct connection between the 

use of funds and those paying the taxes. It is just seen as easy money. These tourism taxes threaten to diminish the multiplier effect that tourism brings, and the effect may well be a net loss of overall tax and tourism revenue. 

Industry Recommendations 

The following are recommendations for Congress on how to alleviate the negative, 

unintended impacts of these barriers while continuing to strengthen border security: 

• Grant an extension for WHTI and work closely with State and DHS to effectively implement it; 

• Direct the State Department and DHS to work with travel and tourism experts 

to include customer service/hospitality training in CBP and consular officer curVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
42 

riculum, to assist in evaluating the inspection area for more effective queuing 

techniques and smarter use of staffing; 

• Appreciate travel and tourism’s immense potential as a vehicle for enhancing 

our image around the globe; 

• Appropriate one-time funding to the New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf Coast 

Convention and Visitor Bureaus to promote the Gulf Coast as a travel destination that is ‘‘open for business;’’ and 

• Make travel and tourism a national policy priority. 

Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision 

As you are aware, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff on January 17 announced their ‘‘Secure Borders and Open Doors in 

the Information Age’’ initiative (RCI). Even before September 11, 2001, and especially since that time, the travel industry has been calling for homeland security initiatives that protect our country but also protect our economic and social vitality. 

In her remarks, Secretary Rice expressed her gratitude specifically to the travel and 

tourism industry as a private partner who contributed to this vision. 

The three broad categories within the Rice-Chertoff Vision include: (1) Renewing 

America’s Welcome with Improved Technology and Efficiency, (2) Travel Documents 

for the 21st Century, and (3) Smarter Screening. These are issues we have been trying to bring to light over the past 5 years, as travel and tourism is at the heart 

of all of them. 

Our industry fully endorsed RCI and was encouraged by its announcement. We 

are now awaiting government action. As previously stated, the industry can play a 

significant role in both consular and customs officer training and the model portsof-entry program. We eagerly await the announcement of the public-private advisory 

committee to lead these efforts, and we look forward to partnering with State and 

DHS to turn these ideas into reality. 

USTTAB Policy Recommendations 

In addition to the recommendations for Gulf Coast tourism revitalization commissioned by Secretary Gutierrez, he also called upon the USTTAB to develop comprehensive national tourism policy recommendations. The proposal, which is under 

development, will highlight three main areas: public diplomacy and ease of travel, 

marketing and promotion, and return on investment. It will be submitted to the Secretary this fall, and is the result of collaboration among all Board members and the 

industry as a whole. 

U.S. Destination Marketing Campaign 

As I have discussed throughout this testimony, the public- and private-sectors 

must work together to remove the barriers facing legitimate travelers wishing to 

visit the U.S. However, once the burdens are alleviated, it will be just as important 

to notify those travelers that the welcome mat has been rolled out. As an industry, 

we believe that a nationally-coordinated marketing strategy is a crucial investment 

that we all must make. 

Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism 

Most major nations in the world have made travel and tourism promotion a centerpiece of their national economic growth plans. To facilitate that goal, each of 

these nations has made policy coordination of the many and overlapping issues affecting this industry a policy priority. The United States should and must make 

tourism a national priority. 

TBR has long advocated for a Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism, whose mission would be to help the U.S. retain its edge against its competitors 

as the premier travel destination in the world and to promote public diplomacy 

through travel to America. The Council would be created by Executive Order as a 

Federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Its 

members should be public, private and nonprofit sector individuals, and Federal, 

state and local officials. These members would represent a diverse range of business, government and nonprofit organizations with experience relating to policy 

matters impacting tourism development. The Council would pursue five essential 

objectives: 

• Raise awareness of the economic importance of travel and tourism and the 

unique role of tourism in promoting public diplomacy; 

• Foster tourism policy development and coordination within the Federal Government; 

• Demonstrate how effective tourism policy can be implemented; 

43 

• Develop appropriate benchmarks to measure tourism policy success; and 

• Create a crisis plan in the event of another catastrophic attack on U.S. soil. 

Based on the information presented here today, I think you will agree that such 

an entity would be invaluable for achieving our shared goals. 

Conclusion 

On June 7, the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the Department of Commerce announced that real tourism output increased at an annual rate of 5.5 percent in the 

first quarter of 2006, the industry’s fourteenth consecutive quarter of positive 

growth. In addition, on June 14, the Federal Reserve released its beige book findings for mid-April to early June, citing that the economy expanded during this period but that the growth is slowing down. In seven of the 12 Fed districts, travel 

and tourism was cited as one of the region’s most active industries. The Fed is keenly aware of the impact of travel and tourism economies in each of these districts, 

whether positive or negative. 

The travel and tourism industry is an integral part of making America’s economy, 

borders and international relationships strong. The companies and associations represented here today appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts and suggestions. We look forward to continuing our efforts to elevate the industry’s importance 

and to working with this Subcommittee and full Committee as we move forward. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

TRAVEL BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE—MEMBERSHIP

Jonathan M. Tisch, Chairman, Travel Business Roundtable; Chairman/CEO, 

Loews Hotels 

Adelman Travel Group 

Affinia Hospitality 

Air Transport Association 

American Express 

American Gaming Association 

American Hotel & Lodging Association 

American Resort Development Association 

American Tours International 

Asian American Hotel Owners Association 

ASSA ABLOY Hospitality 

Baltimore Area Convention & Visitors Authority 

Business Travel News 

Carey International Inc. 

Carlson Companies, Inc. 

Cendant Corporation 

Cendant Hotel Group 

Choice Hotels International 

Coca-Cola North America 

Delaware North Companies Inc. 

Destination Marketing Association International 

D.K. Shifflet & Associates Ltd. 

FelCor Lodging Trust 

Four Seasons Regent Hotels & Resorts 

Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Greater Ft. Lauderdale Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau 

The Hertz Corporation 

Hilton Hotels Corporation 

Hyatt Hotels Corporation 

InterContinental Hotels Group 

International Association for Exhibition Management 

International Council of Shopping Centers 

International Franchise Association 

Interstate Hotels & Resorts 

JetBlue Airways Corporation 

Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority 

Loews Hotels 

Marriott International, Inc. 

Marriott North American Lodging Operations 

Maryland Office of Tourism Development 

McDermott, Will & Emery 

44 

The Mills Corporation 

Nashville Convention and Visitors Bureau 

National Basketball Association 

National Business Travel Association 

National Football League 

National Hockey League 

National Restaurant Association 

Nederlander Producing Company of America 

New York University 

Northstar Travel Media, LLC 

NYC & Company 

Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau 

The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 

Strategic Hotel Capital Inc. 

Taubman Centers, Inc. 

Tishman Construction Co. 

Travel Industry Association of America 

UNITE HERE 

United States Chamber of Commerce 

The United States Conference of Mayors 

Universal Parks & Resorts 

USA Today 

Vail Resorts, Inc. 

Virginia Tourism Corporation 

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts 

Washington, DC Convention and Tourism Corporation 

Waterford Group, LLC 

The World Travel & Tourism Council 

Zagat Survey, LLC 

The Travel Business Roundtable (TBR), a strategic partner to the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA), is a CEO-based organization representing all 

sectors of the travel and tourism industry. The mission of TBR is to educate 

elected officials and policymakers about the importance of the travel and tourism industry to the Nation’s economy. 

TIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Roger Dow, President/CEO, Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) 

AAA 

Air Transport Association of America, Inc. 

American Bus Association 

American Express Company 

American Resort Development Association 

American Society of Travel Agents 

Amtrak (National RR Passenger Corporation) 

ARAMARK Parks & Resorts 

Arizona Office of Tourism 

Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. 

Best Western International, Inc. 

Bloomington Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Bluegreen Resorts 

Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau, Greater 

Busch Entertainment Corporation 

California Ski Industry Association 

California Tourism 

Carlson Companies, Inc. 

Carnival Cruise Lines 

Cendant Hotel Group, Inc. 

Chicago Convention & Tourism Bureau, Inc. 

Choice Hotels International 

Circle Line Sightseeing Cruises 

CityPass Inc. 

Creative Hotel Associates 

Delaware North Companies 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Destination Marketing Association International 

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. 

45 

Expedia, Inc. 

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts 

Finger Lakes Visitors Connection 

Fred J. Lounsberry & Associates 

Freeman 

Herschend Family Entertainment Corp. 

Hertz Corporation, The 

Hilton Hotels Corporation 

Hyatt Corporation 

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity 

InterContinental Hotels Group 

J.D. Power and Associates 

LA INC. The Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority 

Loews Hotels 

Louisiana Office of Tourism 

Marriott International 

Maryland Office of Tourism Development 

Massachusetts Office of Travel & Tourism 

Meredith Corporation 

MGM MIRAGE 

National Geographic Society 

Nevada Commission on Tourism 

North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film & Sports Development 

Northstar Travel Media, LLC 

NYC & Company 

Oregon Tourism Commission 

Orlando/Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, Greater 

Planet Hollywood International, Incorporated 

Polynesian Cultural Center 

Preferred Hotel Group 

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 

Sabre Holdings 

San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau 

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism 

Southeast Tourism Society 

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. 

State of Texas, Office of the Governor, Economic Development and Tourism 

Tauck World Discovery 

Texas Travel Industry Association 

Tourco 

Tourism Massachusetts 

U.S.V.I. Department of Tourism 

United Airlines, Inc. 

Universal Parks & Resorts 

USA Today 

Vanguard Car Rental USA 

Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing 

Virginia Tourism Corporation 

VISIT FLORIDA 

Walt Disney Parks & Resorts 

Western Leisure, Inc. 

Wyndham International 

TIA is the national, nonprofit organization representing all components of the 

$650 billion travel industry. With over 2,100 members, TIA’s mission is to represent the whole of the U.S. travel industry to promote and facilitate increased 

travel to and within the United States. 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Tisch, it is very interesting, your comment 

about hospitality training. I know Marriott and Hyatt have such a 

program for their employees. I imagine Loews does as well. 

Mr. TISCH. Yes. 

46 

Senator SMITH. I believe I understood your testimony that the 

U.S. Government, as it interfaces with tourists, ought to have that 

same training. Is there anything like that going on? 

Mr. TISCH. We, as an industry, have offered up our assistance to 

the State Department and DHS. If you look at Model Ports, we are 

starting to work with them. We just have not seen the progress 

that, as an industry, we had hoped for. 

Senator SMITH. So, they’re not necessarily doing that. They’re not 

utilizing the private assets. 

Mr. TISCH. To the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Davidson, thank you for coming from Oregon. Tell us what 

we’re doing in Oregon. 

STATEMENT OF TODD DAVIDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OREGON TOURISM COMMISSION; CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

COUNCIL OF STATE TOURISM DIRECTORS; PAST-CHAIR, 

WESTERN STATES TOURISM POLICY COUNCIL 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to be here and 

to have traveled here last night, although it was supposed to be 

yesterday afternoon that I arrived, but 3 hours on the tarmac in 

Chicago delayed me just a little bit as thunderstorms over Indiana 

slowed us down. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Todd Davidson, and I have the privilege and pleasure of serving as the Executive Director of the Oregon Tourism Commission. I also serve as 

Chair of the National Council of State Tourism Directors and PastChair of the Western States Tourism Policy Council. 

It’s my pleasure to appear before you today, and I commend you, 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, for holding this hearing here 

today, in a timely and in an important manner. 

In many states, tourism is a primary driver of that state’s socioeconomic future. It’s often identified as a major employer, contributor to the gross state product, and an engine for small business 

growth and development. 

In Oregon, due to the important position that tourism has taken 

in the state’s economy, the state legislature enacted the Tourism 

Investment Proposal in 2003. This significant piece of legislation 

implemented a 1-percent statewide lodging tax and dedicated 100 

percent of the revenue to Travel Oregon, taking our budget from 

$3 million annually to an estimated $8.5 million annually. 

Oregon is now experiencing growth rates in visitor expenditures 

in the range of 7 percent per year, our fastest rate of growth in the 

past 5 years. And in 2005, as you noted, Senator, visitor spending 

in Oregon reached nearly $7.5 billion. 

But as substantial as the economic contributions of travel and 

tourism are for Oregon and for this Nation, they could be greater. 

And the fact that in 1992, the U.S. received over 9 percent of all 

international travelers in the world, but, by 2004, had fallen to garnering only 6 percent, should be of concern to us all. 

Since 9/11, homeland security needs have understandably been 

given highest priority. The travel and tourism industry supported 

efforts to improve homeland security, and has worked closely with 

Congress and the Departments of State and Homeland Security to 

address those needs. Yet, often policies with the laudable goal of 

47 

improving national security result in discouraging international 

visitors from coming to the U.S. The barriers to international travel that have been discussed, that are posed by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and by entry-exit procedures and visa policies, have been well explained this morning in the testimony of the 

Travel Business Roundtable and the Travel Industry Association. 

I add my strong support to their positions and their policy recommendations. 

I also strongly endorse the recommendation that the Federal 

Government needs to reenter the global tourism marketplace, in 

partnership with the travel and tourism industry, to show the 

world that the U.S. is a desirable and a welcoming destination. 

In addition, it must be noted that not all challenges facing the 

industry are solely focused internationally. For both domestic and 

international travelers, a safe and efficient transportation system 

is indispensable. And not only are safe roads essential, but some 

roads are compelling attractions in their own right, as evidenced by 

the National Scenic Byway Program. This program recognizes 

those byways that have unique scenic, historic, and cultural qualities. These are the roads that Americans love. 

In Oregon, we’ve found that our Scenic Byways Program creates 

desirable attractions for domestic and international visitors alike. 

Oregon’s award-winning Guide to Scenic Byways highlights our 

natural attributes and our attractions, and it proposes itineraries 

for our visitors to use in planning their trips. This is one of the 

most popular pieces for our international guests. And this guide, 

and many of the enhancements to Oregon’s Byway Program, have 

been developed with funding from the Federal Highway Administration. 

Yet, according to a recent study by Cambridge Systematics for 

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the existing revenue streams into 

the Federal Highway Trust Fund leave gaps of $23 billion to $48 

billion a year in meeting the Federal share of capital investments 

necessary to both maintain and improve the Nation’s highway system, respectively. The same study projects that the Highway Trust 

Fund could be in deficit as early as 2008, well before the end of 

the SAFETEA–LU authorization period. I strongly encourage the 

Federal Government to take action to address the potentiality of a 

Highway Trust Fund going into deficit. 

I also share the concern about the need to upgrade the U.S. Air 

Traffic Control Organization, and join in urging this committee to 

address these concerns next year, when the Airport and Airways 

Trust Fund is reauthorized. 

In addition, I urge Congress to continue full funding for the Essential Air Service Program, because many rural communities depend on the assistance from this program to maintain their air 

service, and many travelers, likewise, then rely on this air service 

to visit rural destinations and our public lands. 

Indeed, America’s public lands are not only preservers of our natural resources and our natural heritage, but they are icons of the 

American experience and popular attractions for millions of visitors. In Oregon, over 50 percent of the state’s land mass is in public ownership, and nowhere, as you know, Senator, is the prominence of iconic grandeur afforded to Oregon more powerfully than 

48 

on these public lands—in Crater Lake National Park, the Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Park, the entire Oregon coast, the 

Mount Hood National Forest, just to name a few—yet, these public 

lands face manifold obligations. 

To focus on just one example specifically, the Mount Hood National Forest serves 4 million people a year that visit the national 

forest. More than a million people receive their drinking water 

from Mount Hood. The total forest acreage is 1.1 million acres, 

with 17 percent designated as wilderness. There are 812 miles of 

recreational trails and 268 resident wildlife species, including 

seven that are endangered. Pressures on the Federal public lands 

are complex, and we’re beginning to see trends in visitation stagnate, and even decline, for some national parks and Federal lands. 

To avert that outcome, I urge that Congress carefully examine 

the vital role of Federal lands as attractions for our visitors, and 

that the Federal land agencies be given the staff and budgets necessary for them to budget their dual mission of preserving the resources while providing for the enjoyment of the public. 

Now, I’m confident that all of today’s testimony has illuminated 

the fact that travel and tourism policy currently involves several 

levels of our Federal system of government. The Federal Tourism 

Policy Council that was established by Congress in 1981 has performed a useful role in this regard, but it has been handicapped 

by limited authority and a lack of participation by senior policymaking officials. For this reason, I strongly endorse the recommendation of the Travel Business Roundtable for establishment 

of a Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism. The 

stature and credibility such a Presidential Council would make, it 

would result in making it a promising vehicle to formulate, coordinate, and oversee public policies affecting travel and tourism. 

We know the industry has a tremendous impact on the U.S. 

economy, and its potential economic and diplomatic impact could be 

even greater by addressing these aforementioned barriers. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present these ideas and suggestions, and I’m happy to answer questions and provide further information. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TODD DAVIDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON TOURISM

COMMISSION; CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE TOURISM DIRECTORS; PASTCHAIR, WESTERN STATES TOURISM POLICY COUNCIL

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Todd Davidson and I have the privilege and pleasure of serving as the Executive Director 

of the Oregon Tourism Commission, the official tourism office for the State of Oregon. 

It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today on behalf of the Oregon Tourism 

Commission, the National Council of State Tourism Directors (NCSTD), and the 

Western States Tourism Policy Council (WSTPC). 

The NCSTD, a council of the Travel Industry Association of America, brings together the tourism directors from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 

five U.S. territories—and their staffs. The NCSTD serves state/territory tourism offices as: 

• A common, unified voice. 

• A catalyst for developing programs that benefit all states and territories. 

• A harmonizer in the diversity of needs, priorities and values. 

49 

The mission of the NCSTD is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and 

leadership on travel industry issues impacting states and territories. 

The WSTPC is a regional consortium of thirteen western state tourism offices, including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The WSTPC mission is to support public policies that enhance the capacity of tourism and recreation 

to have a positive impact on the economy and the environment of states and communities in the West. 

We commend you, Mr. Chairman, as well as Senator Dorgan and the other members of the Subcommittee, for holding this important and timely hearing. Travel and 

tourism is a significant part of the Nation’s economy and we believe its economic 

impact will be even greater if the industry and the Federal Government can work 

together to develop and implement appropriate public policies. 

Size and Scale 

Although nearly everyone is a tourist at one time or another, usually many times 

over, and although one would be hard put to identify a state, a Congressional District, or a region that does not attract tourists—to the delight of local businesses— 

the size and scale of travel and tourism is often not fully appreciated. 

A top-line summary would disclose that travel and tourism is one of America’s 

largest employers, with 7.3 direct travel-generated jobs (one in every eighteen U.S. 

non-farm jobs is in travel and tourism) and $163 billion in travel-generated payroll. 

It is one of America’s largest retail sales industries, producing $645 billion in direct 

travel expenditures and nearly $100 billion in Federal, state and local tax revenue. 

And travel and tourism is one of America’s largest service exports, with $93.3 billion 

spent by international visitors in the U.S., resulting in a $4.0 billion balance of 

trade surplus for our country. (2004 data) 

In Oregon, in recognition of the important position that tourism has taken in the 

state’s economy, the state legislature enacted the Tourism Investment Proposal in 

2003, which implemented a 1 percent statewide lodging tax and dedicated 100 percent of the revenue to Travel Oregon to carry out its mission. This legislation took 

our budget from 47th in the U.S. at $3 million/year to an estimated $8.5 million 

annually. 

And today, Oregon is experiencing growth rates in visitor expenditures in the 

range of 6.5–7.5 percent growth each year—our fastest rate of growth in the past 

5 years. And I am thrilled to stand before you today and celebrate the fact that visitor spending in Oregon reached nearly $7.5 billion last year! 

