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

38–747 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–177

THE PASSPORT BACKLOG AND THE STATE

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE WESTERN

HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND

ORGANIZATIONS, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 19, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

BILL NELSON, Florida

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania

JIM WEBB, Virginia

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

BOB CORKER, Tennessee

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND

ORGANIZATIONS, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania

JIM WEBB, Virginia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Harty, Hon. Maura, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department

of State, Washington, DC .................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Responses to questions from Senator Nelson ................................................. 46

Responses to questions from Senator Lugar .................................................. 54

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, prepared statement ......... 4

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Florida, opening statement ...................... 1

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from Louisiana, opening statement ................ 5

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Press Release of Hon. John F. Kerry, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ........... 45

Letters submitted by Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from Ohio:

Letter to Secretary Condoleezza Rice, June 7, 2007 ..................................... 28

Letter to Secretaries Condoleezza Rice and Michael Chertoff, June 13,

2007 ................................................................................................................ 29

Letter from the State Department, July 24, 2007 ......................................... 30

Letter to Senator Daniel K. Akaka, chairman, Oversight Subcommittee,

June 13, 2007 ................................................................................................ 31

(III)

(1)

THE PASSPORT BACKLOG AND THE STATE

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2007

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND

ORGANIZATIONS, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bill Nelson, Feingold, Menendez, Webb, Lugar,

Coleman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Isakson, and Vitter.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Senator BILL NELSON. Good afternoon. It seems like there is a

little bit of interest here in the subject matter of this hearing. And,

indeed, it is something that has caused a great deal of consternation.

Madam Assistant Secretary, I appreciate your willingness to

come here today so that we can talk about what went wrong, how

to get it fixed, and how it won’t happen again. There’s this huge

backlog of passports. Some people have been waiting as long as 5

months for a passport. It’s estimated there is a backlog of upward

of 2 million passport applications. We’ve got to get this straightened out.

We have the implementation of a new, good, policy, the Western

Hemisphere Travel Initiative. It protects our borders, but it also

protects American citizens while they are traveling away from

home. But the processing delays are causing hardships, and because of that we’ve had to suspend the Western Hemisphere Travel

Initiative. And what does that do? That doesn’t make us secure, as

the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative intended. That law was

passed at the end of 2004, and the State Department has had over

2 years to plan for, and implement, the new policy of requiring

passports for traveling to Canada, to Mexico, and to the Caribbean.

Madam Ambassador, you’re going to find that there’s a good deal

of frustration that will be expressed here, because millions of

Americans, in their frustration at not getting a passport, have

turned only where they know where to turn, and that is to their

Senator or to their Congressman. I can tell you that our offices are

2

absolutely overwhelmed. But I want to tell you also that, thank

goodness, you’ve got a bunch of dedicated people working on the

line, working their little fingers to the bone, trying to process these

passport applications. And so, I cannot say enough good things

about what people on the line at the Department of State have

been doing in cooperating with the staffs of the Members of Congress and the Members of the Senate in trying to bring about some

relief for some of these folks.

So, I want it nailed down right here that the State Department

people who are down there in the trenches working are working as

hard as they can. What we want to focus on is the managers. Why

has this problem been mismanaged? Why do we have these frustrations and delays?

Here’s just a sampling from three people I met with yesterday

in Tampa:

A single mom whose son was in an automobile accident in Panama. His two buddies were killed, and he was seriously injured and

went through two surgeries. She’s having difficulty getting a passport so she can get to him to take care of him.

A civic-minded couple that are raising money for cancer, and part

of that fundraiser was that they were climbing Mount Kilimanjaro,

and, of course, they got caught in the backlog, too, and they

wouldn’t have gotten their passport, had they not called us.

A dedicated father trying to make sure that his daughter, who

had been training in Orlando, can join the U.S. Olympic softball

team in Europe.

And then, of course, we have the problem of families that the

passport application has been in for a month for the children, and

the parents have to decide whether or not they have to leave the

children behind because they can’t get the passport.

In the backlog of 2 million passport applications, many of those

travelers have had to cancel their trips. And they’ve been planning

months in advance. They’ve paid all the money out in advance. In

some cases, they have nonrefundable tickets. They go about paying

the extra 60 bucks to expedite things, and that doesn’t do any good.

And so, you have a mess.

At the post office that I went to yesterday in Tampa, the Post

Office Department has issued this press guidance so that all the

people coming in there to apply for a passport, that there is a policy on refunds for expedited passport applications. This says the

Department of State deeply regrets any inconvenience caused to

travelers whose passports were not available in time for their

planned travel. Travelers who have paid their $60 fee and have a

reason to believe that they didn’t get the expedited service should

issue a written statement to the Department of State. Why don’t

we just change that policy? Why should they have to apply to get

it back? Since there hasn’t been any expedited service, why don’t

we just automatically start sending those folks their $60 back, instead of Senator Lugar and Senator Vitter and I having to pass

something in law that says that you have to give it back? Why

doesn’t the Department of State just do that, as a matter of policy,

instead of having them have to go through more paperwork hassle

to get their 60 bucks back? Which, oh, by the way, $97 for a passport, plus 60 bucks, that’s 157 bucks. For a family of four, that’s

3

over $600. That’s getting pretty sporty, and, in and of itself, will

cause a problem of people being able to travel.

The jam began when the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative,

which was a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission, went into

effect. And last January the rules were that you had to have a

passport to go to Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean. The current

turnaround time now is in the range of 10 to 12 weeks, and normally it would be 4 to 6 weeks. Half a million applications have

been in the system for more than 3 months. And now, in order to

reduce the backlog for the summer travel, the Department is temporarily scaling back implementation of that initiative until September 30, saying that you don’t have to produce the passport to

travel in those three areas in the Western Hemisphere if you can

show that you have applied for the passport. But what happened

to the policy, 21⁄2 years ago, that said we’re going to make America

more secure by requiring a passport in the first place?

Yesterday, I met a 78-year-old widow—she was told, even after

we got into the situation, we were going to have to send her to the

passport office in Miami—she lives in Tampa—which, when she

left me, yesterday at about noontime, she was driving to—from

Tampa to Miami. Initially, she was told that she was going to have

to get in the line at 4 o’clock in the morning on the street in Miami,

FL. We raised such a ruckus, that a 78-year-old widow would be

required to do this, that finally the Department said, ‘‘We will

schedule an appointment for her at 8 o’clock in the morning.’’ This

isn’t the way to do business.

This subcommittee hopes that you’re going to be able to address

the State Department’s response to the Western Hemisphere Initiative, and, out of our discussion, what we want you to do is to answer, that, if you knew in November that you had received 250,000

more applications than originally projected, and then, in January,

knew that the problem had grown to 600,000 above your estimates,

then why did it take the Department so long to act? Now, I understand, Madam Secretary, that you’re one of the best in the business, that you are a career Foreign Service officer who has a magnificent record.

And so, this isn’t directed at you, personally. But I want to know

who is accountable—because when I was in the military, I was

taught that the captain of the ship was accountable and responsible for everything that happened on the ship—and that document, right there, my passport—and I open it up, and who is the

captain of the ship? It says the Secretary of State of the United

States of America. So, we want to know who’s accountable and why

this mess has happened.

And we also want to know, to what extent the State Department

feels that the private contractor is responsible for this. And why,

with a 20-year service of a private contractor, did you suddenly

change to a new private contractor? And how do you answer, when

you say it’s the private contractor’s fault, that the private contractor says, ‘‘No, it isn’t, it’s the State Department’s fault’’?

So, what is the State Department going to do to remedy the problem? As you can see by the turnout here, there’s frustration,

because every one of us is inundated on people—these cries of

anguish that are coming.

4

We’d like to know, also, how many have applied using the $60

fee. Is that 100,000? Is it a million? If it’s a million, my goodness,

you’ve suddenly got $60 million. And what are we going to do to

get that money back to them? And then, what are you going to do

to make sure that the backlog does not continue?

And already we have—and we’re just talking about air travel in

the Western Hemisphere Initiative—we have already put off the

land and the sea travel requirement of a passport, and now, over

on the House side, in the Appropriations Committee, they’ve already gone through the drill of delaying that from January 2008

all the way to June 2009. Now, how does that serve the interest

of the United States in protecting the homeland, which was the

original intention of the 9/11 Commission?

And I say, again, to you, Madam Secretary, you are the best in

the business. You are a career Foreign Service officer. You’re reputation precedes you. I’m not picking on you. You’re the courageous

one that came here to give answers to these questions. But the

emotion in my voice is being expressed for all of these here, and

all of those out there that are not at this hearing, that are desperately looking for answers.

So, let me turn to Senator Vitter.

And, Senator Lugar, did you have an opening statement that you

wanted to make?

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, I did, but I—in the expediency of

time, I’ll ask for it to be in the record in this proceeding.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK, without objection.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

I join in welcoming Assistant Secretary Harty to the committee. I am hopeful that

our inquiry today will illuminate the problems experienced by many Americans who

are attempting to secure their passports for important travel. Congress should be

working closely with the State Department to reduce processing times, improve information for passport customers, and ensure that emergency cases are addressed.

With a change in law occurring on January 23, 2007, thousands of Americans followed new rules and sought a passport for travel in the Western Hemisphere. However, their honest efforts ran into a bureaucratic system unable to handle the vastly

increased demand. In many cases, processing times tripled from past years. This

has led to a wave of desperate travelers appealing to congressional offices for help

in salvaging vacations, business trips, and other travel.

Passport inquires are now the No. 1 casework concern in my Indiana offices by

a wide margin. I anticipate that this is true for most Senate offices. In recent

months, I increased the number of staffers dealing with passports from one to seven

and instituted e-mail and Web site features to help process requests and disseminate information.

Although inquiries by my office to Passport Agency personnel and contractors

have been treated courteously and pleasantly, the information provided to constituents and my staff was often erroneous or unhelpful. Constituents have been told

that their passports were on the way only to find out days later that no meaningful

progress had been made toward processing them. Other constituents reported that

regardless of what time of day they called the Passport Agency, they were unable

to connect with agency personnel about their application. The passport office in New

Orleans, to which Indiana passport applications are sent, clearly is inadequately

staffed.

As a last-ditch option, my staff has guided Hoosiers who were set to depart within

48 hours to the Chicago Passport Agency. There, after a long drive, they could undertake the burdensome task of waiting in a line that stretched around the building,

working their way through security, and then reapplying for their passport. For constituents who were not born in Indiana, or even the United States, and who had

already sent in their only birth certificate with their original application, this option

5

proved especially difficult. Some constituents were forced to pay the passport application fee a second time when they appeared in Chicago. Enduring this process, just

hours before an overseas departure caused enormous anxiety for countless travelers.

On June 6, I wrote to Secretary Rice to share the passport experiences of Hoosiers

and appeal for urgent efforts to fix the system. I appreciate the administration’s decision on June 8 to allow U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean,

and Bermuda to enter and depart from the United States by air with a governmentissued photo identification and proof of application for a passport. This temporary

fix lasts through September 30, 2007.

In my letter to Secretary Rice, I indicated that the State Department should not

be reticent to ask Congress for whatever additional resources are necessary to make

the passport process run smoothly. We want a first-class passport system that meets

our security needs while facilitating the travel of Americans. This travel is essential

to our foreign policy, our economy, and the cultural and educational life of our citizens.

I thank the chairman and look forward to our discussion.

Senator BILL NELSON. Senator Vitter.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM LOUISIANA

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, because I certainly join you and everyone else in expressing

how serious a crisis this is.

All of us hear about these horror stories from our constituents,

literally daily now. And so, I want to underscore how serious a crisis this is, and add my voice to the extreme concern about it.

I really don’t know where to begin; but certainly, again, I think

all of us hear these stories directly from constituents. In my case,

I have some who applied for their passports in March for a June

trip with their church, and, despite thinking ahead and planning

ahead, they were still forced to pay extra for expedited service in

May, and they still had to drive to the FedEx depot the day before

the trip to get the passports before leaving the country.

Another constituent, who made a 7-hour drive from her hometown to New Orleans, where there was a passport office, stood in

line for several more hours, drove 7 more hours back the day before

her wedding so she didn’t have to skip a honeymoon.

And these are the success stories.

Then there are plenty of failure stories that we hear all the time,

constituents who spend hours waiting on hold, only to have the call

dropped before ever speaking to a real person. My staff could not

get through, themselves, for guidance or help, even on those lines

dedicated to congressional staff. So, lines dedicated for congressional staff, my staff regularly couldn’t get through.

My staff talked to folks who, when they did get through to a real

person, frequently were unable to help, unable to provide answers,

unable to give any hope to those trying to get a passport to see

family, attend a wedding, or go on a very long-awaited vacation.

So, this is really inexcusable. My questions are probably the

same as anybody’s.