Through every program, great idea and minor tweak the Oregon Tourism Commission implements—we strive to never take our eyes off of the prize—it’s about 

jobs. Good jobs for Oregonians. 

Jobs where they can learn work maturity skills and jobs where they can establish their careers. 

Jobs where they can become part of a major multi-national corporation and jobs 

where they are the sole-proprietor—showing up every morning to unlock the 

door. 

Today, more than 88,000 Oregonians owe their jobs to visitors traveling and 

spending dollars, Euros, Yen and other currencies in our state. 

Unfulfilled Potential 

As substantial as the economic contributions of travel and tourism are for the Nation, they could be greater. With regard to the international market, for example, 

the U.S. is just now returning to the level of international visitors that we had before 9/11, buoyed primarily by the growth of Canadian travel to the U.S. Despite 

that recovery, the U.S. share of the global tourism market declined 36 percent between 1992 and 2004, when world tourism grew 52 percent. The fact is that in 1992 

the U.S. received 9.4 percent of all international travelers but by 2004 the figure 

had fallen to 6 percent. 

While declining global market share was occurring prior to 9/11, national policies 

dictated by homeland security concerns have exacerbated this trend by making 

international travel to the U.S. more protracted and less convenient. 

While the figures may not be as stark for the unrealized potential of increased 

domestic travel, where steady increases have been the rule for more than half a century, the potential for expansion is apparent when barriers to growth posed by infrastructure shortcomings are understood. 

50 

Barriers to International Visitation to the U.S. 

For many years, the U.S. has not fully appreciated the economic and diplomatic 

importance of the global tourism market. As a Nation, we have not sufficiently recognized that millions of international visitors to the U.S. are a vital export for our 

Nation, whose expenditures for food, accommodations, travel, admissions and shopping have a highly positive impact on our balance of trade and support millions of 

American jobs. We have not completely realized that the experiences of millions of 

international visitors interacting with Americans from every walk of life make a significant contribution toward showing the world what we are about as a people. We 

have not understood that we as a Nation are engaged in an intense competition 

with other nations for this global tourism market and that, without a commitment 

from the national government to engage in that competitive marketplace, we are severely disadvantaged in that competition. 

As noted above, even before 9/11, our competitive global tourism position was slipping. Even before 9/11, our systems for distributing and processing visas and for inspecting and welcoming international visitors were inadequate. Even before 9/11, 

the Federal Government had abandoned its modest efforts to promote and market 

our Nation as a prime global tourist destination. Since 9/11, these problems have 

become worse. 

Since 9/11, homeland security needs have understandably been given the highest 

priority and this has meant stricter visa requirements and tighter border control 

and inspection processes. The travel and tourism industry has supported efforts to 

improve homeland security and has worked closely with Congress and with the Departments of State and Homeland Security to address those needs. The industry has 

been impressed especially by the January 17, 2006, announcement of the RiceChertoff Joint Vision and has pledged full cooperation in its implementation. Yet, 

it is clear to our industry that too often policies with the laudable goal of improving 

national security have had the inadvertent consequence of discouraging international visitors from coming to the U.S. 

The barriers to the facilitation of international travel posed by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and by entry-exit procedures and visa policies are 

well explained in the testimony today of the Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and 

the Travel Industry Association of American (TIA) and we express our strong support for the positions and policy recommendations advocated by Mr. Tisch and Mr. 

Rasulo on behalf of their two organizations. 

There is no need here to reiterate the reasoning and the explanations provided 

by TBR and TIA. We would like, however, to emphasize the potential negative impact of the WHTI on western states. Seven of the thirteen WSTPC states border 

directly on Canada or Mexico and all thirteen of these states receive large numbers 

of international tourist-visitors, especially from Canada. We do not challenge the 

need for more secure and verifiable identification requirements for travelers across 

our land borders and we do not argue with the strategy and goals of the WHTI. 

But we do believe that the Departments of State and Homeland Security need more 

time to develop and implement a workable means of identifying cross-border travelers quickly, efficiently and effectively. We are concerned that these two departments will not be able to implement their current deadlines in a way that balances 

homeland security with the goal of free and open travel. 

We also wish to endorse strongly the recommendation that the U.S. national government needs to reenter the global tourism marketplace, in partnership with the 

travel and tourism industry, to show the world that this country is a desirable travel destination and that we want and welcome their business. 

A Necessary Transportation Infrastructure 

For both domestic and international travelers a modern, safe and efficient intermodal transportation system is indispensable. When the traveler is confronted by 

interminable highway congestion, by crowded and delayed flights and by difficulties 

either flying or driving to rural areas that have so many scenic and historic attractions to offer visitors, then travel and tourism suffers and declines and the entire 

Nation loses. There is no more significant barrier to travel and tourism than poor 

transportation. 

Not only are good, safe roads absolutely essential to travel and tourism, with 

eighty percent of all travel taking place on the roads, but some roads are compelling 

attractions in their own right. A notable example is the National Scenic Byways 

Program, which recognizes those roads that have unique scenic, historic or cultural 

qualities. These are the roads that Americans love. In Oregon, we have found that 

our scenic byways are prime attractions to our fellow Americans but also to international visitors. 

51 

In Oregon, one of the most popular programs, especially the accompanying collateral materials, with our international guests, as well as the international travel 

trade and media is the award winning Oregon Guide to Scenic Byways. Of course 

the guide highlights Oregon’s natural attributes and attractions, but more importantly, the scenic byways enable us to develop itineraries and packages for our visitors to use in planning their trips. For Oregon, a strong byways program makes the 

planning of a vacation easier for our visitors. The Guide and many of the enhancements to Oregon’s byway program have come through funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

Yet, we are concerned over the future of the Federal highway program. According 

to a recent study by Cambridge Systematics for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 

existing revenue streams into the Federal Highways Trust Fund leave significant 

gaps in meeting the Federal share of capital investments necessary to ‘‘maintain’’ 

and ‘‘improve’’ the Nation’s highway and transit systems. The average annual Federal fiscal gap to ‘‘maintain’’ highways and transit systems through 2015 is projected 

to be $23 billion and the average annual fiscal gap to ‘‘improve’’ highways and transit systems through 2015 will be $48 billion. This same study projects that the Federal Highway Trust Fund will soon be facing a fiscal crisis of historic proportions 

and it could be in deficit as early as 2008, well before the end of the SAFETEA– 

LU authorization period in 2009. 

Not only will this surface transportation funding crisis affect overall road safety 

and efficiency, it will have a direct impact on such ‘‘tourism-friendly’’ transportation 

programs as scenic byways, transportation enhancements and national park roads. 

Toward this end, we recommend that the Federal Government take action soon 

to cope with the immediate problem of a Highway Trust Fund going into deficit. 

With regard to air transportation, we share the concern about the need to upgrade 

the U.S. Air Traffic Control Organization and join in urging this Committee to address these concerns next year when the Airport and Airways Trust Fund is reauthorized. We look forward to suggesting more detailed recommendations when reauthorization is being considered. 

We also urge Congress to continue full funding for the Essential Air Service Program. Many rural communities are dependent on that funding assistance to maintain air service and many domestic and international travelers rely on that air service to visit tourist attractions that would otherwise be relatively inaccessible. 

The Crucial Importance of the Federal Lands 

America’s national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other Federal lands are not 

only the preservers of our natural resources and our national heritage. They are 

also immensely popular attractions for millions of domestic and international visitors who go there to admire, enjoy, recreate and get inspiration. Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, the Grand Canyon, Denali, Mt. Hood, the Everglades, Mount Rushmore, the Great Smokies, the Blue Ridge Parkway and other national parks and forests are icons of the American experience. Nearly 25 percent of all international 

visitors visit a national park during their time in the U.S. In the West, where the 

Federal agencies manage so much territory—more than sixty percent of the land 

area in several states—the Federal role is seemingly omnipresent. 

In Oregon, over 50 percent of the state’s land mass is in public ownership and 

nowhere is the prominence of iconic grandeur afforded to Oregon more than on 

these public lands—for example, Crater Lake National Park, the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Park, the entire Oregon Coast (under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department), and the Mt. Hood National Forest just to 

name a few. 

To focus on one example specifically, Mt. Hood is likely one of the most prominent 

icons in Oregon. It stands proudly on the horizon above the Portland skyline from 

Washington Park, and it beckons international and domestic visitors as they fly up 

the Columbia River Gorge to land at Portland International Airport. In short, the 

Mt. Hood National Forest serves or provides: 

• Four million people who visit Mt. Hood every year. 

• More than one million people who receive their drinking water from Mt. Hood. 

• Total forest acreage of 1.1 million with 17 percent designated as Wilderness. 

• 812 miles of recreational trails. 

• And 268 resident wildlife species with seven that are endangered. 

Pressures from outside the Federal lands are manifold and, as a result, we are 

beginning to see trends in visitation stagnate and even decline for some national 

parks and other Federal lands. The consequences of this include lost opportunities 

for new generations to experience the grandeur of the great outdoors, lost opportuniVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
52 

ties to enhance health and fitness through recreation and outdoor activities on the 

Federal lands and lost opportunities to showcase these iconic American experiences 

to the world. 

No barrier to travel and tourism may have a more severe impact than a decline 

in the appeal and enjoyment of the Federal lands. For the industry, for the gateway 

communities that serve the Federal lands and for the American people, the risk is 

great. 

To avert that outcome, we urge that Congress carefully examine the vital role of 

the Federal lands as natural and recreational attractions for our domestic and international visitors and that the Federal land agencies be given the staff and budgets 

necessary for them to balance their dual mission of preserving the natural and historic resources while providing for the enjoyment of the public. 

The MDCP: A Useful Model 

Sometimes a major barrier to realizing the tourism potential of a community or 

a region is simply a lack of appreciation for what the area has to offer and a lack 

of understanding of the nature of the tourism market—especially the international 

tourism market. 

A program already operating at the U.S. Department of Commerce provides a salutary example of how the Federal Government can work in partnership with state 

tourism offices and other state agencies to overcome the barrier created by this lack 

of understanding. This is the Market Development Cooperator Program (MDCP) 

that operates out of the International Trade Administration. Although designed as 

a means of promoting manufacturing exports, it has demonstrated a capability of 

serving tourism as a service export. In 2002, the Western States Tourism Policy Council received a $400,000 threeyear MDCP award. This is a cooperating agreement that requires the WSTPC to 

provide a 2:1 match of $800,000. The WSTPC has used this MDCP agreement to 

develop a model training program that has educated more than 1,200 business persons and local officials in gateway communities near the national parks, forests and 

other Federal lands throughout the WSTPC states. This training shows these local 

leaders how to recognize and develop what they have to offer the international tourism market and how they can enter and succeed in that global market. Graduates 

of this training program are now participating in major international tourism trade 

shows in the U.S. and abroad, explaining what their gateway communities have to 

offer visitors attracted to the nearby national parks, forests and other Federal lands. 

(Note: Travel South, a consortium of southern State Tourism Offices, received an 

MDCP award several years ago, which it used in a slightly different international 

tourism marketing campaign.) 

We believe the MDCP is an excellent example of an effective partnership between 

the Federal Government (the Commerce Department and the Federal land agencies), the states (the State Tourism Offices) and the private-sector (local tourism 

businesses) that synergistically combines the best resources of each to build local 

economies through the engine of tourism. 

We recommend that the MDCP be refined with a tourism-specific mission and be 

given expanded resources to work with more states and communities. 

Intergovernmental and Interagency Coordination and Cooperation 

Travel and tourism policy is complex and multi-faceted, involving all levels of our 

Federal system of government and many different agencies. In the preceding testimony, we have referred to programs and policies involving multiple Federal departments and agencies, including the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Transportation, Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, and more than a dozen of their responsible agencies. We have also referred to the role of State and local governments. 

As a result, a multi-agency approach is essential in developing policies and programs that will enable travel and tourism to fulfill its potential with regard to economic development and international understanding. The Federal Tourism Policy 

Council, originally established by Congress in 1981, has often performed a useful 

role in this regard but it has been handicapped by limited authority and a lack of 

participation by senior policymaking officials. For this reason, we endorse the recommendation of the Travel Business Roundtable for establishment of a Presidential 

Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism. We believe the stature and credibility of 

such a Presidential Council would make it a promising vehicle to formulate, coordinate and oversee public policies affecting travel and tourism that would be beneficial to the Nation. 

Summary and Conclusions 

Travel and tourism has a huge, but often little known, impact on the U.S. economy but its potential economic and diplomatic impact could be even greater with 

53 

the removal of several significant barriers and an effective public-private partnership. 

U.S. barriers to international travel have been aggravated by understandable efforts to ensure maximum homeland security without fully considering the impact of 

stricter entry-exit procedures and visa policies on free and open travel. The Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative is of particular concern because of the importance of 

Canadian travel and the likelihood that the Departments of State and Homeland 

Security will not be able to implement their current deadlines without unduly damaging travel across our land borders. 

The U.S. would also benefit greatly from a resumption of Federal support for an 

international tourism marketing partnership with the private travel and tourism industry that would show the world that the U.S. is a prime tourism destination. The 

Oregon Tourism Investment Proposal provides an example of what can be accomplished with wise and focused public policies. 

Two major domestic barriers that can prevent travel and tourism from fulfilling 

its potential are threats to the fiscal stability of the transportation infrastructure 

and a perceived decline in the appeal and enjoyment of the Federal lands. Oregon 

benefits greatly from its National Scenic Byways Program and from the appeal of 

the Mt. Hood National Forest and other Federal lands and would suffer correspondingly from any decline in either. 

The Market Development Cooperator Program provides a useful model for a Federal-State-local and public-private partnership to develop the tourism product. As 

shown by the WSTPC experience, the MDCP can be used to educate and train local 

tourism businesses and community leaders through cooperative partnerships and 

then assist them in developing and marketing themselves in broader tourism markets. 

A comprehensive, intergovernmental and interagency approach will be essential 

in developing and implementing public policies that will best fulfill the potential of 

travel and tourism. A Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism could 

help provide such an approach. 

We appreciate this opportunity to present these ideas and suggestions and will 

be happy to answer questions or provide further information. Thank you. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Todd. Those are all excellent. I do 

have to apologize that there is a series of three stacked votes. But, 

aloha, Dr. Pressler. We do want to hear from you. 

I’m afraid that we’ll have to put our questions to you in written 

form. Senator Inouye has been around here long enough that he 

should control the Senate agenda and when we vote, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. Do you want to introduce your witness, Senator? 

Senator INOUYE. Dr. Pressler is one of the great citizens of Hawaii. She has served in the government, in the private sector. And 

she is, without question, one of the Nation’s experts on health. She 

has, I think, every degree that one can hope to get, from M.D., 

master’s degree—how many master’s degrees do you have? 

Dr. PRESSLER. Three. 

Senator INOUYE. Three. 

Senator SMITH. That’s three more than I have. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INOUYE. So, I’m honored to present Dr. Pressler. 

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA ‘‘GINNY’’ PRESSLER, M.D., MBA, 

FACS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGIC BUSINESS 

DEVELOPMENT, HAWAII PACIFIC HEALTH 

Dr. PRESSLER. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman Inouye. My name 

is Dr. Virginia Pressler. I’m Senior Vice President for Hawaii Pacific Health, which is the four-hospital system in Hawaii of 

Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, which is the only 

children’s specialty hospital in the Pacific; also, Straub Clinic & 

54 

Hospital, Pali Momi Hospital, and, on Kauai, Wilcox Hospital/ 

Kauai Medical Clinic. 

I would like to express particular appreciation to Senator Inouye 

for his role in helping to create this subcommittee. 

You have my written testimony, so I will keep my remarks brief. 

Tourism and health are the two largest industries in Hawaii, representing $11 billion and $7 billion, respectively, of the gross 

state product. Seven million tourists per year visit Hawaii. More 

than one-third of these visitors are from Japan, Europe, Latin 

America, and other foreign countries. Japanese tourists are a particularly important segment of Hawaii’s international tourism market, representing 1.5 million visitors in 2004, and spending 70 percent more per day than visitors from the western United States. 

Twenty-four thousand visitors per year have reason to visit our 

emergency rooms, for reasons ranging from coral cuts to heart attacks, drownings, and major trauma, including major burns. Half 

of these emergency room visits are from international visitors. The 

Straub Burn Unit in Hawaii serves a vital role as the only burn 

unit in the Pacific. 

I would like to share a few brief stories from representative patients who would not have survived had the burn unit not existed 

in Honolulu. 

The first is a professional volcanologist who fell through the 

crust of an advancing lava flow as part of his work with the Volcano National Parks. He sustained severe burns to his lower extremities and spent 2 months in our Straub Burn Unit. Twenty 

years later, he continues to send letters of appreciation from Florida to the physician and staff who saved his life. 

Two North Carolina visitors were severely burned in a plane 

crash while viewing the Volcano National Parks. They were airevacuated from the Big Island to the Straub Burn Unit. Their 

chance of survival was estimated at less than 20 percent. They visited Straub, just 2 weeks ago, to express their thankfulness for the 

fact that the Straub Burn Unit saved their lives. 

Five tuna fishermen from Kwajalein Island were evacuated to 

the Straub Burn Unit, when their large fishing boat had a flash 

fire in the engine room, killing the captain and severely burning 

these five men. They all survived their critical burns through the 

care they received at the Straub Burn Unit. 

A Japanese visitor sustained severe injury to her lower leg with 

developing gangrene, in an accident on the Island of Lanai. She 

was treated in the burn unit at Straub, due to the severity of her 

wounds. This was 5 years ago, and she and her husband visit the 

Straub Burn Unit to express their thanks when they come to Hawaii from Japan each year to visit. 

The Straub Burn Unit provides consultation to the entire Pacific. 

It is not uncommon to treat sailors from ships from within one- to 

two-thousand miles of Honolulu. We also receive periodic consults 

and patients from Tripler Army Medical Center. 

The Burn Unit operates at a significant loss each year, but it is 

maintained by Hawaii Pacific Health as a vital service to the entire 

Pacific. 

Finally, more than 11,000 visitors come to Hawaii for planned 

medical treatment each year. We recently had a woman from Korea 

55 

who came to one of our hospitals for a laparoscopic colon resection 

for cancer because we have a surgical oncologist who is trained in 

this procedure. 

The potential for medical tourism remains largely untapped in 

Hawaii. Can you think of a better place to recover from heart disease or cancer? It is particularly attractive for Asians, because they 

feel comfortable being cared for by physicians and caregivers who 

are frequently Asian and also speak their language. 

We appreciate the work of this subcommittee and all the Federal 

efforts to help keep Hawaii as a safe travel destination. The work 

of the Centers for Disease Control on pandemic preparedness is 

particularly appreciated, as Hawaii is likely to be the portal of first 

entry for any kind of avian flu or other pandemic. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’m happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pressler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA ‘‘GINNY’’ PRESSLER, M.D., MBA, FACS, SENIOR

VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGIC BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, HAWAII PACIFIC HEALTH

My name is Dr. Virginia Pressler, Senior Vice President, Strategic Business Development for Hawaii Pacific Health (HPH) which is the four hospital system of 

Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, Kapi’olani Medical Center at Pali 

Momi, Straub Clinic & Hospital, and Wilcox Hospital/Kauai Medical Clinic. In addition, HPH has 23 clinics and numerous outreach programs. 