No. 1: How could the Department and the contractors be so off

on forecasting demand? I mean, I assume travel within the hemisphere has not increased 1,000 percent overnight unexpectedly. I

assume it’s been a steady growth and nothing dramatic has

changed in the last year, so how could we be so completely off on

the forecast?

6

No. 2: How could we be so slow in responding to increased numbers once they were actually coming in?

And I also want to put this in a broader context. I’m very concerned, because it’s, yet again, another story of the complete failure

of competence in government, and ineptness. And I have real concern, when we’re living through this, and yet, you know, we’re talking about still implementing the part of the program with regard

to land and sea entries that’s expected to involve four times the

number of passports as we have in this current situation. We’re

talking about this when we’re debating an immigration bill. I know

this wouldn’t be your bailiwick, per se, in terms of administration.

We’re debating an immigration bill that would require all sorts of

IDs and new visas for millions of additional people, including 12

million illegal immigrants in the country. This is just another example of ineptness that absolutely destroys Americans’—including

mine—confidence in the Federal Government doing anything right

and competently. And yet, we’re—some of us, not my vote—but

some of us are forging into, you know, experiments in legislation

that would require agencies—in the immigration case, Homeland

Security—to do things on a scale way beyond this by hundreds or

thousands of times over. So, I’m really very concerned, and certainly want some immediate solution to the passport backlog, because this is an immediate and ongoing crisis.

Thank you, again, for being here, and for being subjected to all

these questions on behalf of your Department.

Senator BILL NELSON. And thank you for being the designated

hitter. Maybe we should haul up some of your other colleagues, but

we’ll wait and hear, on the basis of your testimony.

Your written statement is entered as part of the record. We don’t

want you to read it to us. We want you just to talk to us, and then

we’ll get into our questions.

So, Madam Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking

Member Vitter, distinguished members of the subcommittee.

I do thank you for your comments. I have a slightly shorter

statement that I will put in for the record.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK, but don’t read it. Talk to us.

Ambassador HARTY. I certainly will talk to you, sir.

I would also like to, in all candor, identify myself as the captain

of this ship, with respect to the Bureau of Consular Affairs. And

it is, in fact, our responsibility. We are charged with adjudicating

passports. It’s the most valuable document on the planet. We’re responsible for adjudicating it in a way that makes it a process accessible to all Americans, and also in a way that makes sure that all—

and only all—Americans who should have a passport get them.

That is, we have a security element here. The adjudication of who

receives a passport is a critical element of what we do.

Demand is, as both of you—as all of you, I think, in the room

know, know at this time—is at unprecedented levels, and so is the

number of passports that we are, in fact, producing. In fiscal year

7

2005, we produced 10.1 million passports. Last year, we did 12.1

million passports. As of May 31 of this year, we’ve already done

10.3 million passports, a 33-percent increase over the same period

the year before, and we’re on pace right now to issue over 17 million by the end of this fiscal year.

Sir, we regard ourselves as a service organization in the Bureau

of Consular Affairs, and we set high standards for ourselves. It’s

what the American people expect, and, in fact, of course, deserve,

of us. Throughout our history as an organization, we have, with

rare exceptions, met those standards of service, and we are taking

steps now to ensure that we do so just as soon as possible again.

No one, Mr. Chairman, is more aware that over the past several

months many travelers who have applied for a passport have not

received that document in the timeframe that they expected, and,

in some cases, have missed their trips. I deeply regret that, personally and professionally, and regard the current situation as untenable.

So, with your permission, sir, I’d like to brief you on the current

situation, in what we are doing now, what we will do over the

longer term, to turn turnaround times around again.

When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism

Prevention Act, in December 2004, which established the travel

documentation requirements that the Western Hemisphere Travel

Initiative implements, we analyzed our figures. We also commissioned an independent study, which led us to predict that we would

receive approximately 16.2 million passport applications in 2007.

We ramped up capacity against that prediction. We hired 441 employees in passport services in fiscal year 2005, another 925 in fiscal year 2006, over 1,200, thus far, in 2007, a total of 2,588 in less

than 3 years. I think we know that bureaucracy is not the most

agile, and we have tried our best to be as agile as we could be.

These figures, of course, represent both adjudicators—passport specialists—as well as contractors who perform the nonadjuducative

functions, things that are not inherently governmental. I should

point out that during this time we’ve also had significant attrition.

Also, to get at this demand, we opened another passport agency

in Colorado in October 2005. We expanded our footprint in Houston, in Chicago, in New Orleans, in Boston, and in Seattle. We

made them as big as we could in the parameters that we faced.

Our National Passport Center, up in Portsmouth, New Hampshire,

went to 24/7 operations. Our mega center in Charleston is doing

the same thing. We added shifts at most other agencies, and made

the days extensive. Last week, we cut the ribbon, as you might

have heard, on our new mega processing facility in Arkansas. We

have been, Mr. Chairman, in perpetual forward motion since the

passage of the law which created the new requirement.

We had a significant setback. Hurricane Katrina had an impact

on our operations. Before Katrina, our New Orleans Passport Agency processed approximately 20 percent of all of our overall workload. And in preparation for the WHTI, we planned to increase that

to 25 percent, a quarter of our workload. Following Katrina, the

New Orleans agency, which was out of commission for about 5

months and reopened in February 2006, reopened with a capacity

that was significantly reduced. So, right now, the good people in

8

New Orleans at our agency are working hard, but they’re processing 10 percent of the demand. We had counted on them for

more. They have a lot of heart, and I thank you for the things

you’ve said about them, because, only earlier today, I got an e-mail

from a woman who said, ‘‘Today is my 30-year anniversary working

for Passport Services in New Orleans, and I want to thank you for

the privilege.’’ So, we have people with plenty of heart out there.

I thank you for what you said, Mr. Chairman.

We projected we would receive 16.2 million applications in the

course of FY07, but we are on pace to receive at least 11⁄2 million

more than that.

One of the things that we failed to predict was how quickly

American citizens would choose to apply for a passport in recognition of the new law. A recordsetting, unprecedented demand in a

compressed period of time really was the root of the immediate

challenge. Applications increased dramatically in a very short timeframe. Just to give you an idea, in December of last year, before

the requirement was in place, we received 1 million applications.

Then demand spiked sharply; in part, because we actually tried to

advertise the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. So, in January, we saw 1.8 million applications; in February, another 1.7 million; in March, 1.997 million—5.4 million applications in a very

short period of time. Again, I think part of that was our extensive

outreach to make sure that American citizens knew about the new

requirement.

But I think there’s more to it than that, sir, in all candor, and

it’s hard for us to put a number against this. American citizens,

due to our outreach, and, I think, in fact, due to a lot of the media

coverage of this new requirement, have applied for passports in

droves, and it is not always because they mean to travel. American

citizens have realized this is the premier document on the planet,

but also in this country, to make sure that, when they apply for

a Federal benefit, they can prove who they are and that they’re an

American citizen. If they apply for a job, they can prove who they

are and that they’re a U.S. citizen. I had one of my colleagues pull

a box of 200 applications for me yesterday just to look, because we

ask, on each application: Where are you going, and when are you

going? Out of 200 applications, 20 had travel plans. Twenty out of

200. I did this 3 weeks ago. It was only a box of 60 at that point.

Out of that box, four said they had immediate travel plans or

travel plans at all. Hard to quantify, no excuse, but it is a new

phenomenon.

I think one of the things that happened when this law was

passed and when we began to advertise it is, we heard—we asked

Americans to change their behavior, to begin to think differently,

not only about a border crossing, but to think about the importance

of a passport in other ways. I took a trip not so long ago, sir, from

Washington, DC, to Arizona. A number of people on that flight—

and I’m sure you see it, yourselves, when you travel—used a passport, even for domestic travel, to prove they are who they say they

are, and that they are, in fact, American citizens.

As a result of all of this demand, sir, receipts far exceeded, as

you know and have quantified, our ability to keep pace with them

in the traditional timeframe. It began to take longer to process apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:13 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 PASSPORTS sforel1 PsN: sforel1
9

plications. It moved to 10 to 12 weeks, where it is right now. We

have updated, regularly, our Web site, on that subject. We’ve done

a number of other things. We worked with our call center and our

lockbox facilities at the highest levels, to ramp up capacity. We

built an overflow call center at our Kentucky Consular Center, and

put 100 people on the line right away. We built another one here

at the State Department. All agencies are working extended hours,

weekends and evenings. We stood up another task force at the

State Department itself to adjudicate applications. That’s people

who are working their day jobs, and then coming at night and on

weekends, and others not doing their day jobs, and we’ve done

80,000, just here at the State Department, in the task force that

we set up.

We implemented mandatory overtime. We suspended, for the

time being, all noncritical training for existing employees. We are

continuing to hire aggressively. We dispatched teams of passport

specialists to the exceptionally high counter-volume agencies, so

that they could assist with the walk-in applications that we had.

We also accelerated plans for expansion of new facilities to accommodate the increased staff.

As a result of these efforts, even as we are receiving higher numbers of applications, we’re issuing record numbers of documents, an

average of 1.5 million per month, 1.6 million in May.

We know that the great majority of people who apply for passports are getting them in time to travel. We recognize that’s not

good enough. We recognize that we have to do better than that for

everybody who applies for a passport.

In light of the current situation, sir, Secretaries Rice and

Chertoff agreed that DHS would use its existing authority to exercise flexibility in determining the documentation required of American citizens to enter and depart the United States during the transition phase of the WHTI air rule. So, until September 30 of this

year, Americans traveling to Canada, to Mexico, to Bermuda, and

to countries in the Caribbean, who have applied for, but not yet received, their passports, can reenter the United States by air with

a Government-issued photo ID, as well as the Department of State

official proof of application, which they can pull off of our Web site.

Since we made that announcement, 371,000 Americans have

availed themselves of that particular page, so they are, in fact,

using this.

Since we announced that policy, on June 8, we’ve conducted numerous briefings, public outreach activities to inform the public,

and DHS has done the same with the airlines. Our embassies have

worked extensively with the countries in question so that we see

that—Mexico, Canada, the Bahamas, Aruba, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica, all have agreed to accept this, and these are countries of—largest receiving countries for American tourist travel. All

have agreed to accept this flexible transitional phase that we are

going through now. So, people are beginning to make their trips.

And, while we will, of course, process to completion all of the

applications on hand, this particular approach took a little bit of

pressure off, and it allows us to reach in and get to the passport

applications of those who still need the passport. If you needed it

yesterday for Mexico, but the flexible approach allows you to take

10

the trip anyway, I’m going to be able to reach in much more readily

and get the passport application of somebody going to Europe or

another part of the world who still needs that passport, even as we

speak.

I know that many people have had trouble getting through the

line to the National Passport Information Center. It’s been a major

source of frustration to your constituents, to you all, I’m sure, and

certainly to myself, as well.

The Center has increased staff now to nearly 500. They’ve promised me 800 customer service representatives by early August.

They’ve extended operating hours, and they’ve added 432 additional high-capacity telephone lines so that they can get to those

calls.

Mr. Chairman, it’s clear to us that the WHTI implementation

means a permanent increase in passport demand. The recordbreaking numbers that we have seen are likely not an anomaly.

Demand is going to continue to grow. We have another workload

study underway now, taking some of the things we’ve learned, and

we will—we have some informal predictions that we will work together through that study so that we can get the best numbers we

possibly can. We’re looking at approximately 23 million applicants

in 2008, and as high as 30 million by 2010. We are committed to

building the capacity to meet that demand.

Additional resources are essential. On June 8, we notified Congress that the Department plans to devote an additional nearly $40

million, for FY07, to hire an additional 400 personnel this fiscal

year, and to fund the expansion of our National Passport Center

in Portsmouth and our Miami passport agency. I have walked the

space in Miami. It’ll go from 18,000 square feet to 28,000 square

feet in a new and better building and in a safer neighborhood. I’ve

looked at some space in Portsmouth, myself, and we are in the

GSA fast-track process of looking—or of getting space that will do

the trick for us.

We’re hiring numbers—numbers of new employees at record

pace, and we’re seeing—I hope you’re seeing, sir, a 100-percent—

1,000-percent effort, even—from our people in the field. I think

they’re terrific. As some staffers have already told us—specifically

from your own office, Sherry Davich and Peggy Gustav and Karen

Cully—have been terrific, and they have graciously noted the efforts of some of our people to help them, as well.

I think the world of U.S. passport production has changed fundamentally, and, with the passage of the Intelligence Reform and

Terrorism Prevention Act and the WHTI, we are committed to

meeting the American public’s demand for reliable, secure travel

documents. We are committed to achieving, for our Nation, the security and efficiency benefits of WHTI. We have committed to

working tirelessly to improve the efficiency, the transparency of the

passport process, while continuing to ensure the integrity of the

process and the physical document itself.