Access to quality medical infrastructure is essential for any tourism destination 

to remain competitive. In addition to the beach and weather. Hawaii’s advantage 

as a premier tourism destination is due to the reputation of its medical infrastructure—both personnel and facilities. Hawaii is both a dream destination for international travelers and at the same time one of the remotest places in the world. 

Visitors come to Hawaii knowing that when they visit—in the case of a medical 

emergency—they will have access to medical care that is at a standard comparable 

to any mainland facility. 

As you are probably aware, Hawaii continues to be one of the premiere destination choices for both domestic and particularly foreign travelers. In 2004, the number of visitors by air to Hawaii increased by 8.5 percent from the previous year to 

approximately seven million. Two million three hundred thousand of these visitors 

(34 percent of total) were visitors from Japan, Canada, Europe, Oceania, Latin 

America or other foreign countries. The economic impacts are significant. Tourism 

expenditures in Hawaii were close to $11 billion in the year 2004 and have continued to increase since. Japanese visitors are a particularly important segment of Hawaii’s international tourist market. In 2004, the number of Japanese tourists increased by 8.6 percent from the previous year reaching 1,482,085. More significantly, the Japanese represent the highest daily expenditures spending more than 

70 percent more per day than our U.S. West Coast visitors. 

With this many visitors, it is inevitable that many will require emergency and/ 

or unplanned medical treatment. The Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism estimates that in 2004, close to twenty four thousand visitors needed to access our emergency rooms for medical care. Approximately 

half of those visits were international tourists. 

An example of emergency services that are accessible for all visitors is emergency 

burn services at Straub Clinic and Hospital—an affiliate of Hawaii Pacific Health. 

The Straub Burn Unit was founded in 1983, to serve as a primary and tertiary burn 

treatment center for Hawaii and the Pacific Region. The Straub Burn Unit serves 

as both a primary and tertiary burn treatment center for Hawaii and the Pacific 

region providing care for both residents and non-residents. Patients come to the 

Straub Burn Unit from not only all parts of Hawaii, but also areas within the Pacific Basin. The Straub Burn Unit has also provided care to patients from Tripler 

Army Medical Center and continues to be a source of advice and consultation because Tripler does not have a consistent burn care program. The Straub Burn Unit 

includes three intensive care unit rooms designated specifically for burn patients, 

transport lift to place patients within the burn tub, and highly specialized beds for 

greater patient comfort and care. The patients treated at the Straub Burn Unit benefit by having their care provided locally, eliminating the need for travel to the 

56 

mainland thus avoiding increased risk and expense and also facilitating family support, a very important component of a burn patient’s recovery. 

Since its opening in 1983 through 2004, the Straub Burn Unit has admitted a 

total of 783 patients with 675 residents and 108 non-residents. The numbers are not 

as important as the fact that the Center serves an invaluable resource for unplanned and emergent care. (See attached letter from Dr. Schulz with specific examples of patients served). Most importantly, the Center also serves as an essential 

public health resource in the event of a major airline disaster. With the rapidly increasing number of flights to and from Hawaii annually, the Burn center will play 

a key role in the recovery and treatment of injured passengers. Financially, the 

Burn Unit operates at a loss given the low rate of reimbursement. However it is 

an essential service that Hawaii Pacific Health maintains to ensure that both residents and visitors alike have access to specialized care in the event of an emergency. 

Finally, medical infrastructure is also a vital component in an area we have not 

fully explored in Hawaii—Medical Tourism. Many foreign countries such as India, 

South Africa and Thailand have invested in medical infrastructure to attract foreign 

tourists by providing specialized care. The medical treatments range from simple 

comprehensive medical check-ups to elective procedures such as rhinoplasty, 

liposuction, breast augmentation, orthodontics, and LASIK eye surgery. These destinations often also provide medical services for larger and life-saving procedures 

such as joint replacements, bone marrow transplants, and cardiac bypass surgery. 

These medical tourism destinations typically offer numerous options for tourists including sightseeing and shopping within a resort like setting. The bundling of superior medical services with the benefits of a desirable tourist location has worked 

well for places like India. Already in Hawaii more than 11,000 visitors come for 

planned medical treatment. Given Hawaii’s location and reputation as a tourist destination—this potential remains largely untapped. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

STRAUB CLINIC & HOSPITAL

Honolulu, HI, June 16, 2006 

VIRGINIA PRESSLER, M.D., 

Senior Vice President, 

Strategic Business Development, 

Hawaii Pacific Health, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Dear Doctor Pressler: 

Thank you for your recent inquiry. It is very timely since recently I have been 

in contact with four patients who were treated at our Straub Hospital; who would 

not have survived had the unit not existed in Honolulu. The first letter was from 

a patient who fell through the crust of a advancing lava flow on the Big Island as 

part of his work with the Volcano National Parks Center. He sustained severe burns 

to his lower extremities. This coincided with a recent visit from two 65+ visitors 

from North Carolina who were severely burned in a plane crash on the Big Island 

when they were viewing the Volcano National Park. These patients, under our instruction, were incubated at Hilo Hospital and air evacuated to the Bum Unit at 

Straub. Their chance for survival was less than 20 percent and this surely would 

have been significantly reduced if they had been transferred to a burn center on the 

mainland if in fact, we could have found air transportation for them from Honolulu 

International Airport to a mainland burn center. They visited with me in my office 

2 weeks ago with their two daughters who are RNs and were extremely thankful 

for our efforts in saving their lives. These patients shared a similar severe prognosis 

with five tuna fishermen from a large boat fishing near Kwajalein Island. A flash 

fire in the engine room led to the death of the boat’s Captain and severe burns to 

five fishermen. They were air evacuated from Kwajalein to the Straub Burn Unit 

and all survived their critical burns. Last, I received a letter from a patient and her 

husband from Japan last week. Five years ago she sustained a severe injury to her 

lower leg with developing gangrene in an accident on Lanai. She was treated in our 

Burn Unit due to the severity of her wounds. They visit our Burn Unit every year, 

when visiting on vacation, and are extremely thankful for the treatment they received. 

We not only supply treatment at Straub Clinic Burn Unit, but we provide consultation with all of the islands and the pacific basin. It is not uncommon to treat 

sailors from ships from within 1–2 thousand miles of Honolulu or to receive questions regarding less critical burns from emergency room physicians on the Big IsVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
57 

land, Kauai, Lanai, and Molokai. We additionally receive periodic consults and patients from Tripler Army Medical Center since they no longer provide burn care 

treatment for critical burns and due to periodic deployment of their plastic surgeons 

and general surgeons they do not have a consistent burn care program. We additionally do periodic seminars for nurses and physicians throughout the islands and 

would clearly be responsible for the triaging and treatment in the event of a catastrophic fire or thermal event. 

I hope you find this information helpful and we are very thankful for Congressional consideration regarding the Straub Clinic & Hospital Burn Unit. 

Sincerely yours, 

ROBERT W. SCHULZ, M.D., 

Plastic Surgeon. 

Senator SMITH. Doctor, I can’t think of a better place to recover 

from Congress than Hawaii, and have done so in a number of recesses, particularly over Christmas. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. I’m going to have some questions I’ll submit in 

written form. 

But before I turn it over to Senator Inouye, let me apologize, 

again, for being interrupted by a series of votes. We really appreciate your coming here. You have helped fill in the pieces of this 

puzzle of how America can better its opportunity in tourism. And 

each of you has a part of that, and helped give us some marching 

orders, I think, where we can apply pressure on our government 

to do a better job. 

Senator Inouye? 

Senator INOUYE [presiding]. I thank you. 

I gather, from the testimony, that most of you feel that the government is not providing much assistance; instead, it’s providing a 

lot of obstacles; and they haven’t received the message yet. I asked 

the question of one of the witnesses from the government, and 

there was—97 percent receive their visas in one or two days, but 

that’s 97 percent of the approved travelers. You indicated that in 

Brazil the average applicant takes 130 days? 

Mr. TISCH. The wait time—— 

Senator INOUYE. Yes. 

Mr. TISCH.—in the visa process. 

Senator INOUYE. If that’s—— 

Mr. TISCH. And—— 

Senator INOUYE.—the case—— 

Mr. TISCH. And you have to get to the Consulate, so it’s also the 

time of—taken out of your day to take your family, if that’s how 

you’re—who you’re going to travel with to get to the Consulate. 

Senator INOUYE. How long is the waiting or the application time 

in Paris? 

Mr. RASULO. Well, Paris, Senator, is participating in the Visa 

Waiver Program, so there is no visa that is necessary for travel to 

and from France. 

Senator INOUYE. And what about Britain? 

Mr. RASULO. Same. There are 27 countries that participate in a 

Visa Waiver Program, which are the countries that are—you know, 

the largest number of visitors to the United States. 

Senator INOUYE. What is it in the Philippines? 

Mr. TISCH. I don’t have that information, sir. 

Mr. RASULO. I don’t either, but it—suffice to say that, since 

9/11, Senator, any traveler—foreigner wishing to come to the 

58 

United States, not from a visa waiver country, has to appear in 

person at a Consulate. Every member of the family has to appear 

in person. 

In Brazil, for example, which is a vast country, there are only 

four locations that individuals can go to be interviewed. So, quite 

often, Brazilians have to make a trip to go to a city where there 

is a Consulate to be interviewed, make their interview, then go 

back home and wait for the approvals. 

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that our government has a policy 

of preference? 

Mr. RASULO. I would not necessarily describe it as a policy of 

preference—or I should say, I’m not aware of that—but one that 

clearly does not—that presents obstacles for people who are not 

part of the Visa Waiver Program to come, in the form of waiting 

times, which is quite often outside the planning horizon of international travelers; meaning they decide to come to the United 

States 2 months before their vacation, only to find out that it’s 130 

days to apply for a visa—so, needless to say, they don’t come—and 

that the process can be costly. It’s $100 to be interviewed, which 

is nonrefundable, even if you are not approved—and sometimes 

quite cumbersome. 

Senator INOUYE. Do you believe that the process is necessary? 

Mr. RASULO. I think that some process of personal interview—— 

Senator INOUYE. 130 days? 

Mr. RASULO.—is probably necessary; however, one could question 

why that can’t be done by videoconference, why it has to be done 

in person. I think we need to figure out how to either better staff 

or better use technology to preapprove and accelerate the process. 

Senator INOUYE. And, Mr. Tisch, you are serious about conducting classes. Is it that bad? 

Mr. TISCH. From the stories that we hear—some anecdotal, some 

from individuals who come to our shores and come to our properties, come to our theme parks—we hear the stories that are troubling. And the industry does stand ready to assist the government. 

We do offer hospitality in the travel and tourism industry, and we 

have offered up our services, and continue to. And we do have a 

good working relationship with State and DHS, in terms of having 

us explain the challenges and trying to find solutions together, and 

we will continue to assist, where we can. 

Senator INOUYE. If I may, I’d like to submit questions to all of 

you, because I might very well lose my credentials if I don’t vote. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INOUYE. And the two votes, incidentally, if you’re interested—the two votes are in reference to Iraq—how do we get out 

of there? 

So, with that—is it a recess? The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. BRAY, PRESIDENT/CEO, 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AMUSEMENT PARKS AND ATTRACTIONS

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and the Committee for holding this important hearing to explore the state of the United States tourism industry. The nearly 

$645 billion annual travel and tourism industry is one of America’s largest employers. As part of the service sector, the travel and tourism industry helps comprise 

the single largest and fastest growing component of our economy. The industry is 

critical to the economic well-being of our country, states and cities. However as a 

diverse and decentralized industry its power and value to our economy is often overlooked by policymakers and economists alike. 

America’s amusement parks and attractions are renowned worldwide and are a 

draw for Americans as well as visitors from around the world. Whether driving regionally for an end-of-year school field trip to an amusement park or flying around 

the world for a 10-day trip to Orlando, our parks and attractions are a driver of 

travel and tourism. As the President of the International Association of Amusement 

Parks and Attractions, I welcome the opportunity to submit testimony about the 

state of the industry. Attached you will find the Executive Summary of a comprehensive study that we commissioned with the Travel Industry Association of 

America last year which provides detailed information on the economic impact of the 

parks and attractions industry. 

The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA) represents 4,500 members worldwide ranging from large amusement and theme parks, 

such as Walt Disney World and Universal in Orlando, to small independently-owned 

parks and major industry suppliers. The contributions of IAAPA members to both 

domestic and overseas economies are staggering. Travel and tourism enjoyed a $1.3 

trillion share of the U.S. economy in 2004. Travelers’ spending in 2005 generated 

$103.5 billion in tax revenue for local, state, and Federal Governments in the U.S. 

The 328 million amusement park guests who visited U.S. parks and attractions in 

2004 spent $47.8 billion directly on admission, concessions and services while visiting the more than 600 U.S. amusement parks. Amusement parks and attractions 

not only help support the U.S. economy, they also stimulate growth in local businesses and communities. The amusement industry provides jobs for upwards of 

500,000 year-round and seasonal employees in the U.S. Many individuals’ first jobs 

are in the amusement industry. The industry is a huge employer of youth and takes 

special pride in hiring, training and promoting America’s youth. 

The population that visits amusement parks and attractions in the U.S. is not 

strictly limited to domestic visitors; people traveling from other countries make up 

a large portion of visitor numbers. Amusement and theme parks in the U.S. alone 

attracted more than 10.6 million overseas travelers in 2004. These travelers spent 

an estimated $3.7 billion on expenses related to their travels. The forecast for total 

travel expenditure by international visitors in 2006 is $88.3 billion. As shown by the 

data, both domestic and foreign visitors of amusement parks and attractions are extremely beneficial to the economy. 

Tourism has steadily improved in the last 5 years, and all indications show that 

this has the potential to be a good year for the industry and that attendance at 

amusement parks and attractions will continue to increase. However, there are several factors that have the potential to impact the industry. While we recognize that 

some of these factors cannot be controlled, such as the weather, others can be influenced by policymakers. 

Fuel Costs: Increasing gas prices could impact travelers’ ability to visit amusement parks and attractions. People who are planning to travel less or not at all this 

summer cited the reason as the price of fuel 26 percent of the time. Fuel costs will 

drive up vacation costs for both drivers and those who fly to their destinations. Energy costs have the potential to negatively impact attendance this year. 

Security with Accessibility: It is critical that legitimate foreign visitors who want 

to travel to the United States are able to obtain visas in a timely, efficient and ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
60 

nomical manner. It takes visitors from some Latin American countries months to 

obtain visas to come to the United States, and the interviews required to obtain the 

visas often require a special trip within their country, at a great expense. This creates a great disincentive to travel to the United States. If improvements are not 

made, we will lose these travel and tourism dollars to other countries. We support 

the goals of the Rice-Chertoff Initiative announced in January to better utilize technology to facilitate legitimate travel to the United States. 

IAAPA is also concerned that ample consideration, implementation time, and public promotion be provided before the border requirements for the Western Hemisphere Trade Initiative (WHTI) go into effect. The WHTI, a part of the Intelligence 

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, requires passports for all travel 

across U.S. borders by January 1, 2008, and travelers over water and by air as of 

January 1, 2007. While IAAPA understands the need for border protection, we 

stress the importance of the timing and manner of any new requirements. IAAPA 

would support the following changes to WHTI which are included in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611: 

• 18-month extension of deadline for implementation of the WHTI to June 1, 

2009; 

• Authority to issue a passport card for U.S. citizens valid for travel over land 

and sea ports between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean or Bermuda. The total passport card application fee would be under $24 and the fee 

for children under 18 would be waived; 

• State Department/DHS are required to conduct a trial program with at least 

one state whereby its driver’s license can meet the requirements for border 

crossing; 

• State/DHS are empowered to determine that certain Canadian issued identity 

documents are valid for entry into the U.S.; 

• Development of a limited process to permit citizens of the U.S. to cross the 

international border if they return within 72 hours; 

• Development of a procedure to accommodate groups of children traveling by 

land across an international border under adult supervision with parental consent without requiring a government-issued identity and citizenship document; 

and 

• Ample public promotion of the WHTI and its requirements. 

The World Travel and Tourism Council estimates that 8.7 percent of the world’s 

jobs are created by the travel and tourism industry. This, along with the data given 

above, speaks volumes about the importance of the travel and tourism. The amusement park and attractions industry is proud of the positive impact our members 

have had in creating jobs and revenue in the United States. We respectfully ask the 

Committee to consider the issues we presented. I would be happy to provide any 

additional information that would be beneficial to your understanding of the industry. Thank you for holding this hearing on this important and timely issue. 

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DOMESTIC AND OVERSEAS TRAVELERS WHO VISIT

AMUSEMENT/THEME PARKS AND OTHER ATTRACTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES— 

2005 Edition 

Sponsored by: International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions 

Prepared by: The Research Department of the Travel Industry Association of America, Washington, D.C. 

Introduction 

With the large volume of domestic travelers and overseas visitors to the United 

States interested in amusement/theme parks and other attractions today, there is 

no doubt that this type of travel is a significant part of the U.S. travel experience. 

Amusement/theme parks and other attractions generate billions of dollars for destinations by attracting visitors who spend money not only on those attractions, but 

also on related items such as transportation, lodging, food and retail shopping. 

The Economic Impact of Travelers Who Visit Amusement/Theme Parks and Other 

Attractions in the United States emphasizes the importance of amusement/theme 

parks and other attractions defined in this report as valuable products for the tourism industry and the economy. This report, which is sponsored by International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), provides analyses of the 

economic impact generated by both domestic and overseas travelers in the United 

States who visited amusement/theme parks and other attractions in 2004. Domestic 

61 

travelers could have visited at least one of five other attractions—zoos/aquariums/ 

science museums, historical places/sites/museums, performing arts events, cultural 

events/festivals, and art galleries/museums. Overseas travelers could have visited at 

least one of six other attractions, including historical places, cultural heritage sites, 

the American Indian community, concerts/plays/musicals, art galleries/museums, 

and ethnic heritage sites. 

This report includes estimates of travelers’ spending during their trips visiting 

amusement/theme parks and other attractions as well as the employment, payroll 

income and tax revenues generated by those expenditures. Detailed analyses of total 

travel volume, total trip expenditures, average trip spending and itemized expenditures by groups of travelers (defined by type of attraction and primary purpose of 

trip) are included in this report. 

The survey data used in this study do not provide information on whether the 

visit to the attraction was the primary reason for the trip, an important but not the 

primary reason for the trip, or just an incidental activity. For the purpose of this 

study, for domestic travelers citing ‘‘entertainment/ sightseeing’’ as the primary purpose of their trips, expenditures for the entire trips were included, covering not only 

their spending in amusement/theme parks and other attractions, but also on transportation, food, lodging and retail shopping. For those domestic trips that included 

one or more of the attractions above but whose primary purpose was not for ‘‘entertainment/sightseeing,’’ only expenditures on admission fees paid to the amusement/ 

theme parks and attraction(s) and some other incidental spending in the attractions 

were included. 

Based on data available for this study, domestic travel volume was measured in 

person-trips, which may have included one or more visits to amusement/theme 

parks and other attractions during one trip. 

Overseas travelers’ expenditure estimates were based on the Office of Travel and 

Tourism Industries’ In-Flight Survey data. For the purpose of this report, the estimates include overseas travelers’ spending on amusement/theme parks and other attractions, as well as spending on other travel-related items outside of parks and attractions (offsite) by those travelers who cited ‘‘leisure’’ as their main purpose of 

travel, and visiting amusement/theme parks or other attractions as the only recreational activities during their trips in the United States. International airfares are 

not included in other related items outside of parks and attractions. 