I thank you very much for your patience, for the opportunity to

be here today to take your questions, to take your suggestions, to

discuss ways forward as we continue to try and help the American

traveling public.

Thank you, sir.

11

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Harty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR

CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Vitter, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss how the Bureau of Consular

Affairs is working to meet the needs of American citizens for reliable, secure passports.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) is charged with adjudicating applications for

one of the most valuable travel documents on the planet: The U.S. passport. We are

responsible for issuing passports in a manner that ensures that the application process is accessible to all Americans, and that only those entitled to the privileges and

benefits of U.S. citizenship, including a U.S. passport, receive one.

• We issue passports with state-of-the-art security features, including an electronic chip and biometrics to make the document harder to forge, alter, or misuse. We have been issuing these ‘‘e-passports’’ since August 2006, and are producing them at each of our 18 passport agencies around the country;

• We issued 10.1 million passports in fiscal year 2005 and 12.1 million last year.

In May 2007, we issued 1.66 million passports, a record high. As of May 31,

we have issued 10.3 million passports this fiscal year—a 33-percent increase

over the same period last year—and are on pace to issue over 17 million by the

end of the year;

• We worked closely with our colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security

to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) Air Phase,

which took effect on January 23, 2007. Polling data indicate strong public compliance with and support for this measure to enhance security and efficiency at

U.S. borders.

As a service organization, we set high standards for ourselves in CA; it is what

the American public expects and deserves. Throughout our history as an organization we have, with rare exceptions, met those standards and we are taking the steps

necessary to ensure that we return to meeting those standards just as soon as possible.

No one is more aware than I of the fact that, in the past several months, many

travelers who applied for a passport did not receive their documents in the timeframe they expected. In some cases, the passports did not arrive in time for planned

travel. I deeply regret that. All of us in CA are dismayed by such stories—and we

consider the current situation untenable.

I am confident that we will correct this situation, and we are pursuing several

strategies toward that goal. I would like to brief you on the current state of affairs,

and what CA is doing now and over the longer term to improve our turnaround

time.

HOW DID WE GET HERE? PASSPORT RECEIPTS EXCEED EXPECTATIONS

We have been planning for increased passport demand since Congress passed the

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), which included

a provision requiring all travelers to have a passport or other combination of documents establishing identity and citizenship to travel into and out of the United

States.

Following passage of IRPTA, we had 2 years to plan for the expected increase in

passport demand. First we analyzed our own figures. We also commissioned a survey conducted by an independent contractor, which predicted that we would receive

16.2 million passport applications in FY 2007. We ramped up capacity by adding

staff, expanding facilities, and enhancing service.

Additional Staff

We hired 441 employees in Passport Services in FY 2005, 925 in FY 2006, and

1,222 thus far in FY 2007—a total of 2,588 in less than 3 years. These figures include passport adjudicators and contractors who perform critical nonadjudicative

functions at our passport agencies.

Expanded Facilities

In October 2005, we inaugurated the Colorado Passport Agency to address the

travel needs of citizens throughout the Rocky Mountain region. In October 2006, we

contracted for a mega-processing passport center in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and

opened it 120 days later in March 2007. We cut the ribbon on the Arkansas Passport Center (APC) last week, after giving it a little bit of opportunity to get up and

12

running. APC will be able to produce 10 million passports annually when it reaches

full capacity later this year.

In November 2005, we expanded our lockbox service with two sites, one in Delaware and another in California, which operate 24/7. At the lockboxes, applications

are sorted and fee checks are deposited. The lockboxes then forward the applications

to our 18 passport facilities around the country for processing. Lockboxes are a U.S.

Government best practice that streamlines the application process for a number of

government interactions. By expanding lockbox coverage from one central site to

two, we have introduced greater service capacity and redundancy of passport application processing operations, the latter of which will allow us greater flexibility in

the event of a crisis.

In January 2006, we added a second shift at our Charleston Passport Center

(CPC) and implemented 24/7 operations at our National Passport Center (NPC) in

New Hampshire. We also increased the size of our Houston and New Orleans passport agencies, have identified space for a much larger replacement facility in Miami

and are engaged with the General Services Administration right now on a fast-track

search for additional space in order to expand our National Passport Center in

Portsmouth.

Enhanced Service

We implemented a Centralized Appointment System, which allows customers to

schedule appointments through the National Passport Information Center (NPIC)

for any of our domestic agencies nationwide. We also implemented an online status

check service. This service, available through the CA Web site, travel.state.gov,

allows customers to check the status of their passport application from their desktop.

THE SITUATION IN 2007—WHEN PHASE I OF WHTI TOOK EFFECT

Our projection was for 16.2 million passport applications in FY 2007, and we

planned against that projection. In fact, applications increased dramatically in a

very short timeframe, and Americans applied for passports in record-setting numbers. In the final month before WHTI implementation, December 2006, we received

approximately 1 million applications. In response to our outreach and public education effort regarding WHTI, we then received 1.8 million applications in January

2007, 1.7 million in February, and 1.997 million in March. Essentially 5.4 million

applications in a very short period of time greatly stressed the system. We simply

did not anticipate American citizens’ willingness to comply so quickly with the new

law.

In addition, many people who indicate no overseas travel plans have applied for

a passport because they see it as the premier citizenship and identity document, one

that allows the bearer to board an airplane, prove citizenship for employment purposes, apply for federal benefits, and fulfill other needs not related to international

travel.

The bottom line: The increase in demand was sharper and more compressed than

we expected. Receipts far exceeded our ability to keep pace with them in our traditional timeframe. As a result, it began to take longer to process applications. Our

average processing time lengthened from 6 weeks in December, to 10 to 12 weeks

today.

We have taken extraordinary measures to address this issue and respond to the

public. We set up telephone and adjudication taskforces to supplement our regular

operations and handle the overflow in the volume of calls and of work. We brought

back retired annuitants. We expanded hours—having agencies work evenings and

weekends. Qualified employees from throughout the Bureau of Consular Affairs

have volunteered their time, or been taken off of other duties to work on passport

issues.

There are 2.95 million applications currently pending at our passport agencies. At

our current rate of issuance, this represents approximately 8 weeks’ worth of work

on hand. We are processing most routine applications within 10 to 12 weeks and

expedited applications within 2 to 3 weeks. We do not expect these processing times

to increase. For faster service, our counter agencies continue to provide same-day

service to as many travelers as we can accommodate with evidence of imminent departure dates. We have and will continue to regularly update these estimates on our

Web site and through our communications with the media.

At the same time as we are receiving record numbers of applications, we are

issuing record numbers of passports. We issue an average of 1.5 million passports

per month; in May, we issued 1.6 million passports. The great majority of Americans who apply for passports are getting them on time. But we recognize that most

is not good enough. So we are doing something about it.

13

ADDRESSING RECORD DEMAND: THE SHORT TERM

Flexible Interpretation of Documentation Requirements

To ensure that travelers would be able to carry through with their travel plans,

we and the Department of Homeland Security agreed that additional steps were

warranted. On June 8, State and DHS announced that DHS would use its existing

authority to exercise flexibility in determining the documentation required of American citizens to enter and depart from the United States during this continuing

transition phase of WHTI Air Phase implementation.

Under these temporary measures—which will be applied through September 30,

2007—American citizens returning from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or countries in

the Caribbean region, who have applied for, but not yet received, their passports can

reenter the United States by air with a government-issued photo identification and

Department of State official proof of application for a passport. Children under the

age of 16 traveling with their parents or legal guardian will be permitted to travel

with the child’s proof of application status.

As official proof of application for a passport, travelers can present the printout

of the online status check that the traveler can make at www.travel.state.gov. The

printout shows that an application has been received by our Office of Passport

Services.

This temporary measure is designed to accommodate U.S. citizen travelers returning to the United States. This accommodation does not mean that Americans are

exempt from meeting the entry requirements of individual countries. Entry requirements for those countries remain in effect. We have consulted with the governments

of countries affected by WHTI and many of them also will be able to take a flexible

approach. We continue to recommend, as we have always done, that travelers verify

a country’s specific entry requirements before departure. Contact information is included in the Consular Information Sheets we maintain for every country and which

are available at www.travel.state.gov.

Since the June 8 announcement, my colleagues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs

and I have conducted numerous briefings and other public outreach activities to inform the public about this accommodation. DHS’ Customs and Border Protection

agency briefed air carriers. We stay in frequent communication with the travel and

tourism industry, and with our passport agencies, and passport acceptance facilities

around the country to get feedback and stay abreast of public concerns.

The joint State-DHS announcement had an immediate impact. On Monday, June

11, more than 61,000 users accessed the Internet site from which proof of a pending

passport application can be obtained. The number of telephone and e-mail inquiries

to our National Passport Information Center declined precipitously. It is true that

there were some software issues that prevented a small number of people from

being able to obtain the proof of application they needed; we developed a workaround that appears to be working.

Flexibility in the WHTI document requirements will help us process more rapidly

the applications we have on hand by allowing us to focus on those travelers who

must have a passport to travel. We will, of course, process to completion all applications on hand; we expect to work through the existing backlog by fall. We are redoubling attention to hiring and training additional staff and plan to finish facility

expansions at several of our agencies.

Refunds for Expedite Fees

Recently, a number of questions have arisen about refunds—in particular for travelers who paid the expedite fee. Let me turn now to that issue. We are aware that

due to the enormous increase in passport demand and lengthening of turnaround

times, many citizens opted to pay for expedited service. I want to assure you today

that everyone who paid for expedited service had their application effectively

‘‘moved to the front of the line.’’ In spite of our best efforts, some travelers who paid

for expedited service did not receive their passport within the timeframe we promised—2 to 3 weeks. We sincerely regret that and we will consider, on a case-by-case

basis refund requests from customers who paid for expedited service and have reason to believe that they did not receive expedited service.

Strategies to Increase Passport Production

In addition to these measures to help travelers, the Bureau of Consular Affairs

is working flat-out to increase passport production.

Extended hours

• We expanded the hours of operation at all of our passport agencies, including

evenings and weekends; counters are open on Saturdays for emergency appointments, which we are scheduling through our call center.

14

• NPC and CPC, which together issue over 50 percent of all passports nationwide,

are both operating 24 hours in three shifts per day. Several agencies now operate two shifts. • We instituted mandatory overtime and suspended all noncritical training and

travel for passport staff until further notice.

Additional staff

• We are aggressively recruiting staff. We brought 259 government and contract

employees on board in the last 3 months. We plan to hire up to 800 new government employees and 750 to 800 contractors within the next year. Government

employees can adjudicate passport applications, while contract staff perform

critical support functions to print and mail out adjudicated passports. • We obtained an OPM exemption to the hiring cap for Civil Service annuitants,

so that we can bring back experienced and well-trained retired adjudicators

while we continue to recruit and train new passport specialists. Ninety retirees

are in the pipeline to return to work in passport agencies where, in addition

to helping with the workload, they will provide critical management support as

hundreds of new employees complete training and begin work. • Qualified State Department employees are volunteering to help process passport applications. These volunteers supplement the Department’s corps of passport specialists and are working two shifts during the week and all day Saturday and Sunday, to optimize existing equipment and space resources. They have

approved over 80,000 passport applications since mid-March. • We dispatched teams of passport specialists to exceptionally high volume passport agencies to assist with walk-in applicants and to process pending applications. These teams also provide customer support, including locating and expediting applications of customers with urgent travel needs.

Response to Increased Call Volume

In response to heavy call volume, the NPIC, our call center, increased staff to over

400 customer service representatives and extended operating hours. I am aware

that its lines are oversubscribed, and that this has been a source of frustration to

your staffs and the general public. The number of telephone inquiries has dropped,

but the call volume remains high. Our call center has recently installed 18 additional high-capacity lines, each of which carries 24 separate telephone lines, for a

total of 432 new lines. This will increase the volume of telephone calls NPIC can

handle. We continue to work with NPIC to improve the service.

To supplement NPIC, we established a temporary phone task force at the Department. State Department employees are volunteering to provide information, respond

to urgent requests, and help Americans get their passports. We also stood up a temporary call center at the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC), staffed with approximately 100 operators, working two shifts.

We have also established an e-mail box, NPIC-CONG@state.gov, and installed additional high-capacity lines dedicated to congressional inquiries at NPIC, to better

handle your constituent needs.

We believe the measures we have already taken will give us the time, staffing,

and physical capacity to be able to process all of the applications that have taken

longer than normal to complete. We hope to be well on our way to returning to our

normal processing times by September 30, 2007.

ADDRESSING RECORD DEMAND: THE LONGER TERM

As we look to the future, it is evident that implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative will bring with it a permanent increase in the demand by

U.S. citizens for an international travel document. The record-breaking demand we

see today is not an anomaly; demand will continue to grow. We currently project

the demand for passports to be approximately 23 million in 2008, and as high as

30 million by 2010. Over 78 million Americans currently have passports—somewhat

more than 25 percent of our citizens. Americans will continue to need secure documentation of their nationality and identity.