Estimates of domestic travelers’ impact were derived using the Travel Industry 

of America’s (TIA’s) proprietary Travel Economic Impact Model (TEIM). Detailed 

analyses of travel volume and characteristics as well as expenditure patterns were 

based on TIA’s TravelScope and TIA’s Travel Expenditure Survey data. Data from 

the U.S. Amusement Industry Consumer Survey conducted by IAAPA were also employed. 

The TEIM was developed by the Research Department at TIA to provide annual 

estimates of the impact of the travel activity of U.S. residents on national, state and 

local economies in this country. The TEIM estimates travel expenditures and the 

resulting business receipts, employment, payroll income and tax receipts generated 

by these expenditures. 

TIA’s Travel Expenditure Survey, a national mail survey conducted in 2005, investigated 25 traveler-spending categories such as air tickets, auto rentals, lodging, 

restaurant meals and amusement/recreation. It also collected information on travel 

characteristics for different groups of travelers. The proportions of trip expenditures 

by different traveler groups, the shares of each spending category in total travel 

spending, and average levels of each spending category were estimated using the 

survey data and incorporated with total expenditures generated by the TEIM. 

TravelScope is a cooperative research effort, funded by states, cities and other 

participants, and managed by the Research Department of TIA. TravelScope is a national mail survey conducted monthly that collects visitor volume, market share, 

trip characteristics and demographics for all U.S. residents’ travel. Once collected 

from traveling households, survey results are projected to the populations of households in each of the 48 contiguous states based on the responding household’s state 

of residence. This method ensures the statistical accuracy needed to measure U.S. 

travel volumes. 

TravelScope data in this report encompass domestic trips (i.e., within the United 

States) taken by U.S. residents during the 2004 calendar year. This survey does not 

collect data on U.S. residents traveling outside the United States or on international 

visitors’ activity in the United States. For this report, travel is measured in terms 

of person-trips and household trips. To qualify, a trip must be at least 50 miles one 

way away from home, or include one or more overnight stays in paid accommodations. Respondents are instructed to not include trips commuting to/from work or 

school or trips taken as a flight attendant or vehicle operator. One person-trip 

62 

equals one person on one trip at least 50 miles one way away from home, or includes an overnight stay in paid accommodations. See appendix A for more information. 

The In-Flight Survey is a monthly survey conducted by the Office of Travel and 

Tourism Industries in the U.S. Department of Commerce. The survey collects information from both U.S. resident and non-U.S. resident international air travelers. 

This study uses the survey results of non-U.S. resident oversea air travelers. 

Executive Summary 

In 2004, visitors to amusement/theme parks and other attractions, including domestic and overseas travelers and local visitors, spent $57.3 billion on those parks 

and attractions, as well as on other items related to their trips. 

Total domestic and overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and other 

attractions in the United States directly spent an estimated $47.8 billion in 2004. 

Total travel spending, including direct and secondary (indirect and induced) or 

‘‘multiplier’’ output, reached $113.3 billion. Of this, $65.5 billion was generated 

though secondary impact. 

In 2004, domestic and overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and 

other attractions directly generated more than 612,000 jobs, $13.3 billion in payroll 

income, and $8.0 billion in tax revenue. 

Including direct and secondary impact, every million dollars spent by travelers 

visiting amusement/theme parks and other attractions produced nearly 27 jobs in 

the United States in 2004. Moreover, every dollar spent by these travelers generated 

71 cents in total payroll income. 

Domestic Travelers Visiting Amusement/Theme Parks and Other Attractions in the 

United States 

U.S. travelers generated more than 260.4 million person-trips that included one 

or more visits to amusement/theme parks and/or other attractions in 2004. That 

represented 22 percent of the 1.2 billion total U.S. domestic person-trips taken in 

2004. More specifically, 78.9 million person-trips included at least one visit to an 

amusement/theme park, accounting for 6.8 percent of the 1.2 billion total domestic 

person-trips. A total of 15.6 percent of U.S. domestic person-trips (181.6 million) included at least one of five other attractions as an activity. 

Domestic travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and other attractions spent 

an estimated $44.1 billion in 2004. That included all travelers’ spending on amusement/theme parks and other attractions, as well as spending on other travel-related 

items outside of parks and attractions by those travelers who cited ‘‘entertainment/ 

sightseeing’’ as their main purpose of travel. Business and other leisure travelers’ 

spending outside of parks and attractions were excluded. 

Total domestic traveler spending, including direct and secondary (indirect and induced) or ‘‘multiplier’’ output, reached $103.8 billion. Of this, $59.8 billion was generated though secondary impact. 

Domestic travelers’ spending directly generated 564,000 jobs, $12.3 billion in payroll income, and $7.4 billion in tax revenue in 2004. 

Including direct and secondary impact, domestic travelers’ spending generated a 

total of 1.2 million jobs and $31.2 billion in payroll income for the U.S. economy. 

Overseas Travelers Visiting Amusement/Theme Parks and Other Attractions in the 

United States 

More than 10.6 million overseas travelers to the United States included a visit 

to an amusement/theme park or other attraction in 2004. More specifically, 5.0 million travelers visited amusement/theme parks and 5.6 million visited at least one 

of six activities or events: historical places, cultural heritage sites, the American Indian community, concerts/plays/musicals, art galleries/museums, and/or ethnic heritage sites. That represented 52 percent of the 20.3 million total overseas travelers 

who visited the United States in 2004. 

Overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and other attractions spent 

an estimated $3.7 billion in 2004. 

Total travel spending, including direct and secondary (indirect and induced) or 

‘‘multiplier’’ output, reached $9.4 billion. Of this, $5.7 billion was generated though 

secondary impact. 

In 2004, overseas travelers visiting amusement/theme parks and other attractions 

directly generated 48,100 jobs, $992.8 million in payroll income, and $620.8 million 

in tax revenue. 

63 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GORDON H. SMITH TO

HON. FRANKLIN L. LAVIN

Question 1. It is estimated that international visitors spend 41⁄2 times more than 

domestic travelers. What specifically could the Department of Commerce do to help 

promote tourism and facilitate U.S. entry for international travelers? 

Answer. The Department’s Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) and 

U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (USFCS) work together to promote and facilitate travel and tourism to our country. This includes: 

• Actively participating in over 20 travel tradeshows annually and interaction 

with Visit USA programs around the world; 

• Collecting and analyzing critical data in coordination with the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) that is used by the industry to develop business plans; 

• Promoting industry interests before the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and Department of State (DOS) regarding policies related to border entry 

and issuance of visas; 

• Advancing policy initiatives through the Tourism Policy Council (TPC), which 

is led by the Secretary of Commerce and comprises 17 agencies of the Federal 

Government; 

• Participating in international trade negotiations that seek to remove market access impediments and to enhance the competitive position of U.S. companies; 

and 

• Representing U.S. interests before international policy-setting fora, such as the 

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

Question 2. Almost all developed countries have a cabinet level official charged 

with tourism promotion and diplomacy. In the United States, this mission is hidden 

deep in the Department of Commerce and seems to primarily focus on research and 

statistics. What is the Department’s plan for promoting travel and tourism? Do you 

think the Federal Government has a role in tourism promotion? How can the Commerce Department be more proactive in U.S. travel and tourism promotion? 

Answer. The Department’s mandate for travel and tourism promotion is to analyze the domestic economic environment and make recommendations to improve the 

competitiveness of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Industry. The Department also develops programs to improve access to international markets by U.S. travel and tourism exporters and works with other government agencies to eliminate barriers. In 

this process the Department works to ensure industry views are considered in the 

Federal policy decisionmaking process. This supports promotional efforts led by private sector and state, local and tribal entities to attract travel and tourism to the 

United States. Specific activities are outlined in Question #1. 

The Secretary of Commerce has been personally committed through the Travel 

and Tourism Advisory Board (TTAB) to work with the industry to ensure its global 

competitiveness. Recently, the Board submitted its recommendations for strategies 

to revive the Gulf Region and create a National Tourism Strategy. This strategy creates an opportunity for the Department to be more proactive in promoting travel 

and tourism by: (1) leading efforts through the TPC to define specific roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government; (2) determining areas where domestic policy changes can be made to create a more conducive environment for sustained 

growth in the industry; and (3) exploring opportunities for public-private partnerships for policy and promotion activities. 

Question 3. The Commerce Department chairs the Tourism Policy Council (TPC), 

which consists of 17 Federal agencies, aimed at promoting and streamlining tourism 

issues across the Federal Government. It is my understanding that this Council has 

met only once in the past 4 years? There certainly are many Federal barriers across 

agencies that hinder domestic and international tourism. Can you explain why the 

Administration has not made the TPC a priority? Why do you think it is so difficult 

for tourism to get the attention of policymakers? 

Answer. The TPC met nine times in 2002 and six times in 2003. In 2006, the Secretary called for renewed quarterly TPC meetings as a result of increased interest 

in travel and tourism policy issues at the Administration level. This year, the TPC 

met in March and July, and the next TPC meeting is planned for early October. 

The Secretary views the TPC as a vital tool for ongoing Federal policy coordination 

and as a forum through which to vet the National Tourism Strategy developed by 

the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. The level of Federal interagency attendance at the 2006 TPC meetings has been substantially higher than in past years. 

64 

This underscores the interest by policymakers in U.S. travel and tourism issues that 

cross-cut the Federal Government. 

Question 4. What role does the private sector have in promoting the U.S. tourism 

market? 

Answer. The private sector primarily leads U.S. travel and tourism promotion efforts in the U.S. and abroad. This is accomplished both by individual companies and 

through industry-wide collaboration. In addition, state tourism offices as well as 

convention and visitor bureaus conduct the grassroots promotion of destinations. In 

international markets, overseas Visit USA Committees actively promote travel to 

the United States. They comprise the private sector representative offices and 

branches of U.S. companies, as well as tour operators, travel agencies, and media 

business that promote or sell travel to the United States. 

Question 5. How would a national campaign market the entire U.S., including 

rural areas? 

Answer. In 2004, Congress tasked the Department with the responsibility of directing an international tourism promotion and marketing campaign. This was a 

unique opportunity for the Department to demonstrate to the private sector the potential effectiveness of a well-executed international promotion program. The Department’s campaign in the United Kingdom and Japan was made possible through 

numerous public-private partnerships. For example, in year one of the United Kingdom campaign, over 80 states, cities, and companies collectively contributed $2 million to the Department’s efforts. In year one of the Japan campaign, over 50 states, 

cities, and companies gave $750,000. Consumer research conducted during the campaign indicates that the beauty of the U.S. natural environment, together with the 

excitement of U.S. urban areas and man-made attractions, are what differentiate 

the United States as a travel and tourism destination. The Department’s campaign 

focused on the diversity of travel experiences in the United States, including the 

beautiful natural environments, rural areas, exciting cities and inspiring national 

monuments. 

Question 6. What is the economic impact to the U.S. economy for travel and tourism as compared to other large industries in the U.S.? 

Answer. The travel and tourism industry is an important component of the U.S. 

economy. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts, the industry accounts for 2.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product 

(GDP), which, positions it below ambulatory healthcare services (3.5 percent of 

GDP), about the same as hospitals and nursing home facilities (2.7 percent), and 

broadcasting and telecommunications (2.7 percent), but higher than the important 

industries of utilities (2.0 percent), chemical products (1.6 percent), legal services 

(1.4 percent), farming (1.2 percent), computer and electronic products (1.1 percent), 

and motor vehicles, bodies and trailers, and parts (1.0 percent). (Source: BEA) 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

HON. FRANKLIN L. LAVIN

Question 1. The Department of State (State) statistics show a precipitous decline 

in the number of nonimmigrant visas they issued to foreign travelers seeking entry 

into the United States in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001. This 

year, the number of nonimmigrant visas issued to travelers is expected to rebound 

to pre-September 11 numbers. To what do you attribute the decline in nonimmigrant visas issued to foreign travelers seeking entry into the United States following the events of September 11, 2001? 

Answer. Following September 11, global international travel trends shifted from 

long-haul international or overseas travel to short-haul destinations where the traveler stays closer to home with an increase in the use of auto or rail transportation 

versus airlines. 

Additionally, the industry has been negatively affected by SARS (2003) and unfavorable exchange rates for many countries (2001–2004). 

Question 2. Do you think new policies on visa issuance and entry have contributed 

to the decline in market share for U.S. tourism exports? 

Answer. The Department of Commerce’s Office of Travel and Tourism Industries 

Travel Barometer, which solicits feedback on travel issues from the industry, suggests that there is no widespread empirical evidence to support this opinion. 

Question 3. If the events of September 11, 2001 do not alone explain the decline 

in nonimmigrant visas issued by United States Consulate offices throughout the 

world, what other factors may explain the decline in nonimmigrant visas issued? 

65 

Answer. There has been a 7 percent annual growth in global travel since 1950, 

but, with the exception of China, there has been some decline in the top 10 markets, 

including the United States. Therefore, it is not just the United States facing this 

challenge. Countries such as China and India are benefiting from more regional and 

domestic travel. These countries are also marketing to keep their traveling populations at home. 

Question 4. Current policies stifle Chinese citizens’ ability to travel to the United 

States. China continues to restrict its citizens’ leisure travel to countries, like the 

United States, which have not yet received Approved Destination Status (ADS). Furthermore, the failure of the Department of State (State) to process Chinese citizens’ 

visas in a timely fashion complicates the U.S.’s efforts to prosper from a sizable Chinese population’s desire to visit the United States. 

The Chinese government has not designated the U.S. as one of China’s official 

tourist destination countries. China’s government must grant a country ADS before 

Chinese citizens may engage in leisure travel to that country. In recent years China 

has broadened the leisure travel opportunities available to its citizens by granting 

ADS to Canada and 25 European countries. Numerous Chinese citizens circumvent 

their home country’s ADS requirement by classifying trips to the United States as 

business trips. While not technically classified as ‘‘tourists,’’ almost all Chinese citizens who travel to the United States on business incorporate leisure activities into 

their travel itineraries. 

Maura Harty, the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, testified before the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2005. Secretary 

Harty presented statistics illustrating that the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to 

Chinese citizens traveling to the United States, though still 13.5 percent below the 

number of nonimmigrant visas issued before September 11, increased in Fiscal Year 

2004 by 26 percent and grew an additional 11 percent in the first half of Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2005. Harty dispelled concerns that there was a lack of American consular staff 

to issue nonimmigrant visas to Chinese citizens by explaining that nine new consular positions have been created for China in FY 2004 and FY 2005, the Consulate 

in Guangzhou and Consulate General in Shanghai have moved into new consular 

facilities, and the Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guanghzou have all collaborated with local chapters of the American Chambers of Commerce to implement 

programs facilitating the issuance of business visas to employees. Additionally, Secretary Harty stressed that the state remains dedicated to demonstrating to China 

and India that it will more efficiently process the visas of their citizens. Secretary 

Harty stated that since September 2001, the State has augmented the resources it 

uses to process the visas of Indian and Chinese citizens as evidenced by its creation 

of 515 consular positions and its enhancement of the consular officers’ training. Secretary Harty told the House Committee that as of the date of her testimony, 97 percent of all visa applicants around the world who are found qualified to receive visas 

receive them in one to two days. 

Are you aware of Chinese and Indian foreign travelers commonly experiencing a 

delay in receipt of their nonimmigrant visas for travel to the United States? 

Answer. China and India have been highlighted as two of the countries where assistance should be focused in the visa processing area. 

In China, the delay in visa processing wait is primarily due to the requirement 

for face-to-face interviews with all non-immigrant visa applicants. However, processing time varies significantly by location within China itself. For example, visitor 

visa processing wait time in Shenyang is reported to take only one day while in 

Shanghai it reportedly takes a 42-day wait. In New Delhi, the reported wait time 

for visas is approximately 2 days. 

The Department of State is responsible for issuing visas, and their website provides consumers tracking of wait times for visas to be processed. This information 

can be accessed at the following URL: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wait/ 

tempvisitorslwait.php. 

The Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (TTAB), comprised of private sector travel and tourism industry executives, recently submitted their recommendations to the 

Secretary of Commerce for the development of a national tourism strategy. Identified within these recommendations is the need for thorough review and possible revision of existing visa policy. The Tourism Policy Council (TPC), a group of more 

than 20 Federal agencies who deal with varied issues related to travel and tourism, 

including the Departments of State and Homeland Security, will be discussing the 

TTAB’s recommendations at the next TPC meeting. 

Question 5. How have newly created consular offices expedited the visa process 

for citizens of China and India? Do you sense that your Department is aware of the 

66 

economic benefits associated with an influx of Chinese and Indian tourists, traveling 

on nonimmigrant visas to the United States? 

Answer. The Department of Commerce understands the benefits of Chinese and 

Indian travelers to the U.S. economy. In 2005 total travel and tourism spending in 

the United States from India was $1.6 billion (representing a 16 percent increase 

over 2004) and $1.5 billion from China (representing a 38 percent increase over 

2004). 

The Travel and Tourism Advisory Board and the Tourism Policy Council are also 

keenly aware of the positive impact of additional international visitors to the United 

States, and are working diligently together to ensure that the Nation’s ‘‘Secure Borders, Open Doors’’ program is as welcoming as possible, enabling legitimate travelers access to the United States. 

Consular offices fall under the purview of the Department of State, which is better suited to address the first part of this question. 

Question 6. What efforts are being undertaken by persons within the United 

States’ public- and private-sectors to facilitate the United States being granted Approved Destination Status by the People’s Republic of China? 

Answer. Under a U.S.-China tourism cooperation agreement, the United States 

and China have identified the intent to obtain a commercial facilitation agreement 

to enable group leisure travel to the United States. This agreement is currently 

being developed by the Department of Commerce in conjunction with the Departments of State and Homeland Security. Private-sector entities in Nevada, Hawaii, 

Guam, and the City of Los Angeles have all gained marketing and promotion access 

to Chinese markets. 

A Travel and Tourism Working Group, under the U.S.-China Joint Commission 

on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), has been focusing on enhancing the U.S.-China relationship in travel and tourism through trade, investment and cooperative efforts 

in business facilitation and education and cultural exchange. At the most recent 

meeting of the Working Group, in April 2006, the United States and China signed 

a two-year work plan and agreed to pursue an agreement or framework that would 

facilitate Chinese outbound leisure travel to the U.S. 

Question 7. How many more non-immigrant visas per year does the United States 

expect to grant if China grants the United States Approved Destination Status? 

Answer. The Department of Commerce’s travel forecasting of Chinese visitors to 

the United States is done using the current econometric model, which is based on 

current regulations regarding outbound travel, and has not taken into account any 

ADS or ADS-type alternatives. The Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) 

reports that inbound arrivals from China to the U.S. showed a 20 percent increase 

in 2004 over 2003 arrivals and a 24 percent increase in 2005 over the previous year. 

Without catastrophic or disruptive events occurring globally, OTTI estimates that 

the current growth pace will continue in the 20–30 percent range for the rest of the 

decade. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GORDON H. SMITH TO

HON. WANDA L. NESBITT

Question 1. Ambassador Nesbitt, during the hearing, you defended the Department’s decision to impose an accelerated deadline for implementation of the Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) on air and sea passengers (one year in advance of the date required by law). You explained ‘‘most travelers who fly internationally already use a passport’’ and therefore the requirement ‘‘could be implemented earlier’’ than the law requires. However, this did not justify the accelerated 

deadline for cruise passengers. In fact, cruise lines have provided data to the Department demonstrating that most travelers who cruise in the Western Hemisphere 

do not have a passport. I understand that officials from the Department have cited 

conflicting data from unnamed ‘‘Mexican officials in Cancun’’, though it seems to me 

that cruise lines would have the more reliable data on this topic. Given the data 

from the cruise industry, do you still believe it is appropriate and fair to impose a 

deadline on cruise passengers before the law requires it? 