Additional resources will be needed. The Department sent on June 8 a formal

Congressional Notification regarding plans to reprogram nearly $37,000,000 for the

FY 2007 Border Security Program. We will use the additional funds to hire 400 new

passport adjudicators this fiscal year, and fund expansion of NPC and the Miami

Passport Agency.

We are also implementing long-term strategies to ensure we have the capacity to

meet higher demand and provide Americans with passports in a timely and secure

manner. Chief among these is a new approach to passport production represented

by the Arkansas Passport Center (APC). APC differs from our other passport agenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:13 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PASSPORTS sforel1 PsN: sforel1
15

cies in that it focuses solely on printing and shipping passports. The files of applications reviewed and adjudicated at other agencies are transmitted electronically to

APC, which prints and ships the passports. This approach requires that we install

new software at our existing passport agencies to permit remote passport issuance.

We have installed the software at seven agencies, and expect to complete conversion

of all 17 by the end of September.

APC has already produced 130,000 passports using this system. As I noted earlier, when it reaches full capacity, slated for the end of 2007, it will be able to

produce up to 10 million passports annually.

The centralization of passport book personalization frees up space and personnel

at our existing passport agencies so that they can focus on the critical areas of customer service and adjudication, and process more passport applications. The agencies that have begun remote issuance are already reporting significantly improved

efficiency.

We are increasing capacity at existing passport agencies, as well. Expansions are

in the works for the Seattle, Miami, Boston, and Washington agencies, and we will

be acquiring additional space for the National Passport Center to expand its operations and add redundancy to the passport system. We hope to complete these renovations and expansions by the end of this year.

Just as important as increased production numbers is the need to maintain the

high quality and integrity of the passport process. As we bring on large numbers

of new staff, we are making provisions to continue to provide them with excellent

training. We have secured space to establish a Western Consular Training Center

to be colocated with our Colorado Passport Agency in Denver. With the large numbers of new employees we expect to hire over the next 2 years and the need for ongoing training of current employees, we need to have more than one training site.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, the world of U.S. passport production has changed fundamentally.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs has changed with it. We are committed to meeting

the American public’s demand for reliable, secure travel documents. We are committed to achieving for our Nation the security and efficiency benefits of WHTI. And

we will continue to work tirelessly to improve the efficiency, transparency, and integrity of the passport process.

We appreciate the support and understanding we have gotten from you and your

staffs as we work to meet new challenges. We hear from you regularly—and we

have heard your message. We have and we must continue to work hand in hand

to resolve specific cases, but also to chart a course for the future that will give the

American public faith in our ability to deliver. We look forward to working together

with you to achieve our shared purpose to help American citizens to travel, while

guaranteeing the security of our Nation.

I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the current situation with regard to

U.S. passports and what we are doing to meet unprecedented demand. I am happy

to answer any questions you may have.

Senator BILL NELSON. You didn’t say anything about the vendor.

Do you want to share that in your remarks?

Ambassador HARTY. I’m sorry, sir, about?

Senator BILL NELSON. The vendor.

Ambassador HARTY. The vendor.

Senator BILL NELSON. The contractor.

Ambassador HARTY. I believe you’re referring to the lockbox facility, sir. On a very regular basis, we share with our lockbox facility

partners our estimates of where numbers are going. Frankly, we

did public relations work and public outreach to make sure that

Americans knew about the requirement, and we saw a bump-up,

which initially we believed to be simply the lead-up to January 23.

It went larger than that. And so, in January we began to realize

that there was an issue here that wasn’t an anomalous blip for a

short period of time.

And so, sir, I went there myself. I’ve been there a couple of times

over the course of my time in this job, but I went there when we

realized this. I found a group of people who I have looked in the

16

eye, who I find are committed, who I have talked to on the phone,

who I have badgered, who probably have limited enthusiasm for

taking my phone calls. I also found a group of people who worked

themselves to the bone. It, like in the Government, isn’t always as

easy to get good people identified, cleared, trained up. And the

clearance is an issue, because we are asking people—vendor, contractor for us, U.S. Federal Government employee—to deal with

people’s identity documents. We need to know that there is somebody who has a public-trust clearance, who is somebody who we

can trust to do this work. And so, yes, they went from a 24-hour

turnaround time to something significantly greater than that. But,

while they were doing that, I literally watched them build more

space, hire more people, figure out, with us, ways we could do this

work together and differently, and they are back to that 24-hour

turnaround time.

I don’t think, sir, I get any style point—for pointing at somebody

else. I’m the captain of the ship.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK.

Since we have such a huge turnout here, is it all right that we

have a 5-minute round? And I’m going to call on people in the

order in which they came, regardless of party.

Madam Secretary, in your comments for the record, you state,

‘‘We simply did not anticipate American citizens’ willingness to

comply so quickly with the new law.’’ If you had over 2 years advanced warning, and if you knew how many people traveled to

Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean—therefore, you

would know how many were going to be applying to get a passport

under the new Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative—so, how can

you say that you didn’t have any idea that you were going to have

all of these new applications for passports?

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you for the question, sir.

In fact, it is just simply a question of the 3-month period of time.

We predicted 16.2 million based on our study with BearingPoint—

and BearingPoint, in doing that study, talked to Homeland Security, Commerce, travel and tourism, airlines. We did the same

things. We simply did not foresee 5.4 million people applying in 3-

months’ time.

But, sir, again, I believe I mentioned that we’re seeing an incredible number of people who are indicating that they have no travel

plans. I think, in some ways, we drummed up business, and more

business than we had anticipated.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK, now——

Ambassador HARTY. It was a mistake, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. I’ll accept that. People would like to have

this valuable document, because you reminded them about it. That

is a valuable document. So—now you know that you’re going to

have to have X number of people having a passport that didn’t

have one before. You know what the number is, because you can

calculate it as to who traveled within the last 12 months to those

areas that are going to require the passport. So, why didn’t they,

or your vendor, or somebody, have that anticipation of the surge?

Ambassador HARTY. Sir, it was a miscalculation on the size of

the surge.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. but who miscalculated?

17

Ambassador HARTY. I take responsibility for it, sir. We did our

best evaluation, based on a report by a company that is trusted and

well known. They appeared to do a thorough job. We looked at our

own, sort of, historic numbers. We looked at the numbers of people

who revalidate their passports. We made a good-faith effort. We

came up with 16.2. In fact, it turned out not only to be about a million and a half higher than that, as it appears now, but it was in

a very compressed period of time.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. You accept the responsibility.

Ambassador HARTY. I do, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. Tell us, what are you going to

do about the 60 bucks?

Ambassador HARTY. Sir, you’re right that we have an expedite

process that took longer than we wanted it to, took longer than

ever we meant it to. The expedite process did, in fact, ensure that

you went to the front of that queue. Although it took longer than

we wanted it to take, expedited passports have moved to the front

of the queue all over the system. So, I take your point about the

question that you asked in your opening remarks. And so, we will

certainly look at that, and I will report back to you—I actually

need a little bit of, sort of, help with evaluating the question that

you raised earlier, but I will——

Senator BILL NELSON. Well——

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. Look, and I will get back to you.

[The written information from the State Department follows:]

Due to unprecedented demand, some U.S. citizens who applied for passports on

an expedited basis by paying a $60 fee over and above the normal passport fee, did

not receive their passport in the timeframe in which they expected to have it. After

we examined several options to determine when and if to provide refunds for certain

expedited applications, the Department determined that the most effective policy

would be to continue to have applicants apply for refunds when they have reason

to believe that they did not receive expedited service. The State Department will

then address each refund request carefully on a case-by-case basis.

As of July 18, 2007, a total of 3,829,913 expedited passport requests have been

received and acted upon in calendar year 2007; our passport agencies and passport

centers have issued 2,716,448 expedited passports, 71 percent within 3 business

days of receiving the applications. A total of 3,286,751 passports (86 percent) were

likely to have been in customers’ hands within 3 weeks of them having applied, the

period outlined on the State Department Passport Web site.

A total of 543,162 expedited passports out of 3,829,913, approximately 14 percent,

were not processed within 3 weeks. Even then, these individuals still received expedited treatment and most had their passports in hand by the date they specifically

requested on their application. In the face of unprecedented demand (more than 40

percent increase over last year), those who requested expedited service did receive

priority over the millions of other Americans who applied for passports at the same

time. The expedited applications were automatically given a higher priority in the

queue; these individuals received much faster service than the applicant who did

not pay for expedited service and whose wait climbed at one point to 12 weeks. To

further ensure expedited service, the Department has been paying for expedited

passports to be mailed via FedEx and has not, unlike past practice, asked customers

to cover this additional cost.

In reaching the conclusion to refund on a case-by-case basis, there were several

options.

The first would be to issue no refunds at all given the unprecedented demand.

This option did not merit consideration.

The second would have been to refund the fee paid by every applicant who requested expedited passport service, regardless of how fast the requester received the

passport. We do not believe that providing a blanket refund automatically to all applicants would be either appropriate or equitable.

A third option is to provide refunds to applicants who did not receive their passports by the date they requested on their application. The Passport staff was conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:13 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PASSPORTS sforel1 PsN: sforel1
18

stantly resorting and queuing applicants in order to provide those with the greatest/

earliest need, the fastest service. Thus, while some applications were not processed

within 3 days, the passport was still received prior to the date the applicant

requested.

A fourth option could be to have those who paid the fee and believe they did not

receive expedited service request a refund. Our Web site already contains instructions on how to apply for a refund via e-mail. We will review each request thoroughly and provide timely refunds to those who meet the requirements.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, this was handed out in your name

yesterday.

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. And it says you have to apply for the refund.

Ambassador HARTY. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Senator BILL NELSON. Why——

Ambassador HARTY. That is——

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Why put that additional burden on them?

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. That is the process we have had

in place for years, sir. We do expedite, and have done expedite refunds for a number of years. I just flatout don’t know if there is

a—I don’t want to misspeak at all today—I don’t know if there is

some legal requirement for somebody to come to me before I give

them money back that’s gone into the Federal Treasury. We

will——

Senator BILL NELSON. Does that——

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. Look, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. Does that 60 bucks go into the Treasury,

or does it go into the State Department?

Ambassador HARTY. The 60 bucks, the expedite fees, goes to the State Department. Out of a $97 passport application, $18 of that

goes to the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Senator BILL NELSON. You know what a cynic would say. A cynic

would say that that’s an additional way for you to raise money.

Ambassador HARTY. A cynic would say it, sir. But I hope that if

I leave you with nothing else today, I leave you with a sense that

there’s nothing cynical in our desire to be the best public servants

we can be.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, think about getting that money back

to people, because they have paid for a service——

Ambassador HARTY. Understood, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. They have not received, so

they shouldn’t have to apply to get the money back.

All right. Senator Lugar, the ranking member and the immediate

past-chairman of this committee.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

What is the current status of affairs today? What is the current

workload for passport offices, are they up to date?

Ambassador HARTY. Sir, there is always an ample amount of

work in the system, throughout the system. Every month, for instance, as 1.5 million go out, a certain number come in. Right now,

we’ve got just under 3 million passports in the process of being adjudicated and shipped out to people. We will send out passports

every day. We will get more in every day. So, it’s just under 3 million in the system now.

19

We are also just entering what is historically, sort of, the low

season. And so, we are hiring an awful lot of additional personel—

hired some already, continue to hire, we hope, 400 more before the

end of this fiscal year. With us entering the low season and us hiring more people, with our continuing with the expanded hours,

with our continuing with the tremendous amount of overtime work

that is being done, with our hiring retired employees, with our hiring retired civil service and Foreign Service employees, we’re

whacking down that inventory, if you will, that workload in

progress, just as quickly as we can.

Senator LUGAR. But in terms of emergencies——

Ambassador HARTY. Oh, expedite passports——

Senator LUGAR [continuing]. People with weddings and what

have you, are they getting what they need——

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Rapidly enough to get to the

wedding?

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir. I think we have noticed an extraordinary dropoff in the number of calls to our call center, almost no

e-mails on the congressional front at all to our call center. Our office here on the Hill reports to me today it was just a sort of a normal day, as if WHTI were not the subject of conversation every

day. We feel very confident that, with the addition of all of the new

lines at the National Passport Information Center, that people are

getting through. I call it, myself, every day. I don’t have a special

number, myself. I need to make sure it’s working. It was never our

intention to make any of your staffs part of this process. But every

time that you, in fact, send us one, we work very, very hard to

make sure that happens. So, I’d certainly welcome those continued

cases of concern that you have so we can reach into those cases and

get them done as——

Senator LUGAR. So, essentially, that’s likely to be the case until

September or so? And now, what happens in September? What

happens then?