Answer. We believe that there are a number of advantages to phasing in the requirement. By beginning implementation in advance of the January 2008 deadline, 

we will begin to accrue the security advantages as soon as possible and benefit at 

an earlier stage from the travel facilitation envisioned by the Congress in crafting 

the legislation. Phased implementation will also give us the opportunity to reach out 

and inform the tens of millions of travelers who will be affected by the changes. 

The statistics available to the Department indicate that there is a small population of cruise travelers to the Caribbean who would need to get passports. A study 

67 

commissioned by the Department to help us develop more accurate data on the potential impact of WHTI estimated that over 65 percent of U.S. citizens traveling on 

cruises to the Caribbean possessed valid U.S. passports. The statistics provided to 

us by the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) support this data. ICCL indicates that 50–65 percent of cruise passengers for mid-length (6–8 days) or longer 

(9–17 days) cruises have passports. 

It is worth noting that we already see concrete evidence that many Americans, 

especially those who travel by air or sea, are applying for passports. Passport demand in the United States has increased 20 percent in each of the past two Fiscal 

Years; in FY 2004, we issued 8.8 million and in FY 2005, 10.1 million. This year 

we expect to issue over 12 million passports. Immigration inspectors and travel sector resources have also reported significantly higher percentages of travelers with 

passports. Our assessment is that American travelers are becoming accustomed to 

the need for a passport. 

Question 2. I commend the State Department and the Department of Homeland 

Security for working to develop a less expensive alternative to the passport like the 

PASScard. It is my understanding, however, that State Department officials intend 

to limit the use of the PASScard to surface crossings, leaving cruise passengers ineligible to use the new card. This inequitable treatment seems patently unfair to 

cruise passengers. This decision is particularly confounding given the robust security measures taken by cruise lines. A cruise ship is a controlled environment with 

limited access. All crewmembers and guests are placed on an official manifest that 

is provided to the Department of Homeland Security prior to the cruise departure 

for review. Moreover, when cruise lines return to the United States, an arrival list 

is sent again to the Department of Homeland Security 96 hours in advance of arrival. Given the tremendous resources used to ensure security on cruise ships, 

please explain why Americans choosing this mode of travel will not receive the same 

opportunity to use a PASScard as those who cross the border by car—a border crossing for which border patrol receives no advance notice. 

Answer. The passport card was devised in response to clear indications from border community residents, local governments, and businesses about the need for a 

simple, easy document to facilitate travel across our land-borders by American citizens. We have practical reservations about the use of a card designed to be used 

at land-borders for broader international travel. We are aware of suggestions that 

the passport card also be approved for cruises and air travel within the Western 

Hemisphere, however, we believe that creating special exemptions for certain types 

of international travel would result in greater confusion for the traveler and increase costs, in the long-run, to our citizens. Furthermore, travel by air or sea is 

much more likely to present the need for, or the opportunity, to stop in a third country. 

Both State and DHS recognize that there is a need for a convenient and less expensive travel document for U.S. citizens who regularly travel across the Canadian 

and Mexican land-border environment. Cruise travel is far more likely to include, 

or present the need, to stop in or transit a third country. For their own protection, 

U.S. citizen travelers in this situation should utilize a globally interoperable document—the U.S. passport—for such travel. 

A traveler going to the Caribbean by sea in 2008 will be fully documented to travel, not just to the Caribbean countries that currently require passports but anywhere else in the world. Obtaining a passport will be as quick and easy as the process to obtain a passport card. According to statistics from the cruise industry, about 

90 percent of their customers book their travel through a travel agent and about 

59 percent of them book 4–6 months prior to travel, more than enough time to acquire a passport. 

The cruise industry as a whole has been proactive in encouraging patrons to obtain passports. We believe this is reflected in the increased demand for and increased use of passports by this target group. In concert with our colleagues from 

DHS, we have engaged in numerous outreach events with the public as well as business and travel industry groups to make sure that they are well aware of WHTI 

requirements and that they have adequate notice to take the necessary steps to 

comply with them. We have assured the cruise industry that we are happy to continue working with them to get the message out. 

A critical part of successful implementation of the WHTI is the rulemaking process, and both agencies look forward to public comment in response to the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking regarding the air and sea aspects of WHTI that was published on August 11 in the Federal Register. 

Question 3. Please clarify the waiting periods for a visa in non-waiver countries. 

Please describe efforts you are taking to shorten these waiting periods. 

68 

Answer. The wait period for a non-immigrant visa interview varies from country 

to country. At some of our posts, particularly during peak travel seasons, the demand for non-immigrant visa (NIV) interviews exceeds our workload capacity resulting in a wait time that can range from one day to 30 days or longer. Posts with 

a waiting period have been instructed to establish procedures to grant expedited appointments for legitimate business travelers with urgent needs, for students and exchange visitors, and for applicants seeking emergency medical care. Our posts have 

also developed individual business facilitation programs that work best for their regions. 

In order to keep the wait for an NIV appointment as short as possible, the Department has added staff and improved consular space at many posts. While these 

steps have helped more than 80 percent of our posts to keep their wait times short, 

the remainder have appointment delays above 30 days. These delays are often due 

to staffing shortages, space issues, or an unanticipated rise in visa applications. We 

continue to try to identify creative solutions to aid our posts and ensure that the 

traveling public is not faced with major delays. 

Question 4. How does this ‘‘In-Person’’ interview affect your operation? It seems 

like there should be some flexibility for interview waivers (like seniors, children, frequent business visitors)? What technology (videoconferencing, etc.) are you considering to improve this process? When can the Committee expect to hear about shortened wait times? 

Answer. As you know, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act made 

it mandatory for most non-immigrant visa applicants to appear at an embassy or 

consulate in person for an interview. We believe that a personal interview is often 

the most critical part of the visa process. It gives the consular officer an opportunity 

to clarify information on the visa application and determine the bona fides of the 

applicant. 

There are already some exceptions to the in-person interview requirement. For instance, travelers under 14 years old and over 79 years old do not need to appear 

in person. In addition, diplomatic and official travelers, and those travelers who are 

renewing a non-immigrant visa in the same classification within twelve months, 

need not appear in person. The consular officer may also waive an interview if it 

is warranted in the national interest or because of unusual circumstances. We are 

available to discuss other instances in which waiving the interview might be warranted. 

Congress mandated that we collect biometric data from each visa applicant beginning in October 2004. As a result, there are some cases in which we are allowed 

to waive the visa interview but due to the fingerprint requirement, must require the 

traveler to appear in person at a consular section. We are interested in working 

with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Congress to determine if 

there is a way to capture fingerprints only once, particularly for frequent travelers, 

and thereafter do only a simple verification. We are also interested in working with 

Congress to give consular officers more leeway to waive the interview for travelers 

who have been appropriately screened and assessed for risk, such as frequent business travelers. 

It is our objective to provide courteous and timely service to all persons requesting 

consular assistance. We will continue to explore the possibility of doing offsite interviews and will be happy to apprise you of any progress on this front. Our ability 

to shorten wait times will depend largely on our ability to provide additional resources to those posts where demand is outpacing our capacity. 

Question 5. Can you briefly explain the Model Ports of Entry program in the RiceChertoff announcement? How are you working with the private sector on this program? 

Answer. As part of the Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision announced by Secretaries Rice 

and Chertoff in January of this year, we are working with DHS to establish two 

model international ports of entry (POEs) at Washington Dulles and Houston. These 

pilots are an opportunity to partner with the private sector and local governments 

to design and test a variety of facilitation techniques. State and DHS are working 

with Dulles and Houston airport authorities, the travel industry, airlines, and other 

private sector representatives to test and demonstrate concepts for model airports 

in order to create a more welcoming environment for foreign visitors. DHS is analyzing best practices at ports of entry, including improved screening and more efficient movement of travelers through the entry process; customized video messages 

with practical information about the entry process; and more instructional signage. 

Private-sector representatives will meet with State and DHS in the near future to 

establish a timetable and attempt to identify funding. 

69 

Question 6. It is estimated that international visitors spend 41⁄2 times more than 

domestic travelers. What specifically could the State Department do to help promote 

tourism and facilitate U.S. entry for international travelers? 

Answer. The events of 9/11 affected tourist and business travel in many ways. In 

particular, there was a perception that the visa process was more difficult, due in 

part to delays in that process from increased security procedures like special screening requirements and fingerprinting. However, the State Department has worked 

hard to improve our process since then. In fact, tourist and business visa issuances 

are expected to top 3.04 million in FY 2006, up from an FY 2003 low of 2.5 million. 

We have worked to increase the transparency of the visa process to benefit the 

U.S. business community and our international travelers. Embassies now display 

interview wait times on their websites; have established dedicated interview times 

for business travelers; and allow companies to register for expedited applications for 

their affiliates. Our own website, www.travel.state.gov, receives between 400,000 

and 1 million hits per month from interested parties. 

State is piloting a web-based appointment system which, if successful, will be 

made available to all posts. That system will also include an electronic visa application system to allow consular officers to do time-consuming security checks before 

the applicant arrives at the visa window. We are piloting a model for processing visa 

applications through remote interviews. We continue regular institutional outreach 

with the travel, business, and academic communities to solicit their views and enlist 

their support with innovations and advocacy. 

State is working with DHS as part of the Rice-Chertoff Initiative to renew America’s welcome with improved technology and efficiency. In July 2005 we opened a 

worldwide Business Visa Center (BVC), that is a wholly virtual operation. The BVC 

assists U.S. companies and convention organizers by explaining the visa process 

when they invite employees or current and prospective business clients to the 

United States. The BVC staff provides information to U.S. companies about the application process for visitor visas (B–1) for those seeking to travel to the U.S. for 

business purposes. The BVC received over 100 inquiries in the first 2 weeks of operation and the numbers of telephone and e-mail inquiries have continued to grow. 

In July 2006, the BVC handled over 400 inquiries. We estimate that over 20,000 

international travelers are indirectly assisted each month by the BVC’s provision of 

conference and visa information to U.S. companies. 

We will continue to engage the business community, along with the Economic Bureau and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security, on ways to further 

improve the facilitation of legitimate travelers, while maintaining the security of the 

United States. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

HON. WANDA L. NESBITT

Question 1. Can you comment on results you have seen with the Model Airport 

Program’s implementation? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency in developing 

Model Ports of Entry, an initiative that is just getting started. Working with airport 

authorities, the travel industry and airlines, and other private-sector participants, 

our plan is to test and demonstrate concepts at Dulles and Houston that will create 

a more welcoming environment for foreign visitors. DHS will soon complete an analysis of best practices at ports of entry, including improved screening and more efficient movement of people through the entry process; customized video messages 

with practical information about the entry process and more instructional signage. 

During the peak summer travel season, Dulles utilized ‘‘yellow shirt Ambassadors’’ to help visitors through the entry process. In addition, new signage has been 

installed and welcome videos are shown at baggage carousels. 

It is important to keep in mind that the Departments of State and Homeland Security can only afford to make marginal, yet important changes, such as improving 

customer service and adding signage. A major infusion of private-sector funds is 

needed to complete any structural changes at a Model Port of Entry. 

Question 2. What are your plans to expand the Model Airport Program to other 

airports? 

Answer. We hope that the best practices developed in the pilot Model Ports of 

Entry program will be adopted at other airports. 

Question 3. How have improvements by State and the DHS to visa processing procedures benefited foreign business travelers? 

Answer. Improvements to visa processing have included improving our consular 

sections, adding staff, and developing facilitation programs. We have also taken a 

70 

number of steps to improve the transparency, efficiency and predictability of the 

visa process and have worked with our interagency partners to streamline our security clearance procedures, bringing the average processing times down from several 

months to just 1–3 weeks. These improvements have resulted in benefits to the U.S. 

business community and our international travelers. Embassies now display interview wait times on their websites; some have established dedicated interview times 

for business travelers; and allow companies to register for expedited appointments 

for their affiliates. 

In addition, in July 2005, we opened a worldwide Business Visa Center. The Business Visa Center (BVC) assists U.S. companies and convention organizers by explaining the visa process when they invite employees or current and prospective 

business clients to the United States. The BVC staff provides information to U.S. 

companies about the application process for visitor visas (B–1) for those seeking to 

travel to the United States for business purposes. The BVC receives hundreds of inquiries a month and we estimate that over 20,000 international travelers are indirectly assisted each month by the BVC’s provision of conference and visa information to U.S. companies. 

Over the past year, we have met regularly, along with colleagues from the Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB) and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security with members of the business community to discuss 

ways to further improve the facilitation of legitimate travelers, while maintaining 

the security of the United States. 

Question 4. It seems that business travelers are the only category of persons to 

prosper from improved State and the DHS procedures that allow for the more efficient processing of visas to date. What steps have State and the DHS taken to ensure that other categories of foreign travelers, such as leisure travelers, will have 

their visa wait period shortened? 

Answer. The Department is doing significant outreach, both here and abroad, to 

encourage travel to the United States by students, professional workers, and tourists. After 9/11, there was a perception that the visa process was more difficult, due 

in part to delays from increased security procedures like special screening requirements and fingerprinting. The State Department has worked hard to improve our 

process since then and we are seeing a turnaround. Tourist and business visa 

issuances are expected to top 3.04 million in FY 2006, up from an FY 2003 low of 

2.5 million. 

After the visa interview takes place, most approved travelers receive their visas 

in 48 hours. Many posts send passports with issued visas back to applicants using 

a pre-paid courier service, so that the applicant does not need to travel to the Consulate a second time to pick up the issued visa. 

In fact, only a small category of travelers, less than 3 percent worldwide, wait 

more than 48 hours to receive their visas. These travelers’ applications often require 

additional interagency clearances. Wait times for clearances have decreased over the 

past year to an average of 14 days; however, delays have increased this summer 

due to resource constraints in some agencies and increased Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) from posts. We continue to work with other agencies to expedite clearances for students and emergency travelers, and expect the delays to shorten as our 

agency partners add more staff to support the SAO clearance process. 

We also are working to facilitate visa processing for students to ensure that foreign students who choose American institutions are able to enroll and attend class. 

CA has issued new guidance allowing students to apply for visas 120 days in advance of their studies, and DHS is in the process of changing their regulations to 

allow students to enter the U.S. 45 days before their classes start, rather than 30 

days. 

We increased to one year the validity of the clearances granted to certain groups 

of scientists and scholars who participate in joint-research programs. 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 in these categories. The turn-around time for a common student visa clearance, 

the ‘‘Visas Mantis’’ clearance, was reduced to less than 14 days worldwide after we 

created a separate team dedicated to MANTIS clearances and streamlined the interagency clearance process. In addition, students only require one initial MANTIS for 

their period of study, up to 4 years. 

Consular officers and other Embassy personnel have been active overseas in 

reaching out to student and academic groups to promote U.S. higher education. Public appearances, press articles, and web-chats have all carried the message that a 

wide variety of educational opportunities in the United States are available for foreign students. For example, the Embassy in Dhaka hosts a monthly radio program 

called ‘‘Ask the American Consul’’ where student and other visa issues can be disVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
71 

cussed. In China, consular officers participate in web-chats, which have generated 

over 100,000 hits each time. 

Question 5. The average time a visa applicant must wait to get a visa interview 

varies greatly from country to country. What factor or set of factors would State and 

the DHS attribute this to? 

Answer. In some posts, and particularly during peak travel seasons, the demand 

for non-immigrant visa (NIV) interviews exceeds our workload capacity. As you 

noted, wait times vary from country to country depending on current staffing levels, 

NIV workload changes, and physical setup. Some posts therefore have a wait time 

for interviews which ranges from one day in posts as varied as Beijing, Ankara, 

Nuevo Laredo, and Warsaw, to 30 days or longer in posts such as Manila, Caracas, 

Vancouver, and Tashkent. 

While the State Department is working hard to minimize the wait times for nonimmigrant visa appointments worldwide, we realize that there is a significant appointment backlog at a good number of overseas posts. Therefore, we asked our consular sections to establish procedures whereby those visa applicants with urgent 

travel needs, such as medical emergencies, can get expedited appointments. 

Question 6. What is being done to remedy this problem? Do you plan to implement 

videoconferencing technology in all Embassies and Consulates for visa interviews? 

Answer. In order to keep the wait for an NIV appointment as short as possible, 

the Department has added staff and improved consular space at many posts. While 

these steps have helped more than 80 percent of our posts to keep their wait times 

short, the remainder of our posts have appointment delays above 30 days. These 

delays are often due to staffing shortages, space issues or a rapid increase in visa 

applications. 

Posts with waiting periods have established mechanisms to expedite appointments 

for legitimate business travelers with urgent needs, students and exchange visitors, 

and applicants seeking emergency medical care. Our posts have also developed individual business facilitation programs that work best for their regions. We will continue to work with those posts to come up with creative solutions to aid them in 

reducing the appointment backlog while at the same time ensuring that every application is properly screened according to applicable laws, regulations, and security 

concerns. 

As you know, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act made it mandatory for most non-immigrant visa applicants to appear at an Embassy or Consulate in person for an interview. This increased the total number of individuals our 

consular officer now need to see in person. 

There are some exceptions to the in-person interview requirement. For instance, 

travelers under 14 years old and over 79 years old do not need to appear in person. 

Congress also mandated that we collect biometric data from each visa applicant 

as of October 2004 (applicants under 14 and over 79 as well as diplomatic and official travelers are exempt). As a result, there are some cases in which we could 

waive the visa interview but we do not because of the need to collect fingerprints. 

We are working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to find a way 

to reduce this burden for certain frequent travelers. We are also interested in working with Congress to give consular officers greater flexibility in applying the interview requirement, particularly for travelers who have already been appropriately 

screened and assessed for risk, such as frequent tourist or business travelers. 

Question 7. When addressing a House Committee in September 2005, Assistant 

Secretary of State Maura Harty announced State Department plans to enlarge the 

consular staff at many American Consulate offices throughout the world. Have these 

plans been executed? Do you expect extra consular staff to reduce the often lengthy 

visa interview wait times experienced by many visa applicants? 

Answer. Our ability to shorten wait times will depend largely on our ability to 

provide additional resources to those posts where demand is outpacing our capacity. 

We have added 570 new consular staff worldwide since 2001. In addition, we have 

dramatically increased our ability to provide temporary consular officers to posts 

that need assistance and are now providing more such help than ever before. The 

Bureau of Consular Affairs continues to add retired, experienced consular officers 

to our roster of people available to provide temporary assistance to posts. We have 

also worked with posts to increase use of the electronic visa application form and 

other technological tools to streamline visa processing and started up new ‘‘call centers’’ to assist consular sections in contracting out the visa appointment process. We 

have seen significant reductions in wait times due to these advances, but continue 

to work toward the elimination of lengthy waits for visa appointments. 

It is our objective to provide courteous and timely service to all persons requesting 

consular assistance. We regret the delays encountered by some applicants. While 

72 

consular officers attempt to be as sensitive as possible to the need for expeditious 

processing of applications, they must first conscientiously administer the Immigration and Nationality Act. While we want to do our best to facilitate legitimate travel, we cannot compromise the security of the visa issuing process or of the United 

States. 

Question 8. What additional steps have been taken by State and the DHS to expedite and ease the issuance of visas while ensuring that our national security is protected? 

Answer. An important part of our visa process is our consular lookout database, 

which contains information from past visa cases as well as other agencies. When 

an officer determines that an applicant matches a ‘‘hit’’ in the database, in many 

cases he or she must send a request for a security review of the case in Washington. 

Slightly over 217,000 Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) were conducted in FY 

2005; in the first 10 months of FY 2006, the Visa Office processed nearly 180,000. 

Despite annual increases in SAO volume, the Visa Office and its interagency partners have made steady progress in reducing SAO processing times while making 

those times more predictable. By the end of FY 2005, average SAO processing time 

had fallen to 20 working days, from 26 days in FY 2004, and nearly 60 days in FY 

2001. 

‘‘Visas Donkey’’ processing, which covers a specific interagency review of certain 

visa applicants and is generally the longest duration category, fell dramatically from 

an average of over 53 days in FY 2004 to an average 37 days in FY 2005. After 

falling to an historic low of about 15 working days this spring, Visas Donkey processing currently stands at 2004 levels due to staffing issues at one of our principal 

interagency partners. We expect this increase in the Visas Donkey processing time 

to be temporary as these staffing issues are addressed and as the next phase of our 

SAO Improvement Project (SAO–IP), which further automates the SAO clearance 

process and consists of upgraded interagency connectivity, is about to come on 

stream. 

We also work with our interagency partners take special steps to expedite the 

SAO clearances of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) applicants, students 

and exchange visitors, and Diversity Visa Lottery applicants so they can meet their 

planned travel dates. 

On the Immigrant Visa side, our National Visa Center (NVC) in Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire, helps to reduce post workload, speed up the visa process, and enhance 

security by collecting and reviewing immigrant visa petitions and supporting documents, running an FBI check, and investigating possible fraud before the visa case 

even is sent to post. NVC is also scheduling appointments for a number of posts 

in a pilot program we hope to expand in future. 

We have also worked closely with DHS to streamline the waiver process. Visa applicants who are statutorily ineligible for visas are sometimes able to receive waivers of those ineligibilities to allow them to travel. As of September 8, all NIV waiver 

requests are transmitted electronically to DHS/CBP, allowing us to receive a response in a shorter amount of time as well as effectively track and record these requests. 

Question 9. For many foreigners traveling to the United States for the first time, 

the first experience they have with the United States will be the experience they 

have obtaining a visa through our Embassies and Consulates. Travel to the United 

States is more likely when that first impression is a positive one. Do you currently 

train staff in customer service? If not, do you plan to do so in the future? How can 

we ensure that foreigners’ first impression of the United States is one of ‘‘welcome 

and open arms? ’’ 

Answer. In the 31-day mandatory basic consular training course, our instructors 

emphasize to new officers that they are the face of the United States abroad and 

that the way they communicate their decisions to a visa applicant is just as important as the decision they make; their actions leave a lasting impression on each person they interview. We reinforce that message with over 35 mock interviews where 

each officer must interview an applicant for a visa, make a decision based on immigration law, and communicate that decision clearly and politely to the applicant. As 

part of this training, our new officers also receive a three-day course on consular 

interviewing techniques where they are taught the best way to build rapport, gather 

information and make a decision, all while presenting a positive view of the United 

States. During that training, we record the officers doing a visa interview and provide specific feedback on their decisionmaking, interview techniques, and diplomacy. 

Our goal is to leave each applicant with a positive impression of the United States, 

whether or not he or she qualifies for a visa under immigration law. 

73 

We reinforce that same message through regional consular workshops, advanced 

training for mid-level and senior officers, and periodic guidance to all consular officers abroad. We know that our officers are on the front lines of diplomacy as well 

as national security, and we feel both are equally important. 

Question 10. Are there any e-Passport programs currently being tested? What 

problems do State and the DHS foresee in implementing the widespread use of ePassports? 

Answer. The Department of State has been involved in a comprehensive testing 

program of e-Passports for more than a year. Most of this testing has been under 

the auspices of the U.S. National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

The testing is designed to assess the reliability, durability and electronic performance of products offered by a number of vendors competing for contracts to support 

the U.S. e-Passport program. 

Based on the results of that testing, the Government Printing Office, the State 

Department’s operational partner in the e-Passport program, has awarded a number 

of contracts to vendors. Products from one vendor, Infineon, are incorporated into 

the U.S. diplomatic passports that we began issuing in December 2005, and into official passports that were issued beginning in April 2006. On August 14, at our Colorado Passport Agency, we began issuing the first U.S. e-Passports to the public. 

During the Summer of 2005, the State Department, partnering with the Department of Homeland Security and in collaboration with Australia and New Zealand, 

launched an operational field test to measure the overall performance of the e-Passport and the efficiency of e-Passport readers in airport environments. A second 

phase of testing was conducted in early 2006 and included the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. These tests provided valuable information about 

the functional systems, operational processes, and general characteristics of the ePassport. 

Based both on testing to date and real world performance of e-Passports issued 

by many governments, the Department of State does not foresee any systemic problems with the introduction of U.S. e-Passports. Nearly 40 nations, including many 

who are not participants in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, have active e-Passport 

programs. The widespread introduction of this technology reflects the importance attached by many governments to strengthening border security by preventing the use 

of passports by anyone other than the person to whom that passport was originally 

issued by his or her national government. 

The State Department is well aware that the issue of privacy and e-Passports has 

generated significant attention from the public and some privacy advocates. In discussing this issue it is important to note that the only data written to the chip in 

a U.S. passport is the same data (digital photograph, name, date of birth, etc) found 

on the data page of a U.S. passport. Furthermore, and consistent with the State Department’s public commitment not to issue e-Passports until we were confident that 

any security vulnerabilities were addressed, the Department has made a number of 

fundamental improvements to the U.S. passport in terms of personal data security. 

These include: 

• The use of a metallic material in the front cover and spine of the passport to 

address the risk of data skimming (reading data without the knowledge of the 

authorized bearer); 

• Introducing Basic Access Control to ensure that the passport chip can be read 

only after an electronic key is generated based on data found in the Machine 

Readable Zone of the passport; and 

• The adoption of Random Unique ID numbers which address the risk of tracking 

by ensuring that the passport chip generates a different ID number each time 

it communicates with a passport chip reader. 

Based on all of these initiatives, the Department of State is confident that the 

U.S. e-Passport protects personal privacy information. 

Question 11. Have you been in contact with or worked with any foreign governments in the development of the e-Passport? 

Answer. The U.S. e-Passport was developed consistent with the globally interoperable biometric specifications adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The Department worked with ICAO Member States, including Germany, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Canada, 

Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, France, Finland and Italy, to develop standard operational processes for the e-Passport. 

Governments throughout the world have recognized that they must learn from 

each other as they deal with the challenges of e-Passports. There has been an unprecedented series of international meetings to exchange information on ‘‘lessons 

74 

learned’’ and to test various products and processes involved with the deployment 

of e-Passports. 

Partnering with the Department of Homeland Security and in collaboration with 

Australia, New Zealand, and subsequently, Singapore, the State Department participated in an operational field test to measure the overall performance of the e-Passport, assess the operational impact at airports and the efficiency of e-Passport readers. These tests provided valuable information about the functional systems, operational processes, and general characteristics of the e-Passport. 

The Department has a long history of assisting other governments to identify and 

implement advanced technology, ICAO compliant, travel documents. Since 9/11 and 

the 2003 passage of the ICAO standards on biometrics and travel document 

issuance security, contacts with other governments have at least doubled. Over the 

past 2 years, an average of about 20 countries per year have consulted with us on 

e-Passport technology, passport issuance rules, methods and security, and fraud prevention practice. 

Question 12. What would be the process for phasing-out use of the current passport booklets and moving to e-Passports? When does State and/or DHS estimate the 

e-Passport process will be implemented, and when can we expect the phase-out of 

current passport booklets? 

Answer. The Department of State began issuing the first-ever tourist e-Passports 

to the public at the Colorado Passport Agency on August 14, 2006. Diplomatic and 

Official e-Passports are already being issued at our Special Issuance Agency in 

Washington, D.C. The Department expects to fully transition to e-Passport production domestically in 2007. Previously issued passports without electronic chips will 

remain valid until their expiration dates. 

Currently valid passports will remain valid until their original expiration date. 

There will be no requirement for citizens to replace their existing passport with an 

e-Passport before its normal expiration date. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

JAMES W. LEDUC, PH.D. 

Question 1. After the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) 

virus in China in 2002, the disease spread to a reported 31 countries and caused 

8,437 deaths, severely affecting China’s international tourism industry. In fact, following the announcement of the SARS outbreak and quarantines, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) dropped significantly from 9.9 percent in the first quarter of 

2003, to 6.7 percent in the second quarter. 

After the SARS outbreak in China in 2002, we saw China’s GDP drop drastically, 

mostly due to the negative effect the disease had on the tourism industry. What can 

we do to prevent the same situation from happening in the U.S., with the Avian 

Flu? 

Answer. When a new influenza A virus strain emerges that causes illness in humans and allows sustained transmission among humans (i.e., a pandemic strain of 

influenza), it could have a serious negative impact on the GDP of the United States 

and many other countries. The impact could be felt in multiple parts of the world 

at the same time, because pandemic viruses can spread rapidly throughout the 

world. The tourism industry could be highly affected, as could many others industries in a severe pandemic (e.g., healthcare, food, transportation, and other industries basic to the social infrastructure). The potential length of an influenza pandemic also should be considered in relation to GDP, including the challenges to local 

economies that depend heavily on industries such as tourism. An influenza pandemic could have one or more waves, each lasting 6–10 weeks, that affect a community over several months followed by annual epidemics. 

The highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) viruses (often called ‘‘bird flu’’), 

which have caused more than 250 human illnesses and almost 150 deaths worldwide since 2003 (as of September 28, 2006) and have resulted in the deaths and 

culling of millions of poultry, is currently of grave concern for public health worldwide. The H5N1 avian virus thus far has not caused sustained transmission from 

human-to-human. However, influenza viruses are constantly changing, and surveillance is ongoing to detect any changes in the virus that might make it more likely 

to transmit among humans and also to look for epidemiologic evidence of sustained 

human transmission. 

The SARS outbreak was able to be contained within a relatively brief time, even 

though the coronavirus that causes the infection was not identified until after the 

multi-country outbreak started. The 2002–2003 SARS outbreak was spread mostly 

in relatively contained settings (e.g., institutions, hospitals, planes). An avian influVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 May 23, 2011 Jkt 066404 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66404.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
75 

enza outbreak among people, especially one that evolves into a pandemic, probably 

would spread much more quickly and simultaneously in multiple settings (shopping 

areas, schools, businesses, neighborhoods) during many months or even years and 

in multiple countries at the same time. Another important difference between influenza and SARS is that persons with SARS do not become infectious until they are 

obviously ill and are most infectious in the second week of their illness, while persons infected with influenza may be infectious the day before they become ill or 

when they have very mild symptoms. In addition, the time from exposure to illness 

onset (the incubation period) for SARS is typically 2–7 days but can be as long as 

2 weeks, while the incubation period for influenza averages 2 days (range 1–4 days). 

The longer incubation period and lack of transmission during the incubation period 

make SARS more easily contained than pandemic influenza would be. 

The avian influenza A (H5N1) virus has not been detected in the United States 

or anywhere else in the Americas. It is not known what impact the first detection 

of H5N1 avian influenza in poultry or wild birds might have on the U.S. However, 

the United States has an effective animal health surveillance system as a vital component of its National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan that should minimize 

large economic impacts due to infected poultry. HHS would also be involved in conducting surveillance for any human cases if H5N1 were detected in the United 

States. H5N1 outbreaks in poultry and other bird populations in European countries 

have been able to be contained quickly. However, in other countries, outbreaks of 

avian influenza viruses in poultry have resulted in huge economic losses to that industry. It is difficult to determine at this point the impact of H5N1 outbreaks 

among birds have had on tourism in countries with and without human cases. 

Actions to minimize the economic impact on tourism and other vital industries 

will require a multi-year, sustainable preparedness and response system involving 

both domestic and international partnerships. The system must be able to identify 

avian influenza promptly, quickly contain outbreaks, emphasize continued laboratory and epidemiological surveillance and research, and ensure that people are well 

informed about health protection, including non-pharmaceutical interventions. 

Question 2. In a worst case scenario, where the Avian Flu begins to spread from 

human-to-human in the U.S., would it be possible to quarantine the multitude of 

tourists to prevent the disease from spreading? How would we do this? 

Answer. If an avian influenza such as the H5N1 virus were to evolve into a form 

that allowed sustained human-to-human transmission and such transmission were 

already ongoing within the United States, it would be extremely difficult to contain 

the disease by placing large groups of tourists in quarantine. Early in a pandemic, 

it will be most important to try to contain community outbreaks through non-pharmaceutical interventions, because a vaccine will not likely be available at the beginning of a pandemic. Non-pharmaceutical interventions may include social 

distancing, closing schools, limiting large gatherings, promotion of hand washing 

and cough etiquette, and possibly voluntary isolation of those infected and/or quarantine of close contacts of ill persons. As the pandemic progresses and the virus becomes more widely dispersed, these types of actions probably would have a more 

limited benefit. 

Question 3. The fatality rate of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) 

virus is only about 10 to 20 percent, while the Avian Flu has a fatality rate of over 

50 percent. The SARS virus also has a slower mutation rate than the Avian Flu, 

meaning that a new strain of the Avian Flu can develop faster than those of the 

SARS virus, making it difficult to keep up with demand for effective vaccinations. 

I understand the bird flu has a fatality rate over 50 percent, while the SARS virus 

fatality rate is only 10 to 20 percent. What does this mean in terms of how we 

would control the outbreak of the bird flu if that were to occur? 

Answer. The currently circulating avian influenza A (H5N1) strains that are resulting in fatality rates over 50 percent may or may not evolve into a pandemic 

strain of influenza. In order to control illness in humans, outbreaks in poultry and 

exposure to ill birds and poultry must be controlled. For now, the H5N1 virus lacks 

the ability to efficiently transmit from person-to-person. Almost all confirmed 

human cases have involved direct contact with infected birds. This and other factors 

illustrate problems involved in drawing meaningful comparisons of fatality rates between SARS and avian influenza or an influenza pandemic. In addition, in past influenza pandemics, the fatality rates have been much lower, on the order of 0.1 percent to 2 percent. 

Despite this difficulty, some non-pharmaceutical interventions found effective in 

minimizing transmission of SARS also would be important for minimizing the 

spread of pandemic influenza during its early stages, including hand washing, social 

distancing, and use of cough etiquette. These types of self-protection are especially 

76 

important while an effective vaccine is being researched, developed, and manufactured. 

SARS helped spur collaborative public health approaches between government officials, health professionals, and community leaders. The current pandemic influenza preparedness actions are building on these networks as well as involving experts in animal health. 

Question 4. I understand that the mutation rate for the bird flu is much faster 

than that of the SARS virus. How much faster is the mutation rate and exactly how 

does this effect the process of making vaccinations? 

Answer. The ongoing global surveillance and research necessary to monitor 

changes in a virus such as H5N1 are among the greatest challenges in preparing 

for an influenza pandemic. Mutation and other changes in influenza viruses occur 

continually. In contrast, the SARS corona virus changes much less frequently. As 

influenza viruses change, scientists must decide which strains present the greatest 

threat and which should be used in the development and manufacture of influenza 

vaccines. Scientists also must continually test antiviral medications to determine 

whether they can be used for treatment or prevention during both yearly influenza 

outbreaks and during a potential pandemic. Both of these efforts require considerable public and private resources, as well as a high degree of international collaboration among scientists, government officials, and others. 

Question 5. Do you think the U.S. will be prepared for the threat of a potential 

pandemic such as the bird flu anytime in the near future? 

Answer. If the world faced an influenza pandemic within the next year, many scientists would agree that the United States and other countries would not be effectively prepared. Great strides have been made. These must now be sustained and 

improved. 

The U.S. Government, states, and localities are making considerable progress in 

pandemic influenza preparedness. Health professional groups and the private sector 

also are showing a high interest in preparedness for a pandemic. The magnitude 

of the threat is great from a public health perspective and will require continued, 

focused resources to make and sustain the progress needed on many fronts. These 

include surveillance, epidemiological and laboratory capacity and research, and response strategies essential for early containment yet flexible enough to maintain assistance over the course of many months or years. 

Question 6. What else can we do legislatively to help prevent the spread of such 

a deadly disease such as the Avian Flu? 

Answer. CDC greatly appreciates the strong support Congress has given in response to the current threat that avian influenza A (H5N1) and other influenza viruses pose, including the yearly threats from annual influenza that result in an average of 36,000 deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations. As the public health system addresses influenza preparedness and response, CDC and its partners also 

must be ready to confront other emerging infectious diseases, as SARS taught us. 

Sustained support of national, state and local, and international surveillance and 

research for both annual influenza and pandemic influenza are critical to promptly 

detect and control avian H5N1 outbreaks, pandemic influenza, and other emerging 

infectious diseases. Support for epidemiologic and laboratory infrastructure for seasonal influenza is vital as a safeguard for pandemic influenza. Critical actions that 

Congress might consider in the future include: 

• Continued support of Federal assistance for states, territories, tribal nations, 

and localities for influenza laboratory and epidemiologic surveillance and response capacity. 

• Support for capacity building within CDC and other agencies that will establish 

a strong foundation for conducting surveillance, response and research of seasonal influenza and pandemic threats and the surge capacity necessary when 

an influenza pandemic occurs. 

• Continued support for the development of international surveillance and laboratory capacity. This takes sustained efforts, dedicated funding and technical assistance. Further development of international surveillance and laboratory capacity will serve the Unites States as well as other countries, allowing all to 

become more able to identify and investigate novel avian influenza viruses such 

as H5N1 or other new pathogens such as SARS. 

• Support of more international collaborations to strengthen health services in 

countries affected by the H5N1 virus. 

77 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GORDON H. SMITH TO

JAY RASULO

Question 1. It is my understanding that almost all developed countries have a cabinet level official charged with tourism promotion and diplomacy. From your experience, which countries have done it right—to protect their borders but open its doors 

to tourists? 

Answer. Most industrialized countries, including for instance Australia, Canada, 

the U.K. and France, have well-funded and nationally-coordinated efforts to compete 

for international travelers. These countries typically have minister or cabinet level 

offices devoted to inviting travelers to visit, and coordinating government policy in 

order to facilitate visitation. 

Canada invests $80 million per year on its national marketing program, and Australia invests more than $100 million. Even New Zealand, a country 1⁄74 the size 

of the U.S., invests $43 million each year promoting itself to world travelers. Each 

of these countries provides a great example of how to run a nationally-coordinated 

campaign that motivates travelers to visit them. 

The research that is currently being conducted by the Discover America Partnership, an organization comprised of members of the travel and tourism industry, will 

help us learn from these countries so that we can make an informed recommendation as to what the U.S. ought to be doing. 

Question 2. What is the U.S. Government’s role to promote its tourism industry? 

Is there anything else our government should do to better address your industry’s 

needs? 

Answer. While the private-sector should play a leading role in implementing a 

campaign to promote travel to the U.S., there are also roles that the government 

is uniquely suited to help fulfill: 

• Marshal Resources of Private-Sector: The Federal Government can act as a galvanizing force to marshal the resources of the private sector travel and tourism 

industry. 

• Ensure Efforts Benefit Entire U.S.: The Federal Government is in a unique position to ensure that a nationally-coordinated destination marketing program is 

one that benefits tourist destinations throughout the U.S.—rather than select 

destinations on the two coasts. 