Ambassador HARTY. With what I just described, sir, I think that

we will see us, by the end of September, get back to approximately

an 8-week turnaround—2 to 3 weeks for expedite cases, 8 weeks

for regular cases—and we will continue hiring, training, bringing

people onboard into the system, so that we hope to get back to 6

weeks by year’s end.

Senator LUGAR. Now, there was some criticism the other day

from somebody in the Department of Homeland Security that said

what you’re doing is a bad idea, that American security is jeopardized by all of this. Many of us in Congress are saying, ‘‘Now, hang

on here, here, this is all one government, the United States Government.’’ My own impatience with that particular person is profound, but let me just ask the situation this way. Was it a good

idea for the Congress to pass such a law, to begin with, requiring

all of these passports, visas, and so forth? What is your judgment,

as somebody dealing with national security for many, many

years——

Ambassador HARTY. Yes.

Senator LUGAR [continuing]. Through this, what—was this necessary?

20

Ambassador HARTY. I think it’s absolutely a good idea, sir. I

don’t want to refer to the comments of a colleague from DHS, but

what I would like to say is that you all looked, and you realized

that it is an untenable situation when an inspector at a port of

entry can look at as many as 8—can be required to look at as many

as 8,000 different kinds of documents to judge whether or not

somebody is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. I’ve said many times before

that before the passage of this law, somebody like me could take

a trip to the Caribbean, and, on the strength of my Staten Island

accent and my Gold’s Gym card, talk my way back into America.

And you rightly realized that wasn’t the way to do business anymore, it isn’t the way to do business anymore, that we are in a

transition period now. Where, before January 23 of this year, what

I just described was the case, and is now transitioning to a time

where that will not be the case, is, in fact, the right thing to do.

I regret that the transition has been as rocky as it has been so far.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. Senator Coleman.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to—with all the frustration—we’ve had lots of it,

and we’ve had meetings. Ann Barrett runs passport operations.

She’s been out to Minnesota, and we’ve had hearings. And I think

I had 1,500 cases in March of people who are just outraged. My colleague, Senator Klobuchar, had over 1,000 cases. With that, I do

want to compliment your staff, they have been very helpful. They

have—we’ve got passports delivered on Saturday night and Sunday

afternoon and——

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir.

Senator COLEMAN. So, with that, great frustration.

But let me get to the frustration, and then look to the future. I’d

just—one of my frustrations is—Secretary Chertoff came before our

committee—actually, the Homeland Security Committee that I sit

upon—in mid-February, and talked about the system being flawless. Now, your testimony is saying you noticed things in January.

At least in mid-February, Homeland Security was telling us that

the system was flawless, they—the bottom was falling out—just

about to fall out. And I expressed my concern to the Secretary

about that testimony, the perception that we were left with, which

then, let me look to the future.

Clearly, we understand the need for security. Passports are not

the only way to secure—to ensure that there is security. Passport

cards have been talked about. Secure driver’s license is something

we’ve talked about. In Minnesota, the—we have the reality—we’re

a border State, and we have folks that go fishing back and forth,

and we have resorts. Our economies are tied together. This passport requirement was one that was going to have a devastating economic impact, if that was the only path to go.

We have—many of us have been pushing for some alternative

procedures. And we’ve also been pushing to make sure that whatever the procedures are, that they are—have, in fact, been piloted

and tested——

Ambassador HARTY. Right.

21

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. Before they’re required. And

we—I’ve had legislation to that effect. And what we keep getting

is pushback—at least from Homeland Security—is saying, ‘‘We’re

going to move forward with the passport, we’re going to move forward with this requirement, understanding the security issues and

understanding there are alternative means.’’ We now look to the future, and we have land travel, which has been indicated—we’ll

probably have twice the burden—at least—perhaps up to three or

four times as air travel. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

Can you tell me what the Department is doing, in terms of some

alternative, secure ID systems that, in fact, are affordable, that, in

fact, we know will work, that will ensure that we don’t have this

disaster as we move perilously close to the next phase of this—

without a lot of confidence among this body, among my members,

that the system is one that could handle the increased volume that

will occur with the land travel?

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir. A couple of quick things.

We are ramping up to look at, from our production purposes, 23

million adjudications in the year ahead, as I detailed earlier. That

will very likely, at some point later in the year, include a passport

card. We are, in fact, in the procurement process for a passport

card right now. That card will be wallet-sized, about half price—

half the price of a U.S. passport. And that gets to just exactly the

people you described, the family who goes to grocery shop in one

country and watch their son play soccer or their daughter play

baseball in another country. They don’t really think about the border the same way. The card in their pocket or their wallet will help

them do that.

Senator COLEMAN. It’s hockey, in Minnesota. We——

Ambassador HARTY. Hockey, in Minnesota, OK. [Laughter.]

There are other alternatives that exist right now that perhaps

haven’t received the play they should—they are not my documents,

but DHS’s—the NEXUS card, the SENTRI card, the FAST card, all

available now. People who use military IDs, merchant marine

cards, there are other——

Senator COLEMAN. But NEXUS——

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. Options available.

Senator COLEMAN. If I may—NEXUS and FAST, you have to

have systems in place to read those. We don’t have those on the

northern border, International Falls, to do that. And commercial

travelers use that, but we’ve got families we’re talking about here.

Ambassador HARTY. Yes. I’m just trying to put out some other

alternatives for some people, frankly, who might think they need

a passport and can do something else, if they want to do that.

You mentioned other alternatives, and I know that it is in the

bailiwick of my colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security, but certainly several States are looking at alternatives,

a—what I have heard Secretary Chertoff describe as a WHTI-compliant driver’s license. I’m not prepared to speak about those parameters, since that really is between Homeland Security and the

various States engaged in that process, but I know that is an ongoing conversation that they are having.

Senator COLEMAN. Just one other final comment, in the last 30

seconds I have. I appreciate the expansion of your operations, the

22

opening of the Colorado office in 2005. We’re—in Minnesota, we’ve

got Northwest Airlines. It’s the hub center, and their folks have to

go to Chicago. I would think a number of my colleagues would look

at expanding operations in—you know, there is something between

even Chicago and Colorado, and if we could look at that, where you

have the hub centers, it would make it a lot easier, when we have

these crises, to be able to respond more quickly.

Ambassador HARTY. Certainly, we’re looking at expanding, sir,

and we’ll keep you well briefed on where we go, and why that is.

Senator COLEMAN. Appreciate that.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you very much.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you.

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BILL NELSON. Senator Webb.

And at the end of your questions, we will recess. There are two

votes in progress, and we should have about 11 minutes left, right

now.

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And, Madam Secretary, welcome.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you.

Senator WEBB. You know, the three least welcome phrases in

Washington are ‘‘I saw that article about you on Drudge’’——

[Laughter.]

Ambassador HARTY. I missed that one.

Senator WEBB [continuing]. ‘‘I saw that picture on YouTube’’——

Ambassador HARTY. Yeah.

Senator WEBB [continuing]. And, ‘‘Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.’’ [Laughter.]

But this is really a serious problem——

Ambassador HARTY. Yes.

Senator WEBB [continuing]. And, you know, I compliment the

chairman on holding this hearing. We’re getting hundreds of calls

in my different offices every week on this. You know the horror stories. And, also, as you might imagine, your backlog is feeding our

backlog——

Ambassador HARTY. Yes.

Senator WEBB [continuing]. In different sorts of ways. I have a

memo that was sent to me from one my offices this morning with

some comments on it, and I’d like to get your reaction. I’m not

going to read the whole memo, but a couple of things here.

One is, my assistant says, ‘‘We’re happy to assist people with

their travel plans, but we’re mindful that this work is taking precious time from folks who need help with very serious and essential

needs, such as food, veterans benefits, housing, medical care, medications. While the hotline used by our offices for tracking the

progress of a passport is better staffed and answered, we are increasingly receiving, as well, I can see it’s been completed, but I

can’t tell if it was mailed out or sent by FedEx or waiting for a

pickup. There’s no tracking number on it.’’ It’s a recommendation,

an interesting suggestion, from one of our staff members that, ‘‘It’s

costing untold amounts of money to send passports out at the last

minute by FedEx. Wouldn’t it be wiser either to move staffing reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:13 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 PASSPORTS sforel1 PsN: sforel1
23

sources to the fire or hire additional staff?’’—which I understand

you are hiring additional staff.

And, finally, that—‘‘And this is our great concern as we look toward the—two more critical deadlines, September and January. Do

we have a plan in place to effectively manage the volume of passport applications that we will be facing?’’

And—appreciate your comments on that.

Ambassador HARTY. Absolutely, sir, thank you. I couldn’t agree

with you more that we would really rather have your staff not having to deal with someone’s travel plans so they could get to a veteran or a mother or somebody who has a particular issue, and

maybe even a life-and-death circumstance. That is, in fact, why the

first call lines that were installed—the additional call lines—were

dedicated, 46 of them, to the congressional staffers.

As the call center has increased, dramatically, the number of

people who work there—200 to 500, and on its way to 800—we

made probably—in an abundance of haste to get people on the line,

we probably didn’t make sure that everybody was as thoroughly

trained as they should be. So, I’ve sent more people up there, and

I hired back a retired fellow who actually ran the center, famously,

not too very long ago. And so, I hope—I’m getting some anecdotal

feedback that we’re actually doing a better job on the quality of the

conversations. And if we’re not, please call me, because we are—

it’s an indicator, it’s not a complaint; and if the indicator is I need

to get something better done, I want to get it done.

Senator WEBB. What is your goal? Is it 6 weeks?

Ambassador HARTY. Yes.

Senator WEBB. Is that your ultimate goal?

Ambassador HARTY. Yes.

Senator WEBB. Even with the two additional ramp-ups?

Ambassador HARTY. I’m going to get there next, sir.

Senator WEBB. OK.

Ambassador HARTY. You asked something about express mail

services——

Senator WEBB. Yes.

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. Of various kinds. I would love

to get to a point where I don’t have to do express mail because

we’re back to 6 weeks, or—we are at 2 to 3 week for expedites right

now. But, right now, I don’t want somebody missing a trip because

the passport comes the day after the flight. So, that’s why we’re

using a lot of express mail services, at this point. We’d like to get

that gone, as well.

And, finally, do we have a plan? We are ramping up dramatically

through the end of this fiscal year, FY07. We’re also looking at hiring a considerable number of people in FY08. I’m still working that

a little bit within the State Department itself. I don’t expect any

issue there. I just don’t have so many details for you right now on

the budget side of it.

You mentioned January, sir. Over the next several days, State

and DHS will be announcing the proposed land border rule, which

will demonstrate that we have heard you and have heard your constituents. As a result, that rule, as introduced, will be very flexible.

What I’d like to say about that here now is, it’s a draft rule, and

we welcome your comments, and we welcome the comments of your

24

constituents, and we want to make the best product that we can

make.

Senator WEBB. Good. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BILL NELSON. We will stand in recess. There are two

votes. There should be about 5 or 6 minutes remaining on the first

vote. I will come back right after the second vote commences, and

we will pick up with Vitter, Feingold, Voinovich, Isakson, Murkowski, and Menendez.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Senator BILL NELSON. Good afternoon. The committee will resume its deliberations. And, while we are waiting for the remaining

members to come and ask their questions, why don’t you share, for

the record, the transfer of the responsibilities from Mellon to

Citigroup. And why wasn’t Citigroup prepared? And then, you’ve

mentioned this other one, BearingPoint, did a survey for you, and

they missed the mark on the survey, apparently by a huge amount.

Why don’t you talk, for the record, so that we can understand

where the foulups occurred there.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir. With your permission, I’ll

start with BearingPoint.

We, together, came up with a figure of approximately 16.2 million. BearingPoint contributed to that. BearingPoint did a survey

for us, discussing, with all of the stakeholders that you might

imagine, surveys of travelers—two separate surveys of travelers,

Commerce Department data, DHS, the travel and tourism industry. Their survey, plus our historic experiences, together, led us to

16.2. So, while we now believe it will be closer to 171⁄2, I think that

we also need to share culpability in coming up with that number.

I don’t want to put that just on BearingPoint.

With respect to Citi and Mellon, you are absolutely right, Mellon

had had the contract for a number of years. Contracts routinely

have to be recompeted. It is a contract that is not held by the

Department of State, or administered by the Department of State,

although, naturally, we have an incredibly avid interest in how

that contract works. So, those two banks—those two entities competed, and Citibank came in with a more modern way of doing

business and won that contract; again, Treasury Department administered.

We had a transition period from Mellon to Citi, and then Citi

took off on its own, in—I believe it was October 2006. So, the—relative newcomers to this game—and we all learned some things out

of the last several months. And we will all continue to work together to do better at what we do. That’s our obligation and our

duty.

Senator BILL NELSON. So, the Treasury Department is the decider on who is awarded that contract?

Ambassador HARTY. Treasury administers that, yes, I guess they

would be the decider. But we’re sure right in there. I mean, we obviously are the ones who know what kind of service we needed.

Senator BILL NELSON. Senator Menendez.

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you

for calling this hearing.

25

Madam Secretary, I——

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir.

Senator MENENDEZ [continuing]. Appreciate your straightforward

answers.

Let me just say, as we talk about passports today, I think it’s

been mentioned by other colleagues that we have to remember this

is not about a document or a piece of paper, it is about the lives

of people, and Americans. My staff, as well as everybody else’s, has

been overwhelmed, in New Jersey, by the number of requests that

we’ve had to deal with. And, of course, what that means is that

time is taken away from other very critical issues that they face.

And because of the nature of the timeliness of the concern, it gets

shifted, and that means that other people get put at the end of the

line.

And the stories that I’ve heard from New Jersey include a recent

case where newlyweds had to postpone their honeymoon because

they had not received their passports. Another New Jersey woman

who just about missed her wedding because her passport did not

arrive until the day before the ceremony. And still another one of

my constituents had to drive 96 miles and wait in line for hours

in order to pick up her passport the day before she was set to

travel.

So, you know, this has massively caused an enormous consequence to a lot of people in the disruption of their lives; people

who follow the rules, pay their hard-earned money to receive a U.S.

passport. And, while I appreciate hearing your testimony about the

statistics and how, in the first 7 months of fiscal year 2007, the

State Department issued 33 percent more passports than in the

previous year, the fact of the matter is that the State Department

knew—knew—that the demand for U.S. passports would be exponentially higher than in previous years, and they had ample time

to prepare for the work-log that would be caused by the new regulations under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

So, at this point, in my mind, the number of passports the State

Department has issued is not as relevant as the number of passports they have not issued, as well as the chaos caused by this bureaucratic mess.

And that, in the midst of the debate we are having on immigration, where, in fact, if the underlying proposal were to become law,

we would be in the midst of having the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services clear an estimated 41⁄2 million immigrant applications from its current backlog, and an employer verification system

that would use a passport as one of the key documents for employment verification. And that means every American in the country

going through such a system.

So, I look at all of that, and I am dramatically concerned as to

where we’re headed, beyond what’s happened. I do want to say—

I do want to say that I want to commend the employees at the

passport agencies who have worked overtime and under very

stressful circumstances to help reduce the backlog. And I think everyone would agree that they have been resilient and it’s not their

fault. So, I want to start there.

But in view of what’s already happened, you know, do you really

believe that when September rolls along—of 2007—if you’re still

26

facing a significant backlog, what will be your response? And when

do you expect to return to what is normal, which is processing

times for passports, 4 to 6 weeks, versus the current 10 to 12

weeks? And if you’re going to tell me that you’re going to meet that

target in a relatively short order, why are you confident that you

will be able to do so?

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir.

First, I’d like to associate myself with your comments about people’s lives and how important it is that we get this done. And I,

as I think I mentioned earlier, feel very sincere when I say that

even though we have gotten so very many people their passports,

that’s not good enough; we have to do them all, and we need to do

them in a timely fashion to allow people to take the trips that they

intend on taking.

With respect to the question that you just asked, I’m watching

this every day. I believe that we will get to 8 weeks by the end of

September, with expedites in 2 to 3 weeks, and down to 6 weeks

by the end of the year. We’re going to keep hiring people, we’re

going to keep training people. We will identify any bump in the

road, or impediment, that prevents us from doing what I’ve just

said. And we will continue to brief on the Hill as often as——

Senator MENENDEZ. In September, you believe that the postponement to September is more than enough time to meet the challenges that you presently have?

Ambassador HARTY. I believe that by the end of September, if we

are able to hire the extra 400 that we’ve talked about in the CN

that’s active right now, that we will have the people onboard to be

able to get the wait time down to 8 weeks——

Senator MENENDEZ. But if——

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. On an average.

Senator MENENDEZ. But if that ’’if‘‘ doesn’t become a reality, then

you’ll slip. If the ‘‘if’’ of hiring the people that you suggest.

Ambassador HARTY. That may be the case, sir, but I’m going to

spend all of the time that I have between now and then making

sure we do exactly the opposite, that we hire the people, that we

get the work out the door.

Senator MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. Senator Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to say that my constituent office has had

probably the best relationship with the Department of State that

we could possibly have with any Federal agency over——

Ambassador HARTY. Thanks.

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. Over the years. So I would not

like them to feel that we are beating up on them or unhappy with

the service that they have given. The problem, as I see it is with

management, my key interest. In fact, one of the reasons I had

problems with former Ambassador Bolton during his nomination

was his management. I think that Colin Powell and Dick Armitage

did a good job paying attention to management, making it a top

priority, and improving the esprit de corps in the State Department. I was concerned when Bob Zoellick got the deputy job, because I felt he was not enough interested in management. He left

27

there, as I expected he would. I have also talked with both John

Negroponte and Condoleezza Rice about management in the past.

So, concerning the big picture, for those people here representing

the State Department, I think somebody better start paying attention to management, because the esprit de corps in the State Department is very low. Many people are retiring that probably would

stick around, but they are just throwing up their hands and leaving the place.

That being said, the question I have is—and I have heard some

of what you said—I would like to see your strategic plan and your

critical path outlining how you intend to resolve this major passport backlog and facilitate the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. I’d like to have a written copy of it. You talked about giving

citizens flexibility and allowing them to show proof that they had

made an application and given their photograph. But a number of

Ohioans who have proof of payment for passport applications as far

back as March have been inadvertently left out of the database

used for passport processing, and thus are unable to obtain the official proof of passport application necessary to comply with revised

guidelines.

So, I would like somebody to look into why these applicants are

no longer in the database, and get them in the database so that

they are taken care of.

But there’s a bigger question. You are talking about the people

that are going to get passports right now for flying back and forth.

I am very active in the United States/Canadian Inter-Parliamentary Group and I have to tell you that they are up in arms about

the requirements for traveling back and forth across the border.

Word is getting out all over the place that one needs a passport.

So, in addition to the ones that traditionally need a passport to fly,

there will be an avalanche of people who want these passports by

January 1 of next year, because they have been told they must

have it to cross the border at all.

Now, we have passed legislation that is going to delay Western

Hemisphere Travel Initiative to June 2009. But out on the street,

people hear they will need a passport by January 2008, and I

would like to find out whether you are anticipating these additional

people who think they will need it to get back and forth on land,

between the United States and Canada, particularly.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir, for your question.

With respect to the people who are seeking passports to cross the

land border now, I think that we’ve already seen a considerable

amount of that. I think that is, in part, what we—what part of the

original bump-up has been, that people simply, out of an abundance of caution, want to do exactly that. And we certainly have

also heard from our Canadian counterparts the same consternation

that Canadians feel that they need to get passports for the land

border right now.

We will, as I mentioned previously, over the next several days—

actually, I think maybe even tomorrow—announce the land border

rule, and that will demonstrate that we have heard the kinds of

concerns you’ve articulated here, and the kinds of concerns that

your constituents have mentioned to us so vigorously, and rightly

so.

28

As a result of hearing those concerns, that announcement will include a flexible approach, and I would just like to underscore,

again, how sincere I am when I say that that—that’s a notice of

a proposed rule that we’re very interested in comment and concern

in how we can address that and how we can make it better and

how we can do this job as best——

Senator VOINOVICH. Let me interrupt you and say that it would

be nice, following up on the chairman’s comments, if someone

would tip off Secretary Chertoff at Homeland Security, who keeps

saying the date for passport requirement must be January 1, 2008,

because that confuses people. Let us make the message clear that

the date will now be June 2009, and we are going to get this legislation passed.

Somebody also ought to check whether the June 2009 deadline

is going to be adequate, because DHS still has to develop the technology for REAL ID, and that is still 2 or 3 years away. Someone

has to look at this realistically——

Ambassador HARTY. Understood.

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. At what you will be able to do.

And, as I have already said, I would like to have from you, in writing, how you will handle this. I am also going to request that Senator Akaka hold a hearing in the Oversight of Government Management, Federal Workforce Subcommittee on Homeland Security

and what it is going to do.

Senator VOINOVICH. And, Mr. Chairman, last, but not least, I

want to submit letters for the record that I have sent to the Secretary of State and Mr. Chertoff. And I expect answers to them.

[The above mentioned letters and a reply letter from the State

Department follow:]

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2007.

Hon. CONDOLEEZZA RICE,

Secretary, U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SECRETARY RICE: Thank you for the Department’s response to my letter of

March 27 regarding my concerns with the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). I appreciate your continued efforts to work closely

with the Department of Homeland Security on a plan that reflects your commitment

to implement WHTI in a manner that facilitates travel, including the timely processing and issuance of passports, and takes into account the needs of border communities without hampering our national security interests.

Despite your personal attention to this issue, I am of the opinion that the State

Department has lost control of the situation. My constituents continue to face long

processing delays and are increasingly unable to keep their original travel plans. As

a result, the daily call volume of Ohioans seeking passport assistance from my office

has increased from 76 calls in all of 2006 to nearly 1,000 to date. These statistics

are not unique to my office, and will likely continue as frustration builds and more

and more travelers, who have dutifully followed State Department guidelines and

paid the requisite fees, are prohibited from travel. I offer an example to help illustrate the situation: Last Thursday, my office was informed that passports for a couple were being sent express mail. Only one passport arrived in time for their scheduled departure. In a followup call, my office was informed that the second passport

was never sent.

I do not believe the current implementation plan is realistic and have serious concerns regarding how the Department failed to anticipate and prepare for the increased demand. Summer travel is not a new phenomenon. Notwithstanding the Department’s use of mandatory overtime and the hiring of additional personnel, it is

clear that the existing planning and resources are woefully inadequate.

29

In the short term, I ask that you work with Secretary Chertoff to adjust your

mutual policies to allow acceptance of alternate identification documents until the

larger problem can be addressed. Given the sheer volume of American citizens who

now or will shortly require either a passport or a passport card, I further recommend that you take a fresh look at the forthcoming regulations and land border

implementation plan being developed by the Department of Homeland Security to

ensure they represent a feasible approach.

I remain hopeful that we can develop a reasonable solution that allows us to safeguard our borders without negatively impacting legitimate commerce and travel.

Sincerely,

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. Senator.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2007.

Hon. CONDOLEEZZA RICE,

Secretary, U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC.

Hon. MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SECRETARIES RICE AND CHERTOFF: After numerous American travelers

missed their departure dates, through no fault of their own, I was pleased that the

administration made the right decision to make an accommodation to the Western

Hemisphere Travel Initiative for air travel. Under the new guidance, it was stated

that U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda (who

have applied for but not yet received passports) can temporarily enter and depart

from the United States by air with a government issued-photo identification and

official proof of their passport application. Unfortunately, there continue to be a

number of challenges and failures in communication that prevent well-intentioned

American citizens from embarking on their planned trips. In some cases, it has

caused families to arrive at a destination, only to be turned away and sent back

home. I am writing to request your immediate attention to making sure that our

citizens have accurate and clear information about the new requirements, and that

we address the overarching problem as quickly as we can.

I would like to share an example of the confusion that resulted in wasted time

and money for an Ohio family. On Saturday, the family of five left the United States

via air for the Turks and Caicos. The three children had their passports in hand,

and the parents, who were still waiting after 12 weeks, had proper identification

and proof of passport application consistent with the recently released guidelines

which specifically referenced the Caribbean. Unfortunately, upon arrival in the

Turks and Caicos, the family was denied entry, and boarded a return flight to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The family mistakenly believed that the revised WHTI guidance superseded any foreign country requirements for entry. Once in Philadelphia,

an airline representative escorted the family to Customs and Border Patrol, where

agents indicated they were not aware of the new guidance. It is apparent that our

own citizens are still unaware that some countries will refuse entry without proper

documentation regardless of the most recent accommodations made by the administration. It is imperative that a clear message is sent to the public regarding what

this accommodation does and does not mean.

While the issuance of guidance provided relief to thousands of American citizens

with impending air departures, new confusion has resulted from poor implementation of this flexibility and the underlying challenge has not been resolved. On a related matter, it appears that a number of Ohioans who have proof of payment for

passport application as far back as March have been inadvertently left out of the

database used for passport processing, and thus are unable to obtain the official

proof of passport application necessary to comply with the revised guidelines. It is

unacceptable to me that American citizens who are following guidance continue to

be denied entry to countries within the Western Hemisphere.