• Publicize Travel Requirements: The government should also play a key role in 

helping to publicize issues that cut across different agencies, so that marketing 

efforts are not marred by confusion and misinformation. For instance, the communication of changes in documentation requirements would require coordination between the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Commerce. 

• Open Doors in Foreign Markets: With its extensive network of Consulates, Embassies and trade offices, the Federal Government can help open doors in foreign markets, and contribute on-the-ground resources to supplement communications efforts. 

Question 3. What are the key countries you are targeting in the next 10 years 

for international visitors to the U.S.? 

Answer. The industry, working through a new organization called the Discover 

America Partnership, is developing a blueprint for a destination marketing campaign that will identify the markets we should be targeting. This blueprint should 

be complete by the end of 2006. 

However, we are confident in predicting that those countries will include the today’s top source markets: Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and Mexico. We also believe that China and other Asian countries, which are rapidly rising 

as sources of international tourism, should also be a focus of our efforts. 

Question 4. How can U.S. travel and tourism be used as a public diplomacy tool 

to improve some of America’s negative image? 

Answer. Dollar for dollar, investing in a nationally-coordinated destination marketing campaign is perhaps the most effective vehicle to strengthen the U.S. image 

in other parts of the world. Such a campaign would accomplish the following: 

1. Demonstrate that our Doors are Open and the Welcome Mat is out. Actions 

speak louder than words, and the simple act of asking people to visit communicates a powerful message in and of itself—even to those who are not able to 

accept the invitation. We look forward to the day that people around the world 

receive such an invitation from the United States. 

2. Bring Potentially Millions of Additional Visitors to the U.S. Whether tied to 

a company or a country, positive word-of-mouth is the most powerful form of 

78 

marketing. Research conducted in six of the top travel markets to the U.S.— 

Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the U.K.—established that while 

38 percent of those who had never visited the U.S. had a positive image of the 

U.S., 54 percent of those who had visited viewed the U.S. positively. Likewise, 

only 61 percent of those who had not visited the U.S. had a positive view of 

the American people, compared to 72 percent of those who had visited. By giving these visitors a powerful firsthand experience of our values and hospitality, 

we can create millions of grassroots Ambassadors. 

3. Communicate America’s Story to the World Through a Well-Executed Marketing Campaign. The best marketing campaigns contribute to building a longterm brand in addition to selling a product. Many other countries are doing this 

very effectively, with destination marketing that communicates the values and 

culture that define them. The U.S. should be in the international marketplace 

with similar ads that invite the world to experience the land of life, liberty and 

the pursuit of happiness. 

Question 5. How has the Internet and media changed the way foreign countries 

market their destinations? 

Answer. The Internet and proliferation of media channels has had a dramatic effect on consumer expectations. Consumer behaviors and booking patterns are evolving at breakneck speed. Today’s world travelers not only have an increasing number 

of worthwhile destinations to choose from, they have better access to information, 

and they expect a higher level of service and ease of movement than ever before. 

However, it is also worth noting that while the Internet is a powerful source of 

information for travelers, traditional media such as television, radio and print, as 

well as outreach to key travel buys and tour operators, is still a core component of 

any effective destination marketing strategy. 

Question 6. The U.S. still leads the other foreign countries in total receipts, totaling $75 billion in 2004. With these figures and the recent rise in U.S. tourism, why 

should we be considering new policies and programs to promote tourism? 

Answer. The U.S. has captured none of the nearly 20 percent growth in countryto-country travel since 2000. 

By the end of 2005, North America was the only sub-region (what is a sub-region?) of the world to have recorded a decline in arrivals since 2000 . 

U.S. share of international travel has fallen 35 percent since 1992—from a high 

of 9.4 percent to the current 6.1 percent. Had the U.S. maintained its share of the 

world travel market, 27 million more travelers would have visited the U.S. in 2005. 

U.S. share of revenue from international travel has fallen 29 percent since 1992— 

costing the U.S. an estimated $43 billion in 2005 alone. The cumulative cost since 

1992 is estimated at $286 billion in economic growth and millions of jobs. 

In 2004—the most recent year for which world statistics are available—the U.S. 

took in $8 billion less from foreign visitors than it did in 2000, at the same time 

that total world receipts were $149 billion higher. 

Meanwhile, lucrative overseas travel to the U.S. is still down 16.5 percent from 

2000, with corresponding revenues down 8 percent in 2005. 

Compared to 10 years ago, the U.S. international tourism balance of trade has declined nearly 72 percent—from $26.3 billion in 1996 to $7.4 billion in 2005. 

A June 2006 TIA survey of professional travel agents and purchasers showed that 

77 percent believed that the U.S. is more difficult to visit than other destinations, 

while only 6 percent found it easier. 

Question 7. What suggestions do you have for the Department of Commerce to be 

more of an advocate for the U.S. travel and tourism industry? 

Answer. Create an elevated voice for travel and tourism within the Department 

of Commerce. While the Office of Travel and Tourism Industries has served a valuable role in providing research and expertise on the industry, and has served effectively in the international organizations for government policy deliberations and 

representation, a dedicated higher-ranking office with the power to coordinate government policy to enhance the Nation’s competitive standing in the global travel 

market is sorely needed. This office should be designed to accomplish the following: 

• Serve as an institutional home and voice for the industry. 

• Energize the interagency process regarding travel and tourism through an elevated Tourism Policy Council with ex-officio status for private sector representation. All government decisions that potentially affect this industry should receive early attention in the interagency process. 

• Identify existing private sector advisory committees, ensure that they include 

the right representatives from the industry and see that their recommendations 

79 

are widely shared across agencies and with other private sector groups and the 

public. 

• Coordinate the roles of other government agencies to more effectively expand 

travel and tourism promotion, product development and infrastructure needs 

and development. 

Question 8. What is industry doing to communicate the new regulations of WHTI 

to the public so that those planning a trip will be prepared for the new procedures 

and can obtain the necessary travel documents? Television, radio, Internet, newspapers, travel magazines? 

Answer. The industry is working through all possible channels to communicate 

this scheduled implementation, including on industry participants’ websites and 

through travel agents. Still, as a policy change designed to protect all Americans, 

the burden of educating the public regarding these new requirements must not be 

left to the travel and tourism industry to shoulder alone. Moreover, we urge consideration of much-needed changes in implementation of these new regulations in order 

to avoid unduly harming travel to and from the U.S.: 

1. Development of an inexpensive alternative to the passport—like the proposed 

PASScard—must be completed before implementation of WHTI. This new card 

will provide relief to the infrequent travelers whose destinations are limited to 

crossing the northern border or perhaps taking a round trip cruise in the Caribbean. 

2. The new requirement should not discriminate against cruise ship travelers. 

First, the PASScard, which the State Department currently intends to make 

available only to travelers at land borders, should also be made available to 

cruise travelers. Second, current plans call for an accelerated implementation 

of WHTI for cruise travelers that at the beginning of 2007, just 4 months from 

now should be changed to reflect the original date mandated by Congress. 

WHTI should only be implemented for cruise passengers after PASScards are 

made available. 

3. Finally, as noted above, before this program is launched, it’s essential that 

the government be prepared to support the industry in launching a massive 

public information campaign aimed at educating travelers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

JAY RASULO

Question 1. Mr. Rasulo, you note in your testimony that travelers expect destinations to compete for their business. Taken as a whole, how do you think the United 

States is doing in that competition right now and what can we be doing to improve 

our position vis a` vis our competitors? 

Answer. The American travel and tourism industry has been significantly outperformed by our global competitors. The United States has captured none of the 

nearly 20 percent growth in country-to-country travel since 2000. As outlined in my 

testimony, we need to make two investments to compete more effectively. First, we 

must ask people to visit us, by investing in a nationally-coordinated marketing 

strategy to move the United States higher on their list of dream destinations. Second, we must invest in creating a first impression of hospitality and friendliness at 

our borders. 

Question 2. In your testimony, both of you advocate a nationally-coordinated marketing strategy to enhance our competitiveness for tourism dollars. Why does the 

Federal Government need to spend taxpayer dollars on an industry that has shown 

the resilience to rebound since September 11, 2001? 

Answer. Investing in attracting international travelers is in the national interest—both economically and diplomatically. Statistics show that investment in tourism has a great return on investment in terms of jobs, economic growth and tax revenue. More importantly, marketing the U.S. to international visitors will help improve America’s image—which is a top national priority. 

While the private sector has done its best to rebound from the events of September 11, 2001, and in fact, visitation continues to rise in the United States, the 

rest of the world is doing even better and outpacing our growth. Since 1992, America’s share of the world travel market has fallen 35 percent. Had the United States 

grown as quickly as the rest of the world, we could have added $286 billion in economic revenue to the U.S. economy, and millions of additional jobs. There are roles 

in improving this performance that the government is uniquely suited to help fulfill, 

such as developing a nationally-coordinated marketing strategy. 

80 

* Available at: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/ttab/docs/2006lFINALTTABlNationallTourisml 

Strategy.pdf. 

Question 3. Can you give the Committee your impressions of how well the Travel 

and Tourism Advisory Board has worked to date? What can we expect to see in your 

recommendations to Secretary Gutierrez later this month? 

Answer. The mere existence of the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board is significant, because it demonstrates that the Congress recognizes the importance of this 

industry for economic development and international diplomacy. Likewise, we are 

pleased that Secretary Gutierrez and the Administration as a whole recognize the 

industry’s role as an economic driver and cultural Ambassador. The Travel and 

Tourism Advisory Board has now been given a much broader, and much more significant, mandate. Secretary Gutierrez has charged the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board with the creation of a national tourism strategy. 

The Board was asked to identify the necessary elements of a competitive national 

travel and tourism program and to provide recommendations on how the United 

States can compete more effectively in the new world market. We submitted our recommendations to the Secretary in early September. Our proposals focused on promotion, ease of travel and public diplomacy, and measuring return on investment. 

For your convenience, I am attaching a copy of the recommendations.*

Question 4. Give us your impressions on the effectiveness of the ‘‘Visit America’’ 

advertising campaign. How would you conduct a similar campaign in the future? 

Where can our limited resources be most effectively targeted? 

Answer. The campaign has certainly been productive despite its limited scale, and 

demonstrates the potential benefits of a larger campaign. The original authorization 

for this effort was $50 million, intended to target the top five source countries for 

travel to the U.S. Before we could create and launch the campaign, the vast majority of the money was eliminated in a rescission, leaving us with just $6 million to 

conduct a small campaign in the United Kingdom: 

• According to research commissioned by the Department of Commerce, the campaign achieved a high return—estimated by Longwoods International at 117 to 

1. Whether or not this number is correct, there is little doubt that this campaign has achieved a significant ROI. 

• The campaign increased the number of those who said they intend to travel to 

the United States by approximately 2 million people. A high percentage of those 

intended travelers actually converted into sales, with 362,000 visitors who saw 

the campaign booking a trip to the United States. 

• A ‘‘best practices’’ independent research schedule was developed to ensure the 

highest standards of accountability for the campaign. The reports concluded 

that the campaign met all of our goals. 

• The advertising increased awareness by reaching approximately 12.8 million 

people in the U.K. 

• The advertising significantly increased the positive perception of the United 

States as a travel destination, increasing by 10 percentage points the number 

of people who mentioned the United States as a ‘‘dream destination’’ (above 

those who did not see the campaign). 

The industry, working through a new organization called the Discover America 

Partnership, is developing a blueprint for a destination marketing campaign that 

will identify the markets we should be targeting. This blueprint should be complete 

by the end of 2006. 

However, we are confident in predicting that those countries will include the today’s top source markets: Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and Mexico. We also believe that China and other Asian countries, which are rapidly rising 

as sources of international tourism, should also be a focus of our efforts. 

Question 5. You note that the current uptake in international visitation is largely 

due to an increase in Canadian travel. Do you think this trend will continue after 

the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is fully implemented? How do we achieve 

the correct balance between protecting our borders and not hindering unplanned 

and spontaneous travel? 

Answer. The industry is cognizant of the fact that the Western Hemisphere Travel 

Initiative, if not implemented in a reasonable manner, may have an enormous adverse effect on the travel and tourism industry. We welcome the recent modifications made by Congress intended to ensure a more successful implementation. 

For our part, we have been working through all possible channels to communicate 

the approaching WHTI requirements to the traveling public, including on industry 

81 

* Available at: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/ttab/docs/2006lFINALTTABlNationallTourisml 

Strategy.pdf. 

participants’ websites and through travel agents. Still, as a policy change designed 

to protect all Americans, the burden of educating the public regarding these new 

requirements must not be left to the travel and tourism industry to shoulder alone. 

Question 6. How do you think international travelers perceive travel to the United 

States in a post-September 11 environment and what can be done to dispel the ‘‘fortress America’’ conception that many travelers have? 

Answer. The many steps the government has taken to exclude potential terrorists, 

while supported by the travel and tourism industry, regrettably may have created 

the impression that the United States does not welcome international visitors. The 

United States has become less competitive than other countries because of the growing perception that it is more difficult and more costly to travel here compared to 

other international destinations. Surveys demonstrate that potential international 

visitors now deliberately avoid travel to the United States due to real and perceived 

barriers to entry. For example, a Department of Commerce’s Travel Barometer report, which surveys international travel professionals, recently noted that, ‘‘Starting 

in 2004, entrance procedure to the U.S. consistently has registered as the top barrier for travel. These barriers included the following factors: misinformation for consumers on entry and exit requirements to the USA, actual entrance procedures to 

visit the USA, visa processing time. Two-in-three program participants consider 

misinformation for consumers on entry and exit requirements as a travel barrier.’’ 

The Travel and Tourism Advisory Board’s recommendations to Secretary Gutierrez included multiple proposals designed to combat these perceptions. The recommendations are presented in four categories: (1) provide a stronger voice for travel and tourism in government; (2) remove unnecessary barriers to travel; (3) create 

a welcoming first impression; and (4) avoid inappropriate taxes, fees, and regulations. I attach the full set of recommendations for your review.*

Question 7. In your testimony, you advocate the creation of a Presidential Advisory Council on Travel and Tourism. How would you envision this public-private 

partnership working? From your perspective, would this be the type of body to carry 

out advertising and marketing campaigns in the future? 

Answer. I defer to my colleague Jonathan Tisch on this response. 

Question 8. How can consular officials create a better first impression on travelers 

seeking entry to the United States for the first time? Would you recommend some 

type of customer service training for all consular and customs officials? How would 

you conduct this training? 

Answer. There are a number of steps that we could take to create a better first 

impression on travelers seeking entry to the United States. This is an element of 

the Travel and Tourism Board’s recommendations to Secretary Gutierrez. To summarize, we propose staffing Federal Inspection Services and TSA fully and efficiently at land, air, and sea ports. The industry stands ready to assist in developing 

a Model Ports of Entry project, including sharing expertise in management of line 

waits and staffing patterns, establishing pre-clearance facilities, improved signage, 

and providing a warm welcome to international visitors. We urge DHS to incorporate hospitality within its goals and performance review process. We also urge the 

U.S. Government to work to better coordinate security requirements with other governments. Finally, we urge the government to ensure accurate and timely communications regarding travel requirements directly to the traveling public. 

The industry has offered its assistance on customer service training for consular 

and customs officials. We remain willing to cooperate, and we are flexible in how 

best to accomplish that training. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GORDON H. SMITH TO

JONATHAN M. TISCH

Question 1. It is my understanding that almost all developed countries have a cabinet-level official charged with tourism promotion and diplomacy. From your experience, which countries have done it right—to protect their borders but open its doors 

to tourists? 

Answer. Other countries realize the need to invite travelers to visit their destinations, and that means establishing a budget for marketing inbound tourism. A comprehensive study soon to be released by the World Tourism Organization (WTO) explores the structures and budgets of National Tourism Organizations. The largest 

tourism budgets in 2005 are the following: 

82 

Country U.S. Dollars 

Greece 151.4 million 

Mexico 149.2 million 

Spain* 119.7 million 

Malaysia* 117.9 million 

Australia 113.3 million 

United Kingdom 82.9 million 

Ireland 82.1 million 

South Africa 70.2 million 

Cyprus 64.5 million 

France 63.3 million 

U.S.* 6.1 million 

* Funded 100 percent by national government. 

Question 2. What is the U.S. Government’s role to promote its tourism industry? 

Is there anything else our government should do to better address your industry’s 

needs? 

Answer. The U.S. Government must recognize the great potential the travel and 

tourism industry has as a vehicle for public diplomacy across the globe. At a time 

when America’s image abroad is tarnished, through international people-to-people 

interaction—which is only achievable through travel—we have the ability to influence the opinions of billions. A recent Pew Global Attitudes survey showed that 

international visitors to the U.S. are 42 percent more likely to hold positive opinions 

of the U.S. than those who have not visited. 

It is the government’s role to ensure that those who want to travel to the U.S. 

are able to do so without unnecessary hassles caused by stringent security measures 

implemented post-9/11. The travel and tourism industry supports the government’s 

efforts to secure our Nation’s borders from future terrorist attacks, but we must also 

be sure to welcome legitimate business and leisure travelers at the same time. 

The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, of which I am a Member, has recently submitted to the Secretary of Commerce recommendations for a national 

tourism policy. This document represents the hard work and vision of more than 

a dozen U.S. travel and tourism leaders and serves as a blueprint for Congress and 

the Administration on how to approach the challenge of balancing security and the 

free flow of commerce. The document will be released to the public in September. 

Question 3. What are the key countries you are targeting in the next 10 years 

for international visitors to the U.S.? 

Answer. As you know, the U.S. has spent and is spending its marketing dollars 

in the U.K. and Japan. They are our largest overseas inbound travel markets. As 

our largest overall inbound market, Canada will also be a key target, especially as 

the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is being implemented. 

Question 4. How can U.S. travel and tourism be used as a public diplomacy tool 

to improve some of America’s negative image? 

Answer. Travel and tourism is a public diplomacy tool that has not yet realized 

its full potential. The difference between visitors’ and non-visitors’ positive feelings 

toward the U.S. in some of our largest markets are quite dramatic based on the following research from GMI, Inc. (2005): 

Country Visitors’ Positive Feelings 

(in percent) 

Non-Visitors’ Positive Feelings 

(in percent) 

U.K. 61 44 

Japan 46 28 

Germany 45 27 

France 52 17 

Clearly travel makes a difference. 

The September launch of the Discover America Partnership is one way the industry is rising to the occasion. The goal is to draw attention to travel as the prominent 

solution to the U.S. image problem. In addition, the efforts of the USTTAB are highly focused on promoting more travel to the U.S., through more efficient visa processes, reasonable passport regulations, and more welcoming entry procedures. 

Question 5. How has the Internet and media changed the way foreign countries 

market their destinations? 

Answer. Foreign countries are increasingly using the Internet to market their 

countries as destinations. According to the WTO study, 3.4 percent of the above 

countries’ marketing funding goes toward the Internet. The U.S. travel industry, 

83 

through the USTTAB, recommends the most recent $4 million appropriation 

through Commerce be used to enhance marketing tools on the DiscoverAmerica.com 

website. 

Question 6. The U.S. still leads the other foreign countries in total receipts, totaling $75 billion in 2004. With these figures and the recent rise in U.S. tourism, why 

should we be considering new policies and programs to promote tourism? 