Moreover, the massive backlog of passport applications has resulted in unacceptable delays, costs, and cancellations extending well beyond Western Hemisphere

travel. In one case, a Cleveland-area law enforcement official was invited by the

Turkish National Police to serve as an American Ambassador at the Istanbul Conference on Democracy and Global Security. The individual was honored to be invited

and have the opportunity to represent our country at the international conference.

In fact, our government reached out to him to request that he debrief them after

30

he attended the conference. He and his wife applied for passports in early March

and were advised that they would have their passports in plenty of time to attend

the June conference. Three weeks ago, the couple still had not received their passports.

Despite numerous attempts to contact the Passport Agency, they received no reply

to their status inquiries or expedited processing requests. When my office was contacted about the situation on June 8, we intervened and learned that while his passport was in process, the Passport Agency had not even begun to process his wife’s

application after 13 weeks. the only resolution to the situation would have required

450 miles of travel from Cleveland to Chicago, at great expense to the couple, to

appear in person at the Chicago Passport Agency. Due to this regrettable fiasco, the

law enforcement official was forced to cancel his attendance at the Istanbul Conference. In an ironic twist, his passport arrived by FedEx yesterday morning, just

after the couple’s flight had been scheduled to depart.

Consistent with my letter of June 7, I would like to know what steps you are taking to ensure that our citizens understand the recently released operational guidance for air travel within the Western Hemisphere. I also look forward to additional

information on how you intend to address the need for efficient passport issuance

processes and clarification of guidelines that will need to be resolved well in advance

of the land border implementation of WHTI. Lastly, I would like to know who is

responsible for managing this situation at your respective agencies, particularly

given that the position of Under Secretary of State for Management is vacant.

Sincerely,

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. Senator.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2007.

Hon. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR VOINOVICH: Thank you for your letters of June 7 and 13 regarding

the delays in processing passport applications and the implementation of the temporary measure of June 8, 2007. Please be assured that we are working diligently

to resolve the problems associated with the unprecedented demand for passports.

As you know, all U.S. citizens arriving by air since January 23, 2007, have been

required to present a valid passport when entering the United States. The Department ramped up capacity—personnel and physical facilities—to meet anticipated increase in demand. We are enclosing a document summarizing the many actions we

have taken to date to meet the growth in passport demand. Nevertheless, we are

aware that some travelers have not been able to obtain passports before their

planned travel because of longer processing times cause by record-setting demand.

We are working with our partners at other agencies, congressional offices, and the

travel industry to assist travelers who have applied for passports in a timely manner, while still being mindful of our Nation’s border security goals.

On June 8, we announced, together with the Department of Homeland Security,

that U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda who

have applied for but not yet received passports can temporarily enter and depart

the United States by air with a government-issued photo identification and an official proof of application from the U.S. Department of State through September 30,

2007. Children under the age of 16 traveling with their parents or legal guardian

will be permitted to travel with the child’s proof of application. Children 16 and

under traveling alone should carry a copy of their birth certificate, baptismal record,

or a hospital record of birth in the United States as well as the proof of passport

application status. Travelers who have not applied for a passport should not expect

to be accommodated. U.S. citizens with pending passport applications can obtain

proof of application at: http://travel.state.gov.

This accommodation does not affect entry requirements to other countries.

Americans traveling to a country that requires passports must still present those

documents. Travelers should contact the embassy of the country they are visiting.

Contact information is available on the Consular Bureau’s Web site, http://travel.state.gov. Travelers may also contact their airline to verify the documents passengers need to board a flight to the country they are visiting.

The joint State-DHS announcement has had a significant impact. Since June 8,

hundreds of thousands of users have accessed the Internet site from which proof of

a pending passport application can be obtained. We will, of course, process to comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:13 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PASSPORTS sforel1 PsN: sforel1
31

pletion all applications on hand; but the flexible transition period will allow us to

get first to many of those applications where people actually need passports in order

to travel. We will continue to work hard to meet the tremendous challenges of this

unprecedented passport demand—our goal is to ensure that American citizens have

the documents they need for their travel abroad.

We recognize that when we implemented this temporary measure to accommodate

the traveling public, we still needed to consult with air carriers and destination

countries within the Western Hemisphere. Working diligently with host governments in the Caribbean, Mexico, and Canada, and with the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the International Air Transport Association, we were able to update

the foreign entry requirements in their database systems. We took this unusual step

in order to provide relief as soon as possible to the traveling public, and we regret

that there was some initial confusion and that some travelers were returned to the

U.S.

We hope this information is helpful in addressing your concerns. Please feel free

to contact us further on this or any matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

JEFFREY T. BERGNER,

Assistant Secretary,

Legislative Affairs.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2007.

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Committee on

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN AKAKA: I am writing to express my interest in holding a subcommittee hearing to examine the capacity of federal agencies to meet the demand

of American citizens needing identification documents in order to comply with recently enacted laws such as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and

the REAL ID Act of 2005. Although these laws represent critical elements of our

comprehensive efforts to improve homeland security, they place a heavy demand on

agencies to develop the infrastructure and human capital necessary to meet the various deadlines for compliance. Based on recent events, question whether agencies

are equipped to meet this burden.

Last Thursday, the Departments of Homeland Security and State made the right

decision to temporarily suspend the passport requirements for air travel by American citizens under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative until September 30,

because the State Department was unable to meet the spiraling demand for passports. I remain disturbed that the Department of State failed to anticipate and plan

for the demand, despite enactment of the requirement for a more secure Western

Hemisphere in 2004. Thousands of American families were forced to cancel their

long-anticipated trips before the change in policy was announced, despite having dutifully followed State Department guidelines and paid the requisite fees to obtain

passports. The Department of Homeland Security expected to release its regulations

for WHTI land border implementation within 2 weeks. With the anticipated deadline for land and sea border compliance approximately 6 months from now, I believe

the State Department will find itself in a similar situation unless significant management improvements are made.

During our March 26 hearing to examine the implementation of the REAL ID Act

of 2005, I suggested that we invite some of our witnesses, including the Department

of Homeland Security, to report to the subcommittee on their progress in developing

the requirements and infrastructure necessary for States to issue secure drivers’

licenses in less than 11 months. Our government’s failure of last week, current preparations for REAL ID, and the looming deadline for WHTI land border compliance

raise new questions in my mind about whether or not our agencies have completed

the planning necessary to meet the demand for the efficient processing of secure

identification documents required by our homeland security laws.

You and I understand the link between good management and operational success. Agencies’ ability to meet the current and future challenge of providing wellmeaning American citizens with the identification documents necessary to move

freely within and across our borders requires greater management focus in the near

term. Accordingly, I encourage you to hold a hearing to help ensure our agencies

are instituting the policies necessary to meet the unprecedented demand for government-issued identification documents between now and 2013. As ranking member,

32

I believe it is our responsibility to help ensure agencies develop plans that help

facilitate legitimate commerce and travel, including the timely processing and

issuance of passports and inquiries for secure drivers’ licenses, without hampering

our national security interests.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee On

Oversight of Government Management.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, may I just answer the Senator’s other question

about the Ohioans that are not in the database?

When we first did this, we found that there were several cases

like that. Not a lot. And I’m sorry if they were your constituents.

I’m sorry it happened to anyone. But we did make some fixes very

quickly. With your permission, we’ll call your office and find out

who those people are, so we can make sure we serve them.

Senator VOINOVICH. I’d appreciate that.

Ambassador HARTY. OK.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you.

Senator BILL NELSON. Senator Feingold.

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank you

for your great leadership on this. This is a very important issue.

And, Assistant Secretary Harty, thank you for appearing before

the committee today. This backlog, as I’m sure you’ve heard from

everybody, has affected many of my constituents in Wisconsin, and

my staff has worked incredibly long hours without complaint to try

to deal with it, and they have tried to make it clear to me just how

significant the problem is.

I want to extend my thanks, also——

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you.

Senator FEINGOLD [continuing]. In addition to you, to the employees of your agency who have been working very long hours as

a result of the passport backlog. I appreciate their efforts as well.

Now, under these temporary regulations, Americans must

produce proof of a pending passport application to travel by air to

and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. According

to caseworkers in my State offices, individuals must have their

passport application locator number as proof of a pending passport

application. I understand from my State offices that many Wisconsinites have become frustrated that no locator number is assigned

to applications in the initial phase of processing at the lockbox facility. As a result, when a passport application is delayed in this

initial phase of processing, it is, I’m told, virtually impossible for

an individual to present the required proof of a pending passport

application. This is a problem that is affecting many people in my

State. Is this specific to Wisconsin, or is it a national problem? And

what steps are being taken to address it?

Ambassador HARTY. I very much appreciate that question, sir,

because it gives me a chance to explain again what we try to say

so many times. When we introduced this on June 8, we did several

things at once. One of them was, we started sending folks a postcard, so somebody who applies for a passport now gets a postcard,

33

and it says, ‘‘Thank you for applying for a passport. We received

your application. It’s being processed. If you are traveling to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda, and need verifiable evidence that you’ve applied for a passport, here’s how you do it. You

go to our Web site.’’ So, this passport is going to John Q. Citizen

now as they apply for—this postcard is going—now as they apply.

I wish I had thought of it sooner.

When you go to travel.state.gov, this is the home page. This is

the very first page you see. And in the upper right-hand corner

there are four, sort of, little icons you can click. The second one of

those says, ‘‘Click here for proof of passport application.’’ So, you

do that. We ask you to put in your name, your date and place of

birth, and your Social Security number. And this page pops up, the

U.S. Passport Application Status page. That’s what you need.

That’s the page you print. And that proves that you’ve got what

you need.

So, we were concerned—travel.state.gov is a great Web site. Lots

of people use it. It got 219 million page views last year. But nobody

was born knowing that that Web site exists. That’s why we invented the postcard option, to make sure that we’re reaching out

to everybody who has said to us—‘‘You’ve got an application, we

want to help you get there.’’ And, while not everybody’s as computer savvy as they might be, with this postcard in hand

everybody’s got a nephew or a niece who can do it for them, if they

can’t.

Senator FEINGOLD. Another concern I’ve heard from people in

Wisconsin has to do with maintaining the integrity of the security

review and vetting process for passport applications. My caseworkers have experienced situations in which passports have been

mailed to incorrect addresses in other States. In an effort to reduce

the backlog as quickly as possible, what is the State Department

doing to ensure that all applications are fully and appropriately

vetted?

And are you concerned about an increase in passport fraud as a

result of this backlog?

Ambassador HARTY. Every single passport, before it leaves our

hands, goes through what we call a quality control check. And so,

I regret that any one of them ever goes to an address that it should

not go to. It doesn’t even make me comfortable to say that when

you do 1.5 million anything’s—you might make a mistake from

time to time, because I wouldn’t want to be the one who had the

mistake made about them. So, we work very hard to make sure

that it doesn’t happen, sir, and work very hard to make sure that

we ameliorate that situation just as quickly as we can if it does.

With respect to your other question, about a half percent of applications are regularly referred from our adjudicators, from our

passport specialists, to fraud prevention managers who look at

them and drill down further into those applications. Those that are

then found to be suspicious or not what they appear to be are referred to our colleagues in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for

further investigation. We have not seen that number go up appreciatively during this time, it’s just about the same ratio that it has

always been. So, the real number——

34

Senator FEINGOLD. So, is there any need or plans to make

changes to the security review or adjudication process, in light of

the passport backlog?

Ambassador HARTY. No, sir; I don’t think that we can, or should,

cut corners on the actual adjudication. We really do need to make

sure we know who’s getting a U.S. passport.

Senator FEINGOLD. So, what—I was asking whether you need to

do things to make it stronger.

Ambassador HARTY. Oh. Well, I’m hiring more people, and most

of those people are going to be passport specialists, adjudicators,

but a bunch of them are also going to be in our fraud prevention

program so that we can make ourselves more accessible to all of

the passport specialists and adjudicators, but, also, we’re going to

do a little bit more with the passport acceptance facilities, the over9,000 offices across the country—post offices, clerks of court—who

actually accept passport applications for us. We want to plus-up

our ability to do more training with them, because that’s a point

where we think we could use that kind of extra attention.

Senator FEINGOLD. Do you have any estimates of how many

passports have been misprinted or delivered to wrong addresses?

Ambassador HARTY. I don’t, sir. I can try and get that for you.

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, I’d appreciate that.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador HARTY. Thank you, sir.

[The written information from the State Department follows:]

In FY07 to date, less than 1 percent of passports issued were returned for error

correction. Passport errors include data entry errors, switched photos, and passports

mailed to an incorrect address.

Senator BILL NELSON. Let’s get into some specific numbers, for

the record.

What were the projections for passport demand following the enactment of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?

Ambassador HARTY. Passport demand projection for FY05 was

10,499,839.

Senator BILL NELSON. And——

Ambassador HARTY. The actual was 10,412,146.