Answer. Five years after 9/11, we have still not matched 2000 inbound travel levels. In terms of overall travel numbers, we are almost there. However, this rise in 

inbound international travel is deceptive because most of the increase is due to a 

rise in Canadian and Mexican travel to the U.S. These markets have taken a 10 

percent increase, while our overseas market is lagging 17 percent behind 2000 levels. In addition, with the WHTI deadline approaching, we must be careful how we 

implement new travel document requirements on our closest neighbors. U.S. overall 

world market share has decreased 19 percent from 2000 to 2004, and 36 percent 

between 1992 and 2004. The U.S. had 9 percent of world market share in 1992, 

today we have 6 percent. 

When waits for visas in India are 150 days (currently in New Delhi) for visitors, 

we should be considering new policies and procedures for ensuring those visitors 

who want to come here are able to do so. 

Question 7. What suggestions do you have for the Department of Commerce to be 

more of an advocate for the U.S. travel and tourism industry? 

Answer. The industry is greatly appreciative of Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez’s 

leadership with the USTTAB. By asking for industry recommendations about travel 

and tourism policy, the Department of Commerce has accumulated a wealth of 

knowledge from industry leaders. The Department should work with the Departments of State and Homeland Security and the private sector to implement these 

recommendations. 

Question 8. What is industry doing to communicate the new regulations of WHTI 

to the public so that those planning a trip will be prepared for the new procedures 

and can obtain the necessary travel documents? Television, radio, Internet, newspapers, travel magazines? 

Answer. The travel and tourism industry is currently awaiting the final WHTI 

rulemaking from the Departments of State and DHS. Our members are updated at 

each step toward making the final rules. We believe there should be a modest deadline extension for land-border travel and that PASScards should be made available 

for cruise travelers. As soon as DHS and State indicate they are prepared to meet 

the deadlines, we will work with them to educate the traveling public. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GORDON H. SMITH TO

TODD DAVIDSON

Question 1. Is the Oregon Tourism Investment Program a good model for marketing the U.S. as an international tourism destination? What lessons can we extract from the Oregon experience to guide a national program to make the U.S. 

more competitive in the global tourism market? 

Answer. The Oregon Tourism Investment Proposal is one of several programs that 

should be explored as models for a national tourism marketing effort. The OTIP represents a vibrant public-private partnership where an industry-lead coalition 

worked with elected officials to craft legislation that established a stable funding 

source (1 percent statewide lodging tax on all forms of transient lodging) and removed much of the bureaucratic and administrative oversight by establishing the 

Oregon Tourism Commission as a semi-independent agency. Other funding and administrative models that I recommend should be explored include Minnesota, Missouri, California and Florida. 

There are several lessons learned that are applicable to a national effort. These 

include: 

1. There is a role for government for creating awareness and demand for a travel destination. This is true for Oregon and is true for the United States. 

2. The removal of bureaucratic barriers will create a more market-driven and 

market responsive organization. Such an organization will be better positioned 

to maximize the return on investment of their available resources. 

3. That a vibrant, well-funded advertising effort can reduce and eliminate a loss 

of market share and stimulate the economy through increased visitor expenditures and the subsequent job creation. 

84 

Question 2. Please tell us more about what Oregon has done to market itself as 

a tourism destination. 

Answer. The Oregon Tourism Commission implements a fully integrated marketing and development program. We have four strategic areas of focus that we address in our marketing plans and they are: 

Strategic Area #1—Maximize the return on public and private investments in tourism. 

This strategic area focuses on the return on investment generated by the Commission’s marketing programs: media advertising, communications and collateral material, and State Welcome Centers. Ensuring that marketing investments made by the Commission and its private-sector partners are translating 

into real economic benefits is a high priority. Measurements range from generating trips from advertising to maintaining consumer awareness in key markets. 

Strategic Area #2—Reduce seasonal fluctuations in travel and tourism-related industries and maintain the average stay by encouraging visitors to be destination-oriented in this state. 

All of the Commission’s marketing and development programs emphasize yearround tourism where feasible, and promote destination tourism throughout the 

state. The measurements related to this strategic area of focus are found primarily in the media advertising, public relations, communications and tourism 

development program areas. 

Strategic Area #3—Encourage visitors to come to Oregon from the primary international target markets of Canada, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. 

With the non-stop international air service of Lufthansa German Airlines’, 

Mexicana Airlines’ and Northwest Airlines’ into Oregon, this area of focus continues to be increasingly important. Working in cooperation with key partners, 

including the Port of Portland, the Commission will strive to invest limited dollars strategically in attracting new visitors from Europe, Mexico and Asia to 

support this service, as well as from Canada. 

Strategic Area #4—Cooperate with local, regional, national, tribal and private-industry tourism entities. 

Partnerships are a critical component of the Commission’s ability to position Oregon positively in the travel marketplace. With limited state dollars, partnerships help the Commission leverage funding and grow the reach of our marketing and development programs. This area focuses on meeting similar goals 

identified in Strategic Area #1 in that the return on investment generated by 

tourism marketing activities is critical to the state and its tourism industry. In 

addition, the Commission provides tools for developing the industry statewide, 

including up-to-date research, the Q Program, rural tourism development, 

‘‘niche’’ market development and training, the annual Governor’s Conference on 

Tourism and State Welcome. Of equal importance, this plan will call for a more 

proactive role for the Tourism Commission in unifying the industry around marketing objectives, industry awareness building and policy development. 

Question 3. How much appeal do Oregon Scenic Byways have to domestic and 

international tourists? How does Oregon market its scenic byways? 

Answer. Oregon was an early adopter of developing a strong scenic byways program and has benefited as a result. Oregon now has the largest number of All 

America Roads in the U.S. and has received several Federal grants to support the 

safety, interpretation and marketing of our scenic byways. One grant enabled us to 

produce the Oregon Scenic Byways Guide which has become our most popular guide 

for our European visitors. The presence of the byways creates ‘‘suggested 

itineraries’’ for our visitors and introduces them to our natural, cultural and historical landscapes throughout the state, but especially in our most rural areas. Oregon 

promotes the byways in publication, on their website www.TravelOregon.com, in 

press release and e-newsletters. 

Question 4. What will be the potential impact of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver 

on Oregon tourism? What is being done to maximize that impact? 

Answer. The proximity of the 2010 Olympics being held in Vancouver, B.C. holds 

potential benefit for Oregon. So, we are working with the Pacific Northwest states 

of Washington, Idaho and Montana, as well as the provinces of Alberta and British 

Columbia to explore joint marketing programs. Specific opportunities we have identified include establishing a visitor information center near the Olympic Village to 

85 

reach the visitors traveling to the Games, positioning the Northwest as a training 

facility for Olympic teams wishing to acclimate to the region’s elevation and climate, 

and marketing to the noncredentialed media that follow the Games to do travel and 

lifestyle oriented stories. 

Question 5. What effect could the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative have on 

Oregon? What is being done to cope with that impact? 

Answer. Oregon has benefited from strong Canadian travel for decades. And with 

the Mexicana flights serving PDX, Oregon is experiencing growth in Mexican arrivals as well. While the Oregon Tourism Commission supports enhanced security 

measures to protect our Nation, we remain concerned the January 1, 2008 deadline 

poses a real threat to cross-border travel between the U.S. and its neighbors within 

the Western Hemisphere. We are particularly concerned about the impact of the 

proposed WHTI on Canadian travel to the U.S., and will continue to work with the 

Travel Industry Association, the Travel Business Roundtable and the Administration to find workable solutions that enhance border security while continuing to facilitate the entry of millions of legitimate international visitors. And while we are 

encouraged by the adoption of the Stevens-Leahy amendment, the fate of Immigration Reform legislation in the Senate or beyond that in a Senate-House conference 

committee is uncertain. 

Question 6. What role does the private sector play in marketing Oregon tourism? 

Answer. There are numerous critical and pivotal roles played by the private sector 

in the promotion of Oregon as a travel destination. Some examples include: 

1. The private sector is the ultimate purveyor of the product we create demand 

for. While the Tourism Commission’s efforts do create awareness and demand 

for the destination, the financial transaction occurs with the private sector businesses delivering the experience. 

2. The private sector represents the vast majority of the membership of the gubernatorially-appointed Tourism Commission: five members are from the lodging sector, three are from the tourism industry-at-large and one is from the 

public-at-large. 

3. The private sector leverages our marketing efforts by helping host tour operators and travel media, purchasing product ads that reflect the Brand Oregon 

style, and providing exemplary service to our visitors to increase repeat visitation. 

Question 7. How does the recent increase of tourism in Oregon compare with other 

states? 

Answer. The increase in visitor expenditures in Oregon for the past 2 years has 

been on an even pace with the national average—approximately 7 percent per year. 

The importance of this is that prior to the implementation of the Oregon Tourism 

Investment Proposal, Oregon’s visitor industry was growing at a slower pace than 

the national average. We were losing market share. At one time, Oregon’s marketing budget was 46th in the country out of 50 states at $3 million annually while 

the average state tourism budget in the U.S. was approximately $13 million annually. Today, with the implementation of the OTIP, Oregon’s budget is $9 million annually. And, while this is still below average for all state tourism office budgets, we 

are far more competitive at this level and have been able to secure additional market share and keep pace with the national average rate of growth. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

VIRGINIA ‘‘GINNY’’ PRESSLER, M.D., MBA, FACS 

Question 1. In Dr. Pressler’s testimony she states that more than 11,000 visitors 

have come to Hawaii for planned medical treatment. This is in addition to the numerous visitors that need unplanned medical assistance from the Hawaii healthcare 

system while visiting the islands. With the growing number of planned and unplanned visitors using Hawaii’s healthcare facilities, do you feel that this is in any 

way hindering the treatment the local community receives from the healthcare system in Hawaii? 

Answer. The connection between tourism and access to Hawaii’s healthcare facilities by local residents is a mixed bag. As mentioned in my testimony, there is a 

growing awareness that Hawaii is strategically placed to become a premiere medical 

tourist destination given its location advantage, existing tourist amenities and the 

reputation of its quality healthcare system. Any investment to develop facilities to 

meet this growing demand will have positive spillover effects for local residents as 

86 

* Response to written questions was not available at the time this hearing went to press. 

well—provided these are tourists originating from countries with adequate health insurance coverage. 

For example—generally speaking—U.S. mainland, East Asian, and European visitors with commercial healthcare coverage generally reimburse our healthcare providers far better than Hawaii health plan reimbursement rates. These patients provide a welcome source of revenue for our healthcare facilities which enables them 

to improve services in our local community. 

However tourists with government coverage—for example U.S. Mainland patients 

covered by their state Medicaid plans create a problem for us since State Medicaid 

agencies require a provider application completed for each hospital and each physician for every state from which we treat patients. Given the administrative burden, 

for physicians, it is easier for us to simply write off the claim than seek reimbursement. 

Similarly Pacific Island patients are covered under government programs that pay 

inadequately. At Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children we have received 

$46,000 in the last 9 months for CNMI Medicaid patients during which time these 

patients have incurred $1.6 million in billed charges. These inadequate reimbursements create a major burden on our local healthcare system. 

So again to go back to your initial question, the impact of tourism driven medical 

visits on our healthcare industry depends entirely on the type of tourists visiting 

and the health insurance they are covered by. 

Question 2. You have seen an increase in the amount of visitors coming to Hawaii 

because of the healthcare system. Have you also seen an increase in the number 

of doctors and nurses seeking to come to Hawaii to fill those greatly needed positions? 

Answer. Hawaii’s remoteness is the factor defining both the urgency in having access to medical specialty resources nearby as well as the difficulty in attracting the 

number of doctors and nurses. The distance from Honolulu to Los Angeles (2,563 

miles) is greater than Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles (2,297 miles). Tokyo, 

Japan—where a significant number of Hawaii tourists originate—is 3,856 miles 

from Honolulu. Knowing that Hawaii hospitals are capable of providing quality 

healthcare is reassuring to any traveler who must overcome great distances and 

part of what makes Hawaii a destination of choice. Distance makes it an imperative 

that specialty care is available on the island. 

However, distance is also a continuous barrier for Hawaii in recruiting the 

healthcare professionals we need. Similar to other remote rural areas, Hawaii is 

handicapped in recruitment efforts by not being in proximity to large pools of 

healthcare labor supply. As a result, Hawaii faces an anticipated shortage of 2,267 

registered nurses in the next 5 years and 4,593 by 2020. Similarly, securing specialty physicians to practice in remote areas is also challenging. These shortages are 

already evidenced in the local residents via access to specialty care, particularly in 

our rural communities over the past few years. Patients suffer from delays in treatment and sometimes forego treatment altogether. 

As Hawaii continues to grow as a tourist destination, and more planned and unplanned medical visits increase, soon these shortages will also have an impact upon 

Hawaii’s tourism industry. For example, our Burn Center at Straub Clinic & Hospital will be the first responders in the event of a major airline or shipping disaster 

as it is the only specialized burn center in the entire Pacific Basin. The extent of 

our ability to provide care for such a catastrophe will have long lasting impacts to 

Hawaii’s perception as a safe destination for people to travel to. 

Hawaii desperately needs special consideration for financial support for recruitment and retention of qualified healthcare professionals so we can continue to provide quality care to both our local community and our domestic and international 

visitors. 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

ROBERT M. JACKSTA * 

Question 1. The Departments of State (State) and Homeland Security (DHS) are 

devising plans to produce an alternative form of the U.S. passport that can be used 

at land-border crossings. State and the DHS envision the alternative passport as 

being a wallet-sized card that would cost less than a traditional passport and be 

easier to obtain. The alternative passport would only be used by U.S. citizens crossing the land-borders between the United States and Canada and the United States 

and Mexico. 

87 

* Response to written questions was not available at the time this hearing went to press. 

In addition to reduced cost and convenience, what are the strengths of creating 

an alternative passport card system to be used by U.S. citizens traveling between 

the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada? Would the administrative costs associated with transferring over to a new form of passport outweigh the benefits to be realized by the card’s use? 

Question 2. Many in the travel and tourism industry fear that the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) will hinder northern border crossings and inhibit 

spontaneous and unplanned travel to the United States. What would you say to 

these concerns? 

Question 3. Have you worked with the Canadian or Mexican governments to help 

them understand and meet the requirements of the WHTI? 

Question 4. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted that the deadline for implementation of the WHTI is in danger of being missed. How do you expect our neighbors to comply with the new border entry requirements if we have 

not fully implemented the initiative? 

Question 5. What do you perceive as being weaknesses to developing a substitute 

for the traditional passport booklet used by American citizens as they cross borders 

between the United States and its neighboring countries of Mexico and Canada? 

Question 6. Will creation of a new passport to be used for travel between the 

United States and its neighboring countries of Mexico and Canada complicate State 

and the DHS’s ability to require that citizens traveling to countries noncontiguous 

to the United States possess a more traditional passport booklet? 

Question 7. Currently, the U.S. Government issues Border Crossing Cards (BCCs) 

to Mexican nationals who cross the U.S. border on a regular basis. Because the BCC 

is a B–1/B–2 visa when presented with a passport, the process to obtain a BCC 

nearly mirrors the visa issuance process, thus necessitating a background check and 

interviews. Border Crossing Patrol is considering whether BCCs can serve as alternatives to the wallet-size passport cards being proposed by Departments of State 

(State) and Homeland Security (DHS). What are some drawbacks to possibly permitting the Border Crossing Cards (BCCs) to substitute as passports for Mexican nationals crossing the Mexico-United States border? 

Question 8. Does Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) fear the circulation of a greater number of varying types of security documents, such as traditional passport booklets, wallet-size passport cards, and BCCs, will further incite production of counterfeit passports, thus threatening the United States’ efforts to protect its borders? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

JONATHAN M. TISCH * 

Question 1. The Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and the Travel Industry Association (TIA) support the concept of a PASScard, as introduced by State and DHS, 

as a means of having a less expensive and easier to obtain passport. The TBR and 

the TIA remain concerned that the Departments of State (State) and Homeland Security (DHS) have not yet chosen the type of technology that will be integrated into 

the PASScard. The TBR and the TIA have acknowledged the necessity of mounting 

a public education campaign regarding the PASScard once State and the DHS agree 

on the type of technology that will be integrated into a PASScard. 

What are the Travel Business Roundtable’s (TBR) and the Travel Industry Association’s (TIA) ideas about what technology should be integrated into a Pass card? 

Question 2. Do TBR and TIA have any suggestions as to how State and DHS can 

more efficiently create a PASScard, using the newest technology, and mount a successful public education campaign on PASScards? 

Question 3. Are other countries developing something similar to a PASScard that 

would satisfy the requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

(WHTI)? Is the State Department working with any foreign governments to assist 

them in the development of alternative passports, such as e-Passports or 

PASScards? 

Question 4. In your opinion, what is the best way to balance the dual needs of 

national security and facilitating tourism? Should biometrics be a requirement for 

all persons entering the country? Is the PASScard the best available alternative to 

comply with the statutory requirements of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 

Prevention Act (IRTPA)? 

88 

Question 5. As the deadline approaches for State and DHS to release the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

(WHTI) for air and sea entries, the Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and the Travel Industry Association (TIA) fear that confusion, due to a poorly implemented 

WHTI, will frustrate the tourism business. The deadline for the release of NPRM 

remains 7 months away. In the Immigration Reform bill recently considered in the 

Senate, Senators Stevens and Leahy sponsored an amendment to extend the statutory deadline for 1 year. From an industry perspective, what do you believe is the 

best way to proceed with the development of the WHTI? 

Question 6. What are some of the difficulties in implementation of WHTI that can 

be addressed between now and the statutory deadline for implementation? 

Question 7. Do you believe that a properly implemented WHTI will have a positive 

or negative impact on tourism? National security? 

Question 8. How much revenue do TBR and TIA estimate the travel and tourism 

industry will lose it the NPRM and PASScards are not implemented more expeditiously? 

Question 9. Pre-Hurricane Katrina Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama prospered 

from a tourism industry which accounted for 260,000 jobs and a payroll income of 

$3.7 billion. In 2004, the tourism industry generated $18.3 billion in travel-related 

sales for the Gulf Coast region. Following Hurricane Katrina, many Americans and 

international travelers still perceive the devastation accompanying Hurricane 

Katrina as the current norm. 

On behalf of the travel industry, the Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and the 

Travel Industry Association (TIA) have offered policy recommendations to Congress 

following Hurricane Katrina. TBR and TIA recommend that there be tax incentives 

for conventions and visitors traveling to the Gulf Coast region and a promotion campaign to inform the world that the Gulf Coast region has revitalized its charm and 

appeal to travelers. How have the TBR and the TIA tried to improve possible travelers’ perceptions of the Gulf Coast region? 

Question 10. Has Congress been successful in furthering some of the TBR and the 

TIA’s suggestions for revitalizing the Gulf Coast region’s appeal to American and 

international travelers? 

Question 11. The Travel Business Roundtable (TBR) and the Travel Industry Association (TIA) have found that while newly created Visa Business Centers have alleviated some hassles inherent to international travel, international travelers still 

encounter long visa interview wait times and lengthy trips to available visa interview destinations. The TBR and the TIA report the average visa interview wait time 

in Brazil to be 70 days and 132 days in India. TBR and TIA admit that visa interview wait times have been reduced in countries like China and South Korea due 

to additional staffing and more interview hours. 

Where have you seen the shortest visa interview wait times? Is there a strong 

correlation between short visa interview wait time in a particular country and the 

number of travelers within that country who choose to travel internationally? 

Question 12. How do you suggest the State Department improve visa interview 

wait times? 

Question 13. What suggestions do you have for the new Model Airport program? 

Do you think this can be a successful program to extend ‘‘America’s welcome’’ to 

international travelers? 

Æ