Senator BILL NELSON. The question is, the Western Hemisphere

Travel Initiative——

Ambassador HARTY. FY06, then, was—because 12 million—well,

yeah, just a little over 12 million, and the actual that year was

12,333,000. FY07——

Senator BILL NELSON. That’s total.

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir. FY0-——

Senator BILL NELSON. That’s total. What about the Western

Hemisphere Travel——

Ambassador HARTY. Oh, I’m sorry, excuse me. I’m going to have

to get you those numbers.

That’s total, and I don’t have the specific breakdown. It’s inexplicable to me, sir, but I don’t have it with me. I apologize.

Senator BILL NELSON. Does any of your staff back there have it?

Ambassador HARTY. I don’t know. Do you have——

Senator BILL NELSON. I mean, if that’s the main reason for the

breakdown——

Ambassador HARTY. For WHTI, yeah.

35

Sir, I’m going to have to pull it for you out of the system.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, if that’s the main reason for the

breakdown, other than just people wanting a new passport——

Ambassador HARTY. I think, certainly a significant part of it is,

sir, but I don’t think that’s all of it. I genuinely believe, based on

what I see in passport applications, that a significant number of

American citizens are applying for U.S. passports because they believe this to be a useful document to them, whether it’s to prove

that they are American citizens—perhaps they’re naturalized and

just have become American citizens—or it is to prove that they’re

American citizens to qualify for a Federal benefit, or it is simply

an easy document to use to board a common conveyance, mostly an

airplane, even if they’re not traveling internationally. We have created a large demand for the passport because of its utility in a

number of situations. That is certainly not all of it, by a longshot.

But I’ll get you the numbers that you asked for, sir. I regret I

didn’t bring them with me.

Senator BILL NELSON. But the Western Hemisphere Initiative

was the new requirement. You knew you had to have a passport

for somebody that didn’t have it before.

Ambassador HARTY. That’s right, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. So, I’d like to have that number.

Ambassador HARTY. I’m going to have to take that question, sir,

and get that for you.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, it’s hard for us to judge if we don’t

know. I mean, if it’s the large part of the increase, that’s one thing,

if it’s a de minimis part of the overall increase, that’s another

thing. So, how can we, at this hearing, make judgements without

knowing that number?

Ambassador HARTY. I apologize for not having that number for

you, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. Since 2005, what measures did you take

to expand facilities and hire additional personnel to deal with the

anticipated increase?

Ambassador HARTY. Since 2005, on personnel, sir, total passport

employees hired in FY05 was 441; in FY06, 925; in FY07, 1,222.

On expansion of facilities—Houston, Chicago, Boston, Seattle,

Miami—were all increased. Miami will be increased in a significant

way. I’ve already walked the space. And we’re moving it from

where it currently is to another building, another part of town, and

it will go from 18,000 square feet currently to 28,000 square feet.

I have also—we have also built the Denver Passport Agency in this

timeframe. We also built the Arkansas Passport Processing Center

that we just opened, cut the ribbon on, last week, although it’s

been in process—it’s been working for about 6 weeks, and they’ve

already cranked out about 150,000 passports. We also are expanding the National Passport Center, and GSA is working with us on

a fast-track approach to build—we’ve got a big building there, it’s

been our flagship for a long time; we are looking for another building, because we need about 100,000 square feet up there, and that’s

what we’re looking for now.

Senator BILL NELSON. Before I get into 2007, why don’t you have

a member of your staff step outside with their cell phone and see

if they can get that number, from the office, that I asked for, which

36

is: How much of the new passport applications are attributable to

the requirement of the new passports in the Western Hemisphere

Travel Initiative?

OK. Now, on 2007, you said that you’ve hired about 1,000 additional people in 2007.

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. And you also have a request to hire an additional 400 in 2007?

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir; that’s the subject of the CN.

Senator BILL NELSON. What is ‘‘CN’’?

Ambassador HARTY. Congressional notification, that we’re going

to spend about $40 million to expand Miami, to expand the National Passport Center, to hire 400 additional employees.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And you’re also anticipating to hire

another 400 in 2008?

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. And it’s only now that you’ve discovered

that the volume is such that you’re going to have to have all these

additional people. That’s 1,000, plus 400, plus another 400—that’s

1,800 just since January of this year.

Ambassador HARTY. The numbers that we hire each year also

take into account a significant amount of attrition. This is government employees, as well as contract employees. So, we give you

that number to give you a sense of exactly how many new people

we’ve brought onboard, but in some cases it wasn’t a new position,

it was that somebody had left the job. Matter of fact, on the contractor side, we have a very regular turnover of contractors.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, what is the attrition rate in

your——

Ambassador HARTY. On the contractor side, my folks tell me that

it is about three to one. I mean, we turn people over very, very

quickly on the contractor side, not on the passport specialist side.

Senator BILL NELSON. What does ‘‘three to one’’ mean?

Ambassador HARTY. Well, the turnover is so quick that, as we

look at, in any given year, how many people we’re going to hire,

we see just about—you know, just about, I guess, a third of those

turning over every year. And, in fact, in some of those cases, if not

many of those cases, we’re bringing them on full-time to the government side of the house. They have learned the business, we

have openings, and they are often quite competitive to come on in

and adjudicate and become passport specialists, because they have

been a part of the nongovernmental side of the house before that.

So, there is a constant hiring process going on, even before WHTI,

sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. So, for the contractors, you’re saying, for

every three people hired, one person leaves.

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir; I believe that—I believe I have understood that correctly from my people, and if I’m wrong, I’ll correct it for you.

Senator BILL NELSON. And what is the attrition with regard to

the people who you are hiring now, and have hired in the last several months?

Ambassador HARTY. I’m going to have to get that for you, sir.

37

Senator BILL NELSON. Is it less than for contractors? Is it more

than for contractors?

Ambassador HARTY. Oh, I’m sorry, on the governmental side? No,

I don’t have a hard number for you, sir, but attrition on the fulltime government employee side is not very high. That has not been

of significant issue for us.

[The written information from the State Department follows:]

The attrition rate among contract employees involved in passport processing is

about 40 percent annually. The attrition rate among full-time government employees has averaged roughtly 7 percent for the last 2 fiscal years (7.14 percent for FY

2007; 6.95 percent for FY 2006).

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, in November, you knew that you

had received 250,000 more applications than you had originally

projected. That’s in November 2006. Then, in January, the problem

grew to another 600,000 above your estimates. So, knowing that,

why did it take the Department so long to act?

Ambassador HARTY. In the month of January, and even actually

in the month of December, we had begun advertising the fact of the

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. And so, we initially, and erroneously, believed that the bump-up in January, in that period actually, was because we had made people aware of the requirement.

We didn’t realize right away, sir, that it was going to continue at

those significant high levels. And now, as I have previously testified, it certainly seems clear that it is a changed world, that this

is going to be a sustained and increasing demand for U.S. passports, for all of the reasons we’ve cited, not just Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

Senator BILL NELSON. After January, when did you hire the first

additional people?

Ambassador HARTY. Oh, we’ve been hiring people nonstop, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. When did they first start? When did you

first start hiring new ones?

Ambassador HARTY. I think it’s fair to say, sir, that every month

we’re hiring people. We are constantly in a hiring phase——

Senator BILL NELSON. Yeah, but that’s not the question.

Ambassador HARTY. Yeah.

Senator BILL NELSON. The question is: When you saw that you

had more applications than you originally projected—you first saw

that—250,000 more in November, and then, in January, you saw,

again, that you had more than 600,000 applications above your estimates, when did you start hiring additional staff?

Ambassador HARTY. Sir, I have year-by-year, I don’t have monthby-month with me, but I can assure you we’ve been hiring people

every month—2006 and into 2007.

Senator BILL NELSON. Yeah, but that doesn’t help me understand the situation of why you waited so long. I need to know, and

this committee needs to know: When did you start responding to

the fact that you had more applications than you had? Now, get

your staff member’s note, and see if that’ll refresh your memory.

Ambassador HARTY. I actually thought I had the worst handwriting in the world, sir, but I need a moment. I——

Senator BILL NELSON. OK.

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. I don’t understand this.

Senator BILL NELSON. Take your time.

38

[Pause.]

Ambassador HARTY. They’re reminding me, sir, of an additional

thing that we did, but I’m not certain of the date. We went to OPM

because we had two issues. One was, it does take a little while to

identify people, bring them onboard, train them, clear them, and

all of those things. But two categories of people that we were very

interested in, because, in many cases, the training issue would be

much less, and also the security issue would very likely be much

less, and those were WAEs, retired Foreign Service officers who

had done this work before, and civil service. And we went to

OPM—this note says, actually, March, but I’m not sure, and I

apologize, sir, I will have to get back to you.

I think it might even have been February—where we asked to

have OPM give us, sort of, a lifting of the cap in their restrictions

on hiring back retired passport employees, because what we tried

to do—I want the new folks, you bet I do, but if I can hire back

some retired passport employees who already know the business—

there’s a sort of a disincentive in the Government to do that for

people to come back who have retired on the civil service side. But

we got an exception. We got an exception for 100 or 150 people. I’m

not sure, sir, when that is, but I will find it out and give it back

to your staff.

I apologize for not anticipating this line of questioning.

Senator BILL NELSON. Who do you have to ask to get that exception so that you can hire those additional people? Who did you ask?

Ambassador HARTY. Under Secretary——

Senator BILL NELSON. In March.

Ambassador HARTY. Under Secretary Fore called OPM. I don’t

know the name of the person she spoke with, but I will find it out

for you.

[The written information from the State Department follows:]

Linda Springer, Director of OPM, approved the request to waive the salary offset

and reemploy annuitants in a memo to Under Secretary Fore on March 30.

Senator BILL NELSON. Did you bring this problem to the attention of the Secretary of State?

Ambassador HARTY. The Secretary was aware of the things that

we were doing, yes.

Senator BILL NELSON. That’s not my question. Did you bring this

to the attention of the Secretary of State?

Ambassador HARTY. Which part of the issue, sir?

Senator BILL NELSON. The fact that you’re way behind the eight

ball on hiring people for the amount of new applications that you’re

receiving.

Ambassador HARTY. I have sent several memos to the Secretary,

sir. I don’t know if I specifically mentioned the hiring issue. It

would be normal for me to go to the Under Secretary for Management.

Senator BILL NELSON. Ok, let’s assume the note that was just

passed to you is correct, March. So, you knew, in—you knew, in

November, there were 250,000 more applications. You knew, in

January, that there were 600,000 more applications. Would it not

occur to a manager that we’re going to need some more work done,

and people? So, why wait ’til March?

39

Ambassador HARTY. Sir, we were hiring in November, in December, in January. The idea about retirees, I think was a good idea,

we just didn’t think of it right away.

Senator BILL NELSON. Didn’t think of it right away. And you

thought that this was a false—did you say, earlier, that you

thought this was a false bump-up and that it was going to settle

back down?

Ambassador HARTY. We thought it was a bump-up in response

to the public outreach we and Homeland Security had done to see

people comply with the January 23 deadline.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, let’s talk about the vendor. When

did State first realize there was a backlog of applications at the

lockbox operation?

Ambassador HARTY. Mid-January, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. And what measures were taken by State

and Treasury in response to that?

Ambassador HARTY. Lots of conversations, lots of people from

passport services going up there. I, myself, went. I went with somebody from Treasury in very, very, very regular monitoring of: How

are we going to get this back to the normal performance standard?

Senator BILL NELSON. In your opinion, has the contractor performed adequately?

Ambassador HARTY. They are now, sir. I think that together we

were impressed with the seriousness of the situation, and we addressed it. I would, of course, prefer that this never had happened

this way, but they are—they really did put the pedal to the metal,

sir, to ramp up and to address the concerns that they saw, and that

we addressed with them.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, you just testified that January was

when you found that there was a problem in the lockbox, and it

is now 51⁄2 months later that you’re saying they’re really trying

now.

Ambassador HARTY. No, sir. They’re—excuse me—but they’re

back to 24-hour turnaround.

Senator BILL NELSON. Ok. So, your answer to the question, then,

‘‘Has the contractor performed adequately?’’ is ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ or

‘‘maybe’’?

Ambassador HARTY. I don’t mean to be difficult, sir, but they—

when addressed—when we addressed their performance issues,

they rectified them.

Senator BILL NELSON. Within what period of time?

Ambassador HARTY. By mid-May they were back to 24-hour turnaround, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. Is that good enough for government work,

since you’re the accountable figure?

Ambassador HARTY. Sir, it’s not a phrase I ever use. ‘‘Good

enough for government work,’’ in my—the way I——

Senator BILL NELSON. Is that good enough for your standards?

Ambassador HARTY. I would have liked it to have been faster,

sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. Is there a penalty, then, under the contract?

40

Ambassador HARTY. I will have to explore that with the Treasury

Department. It’s not my contract, and I apologize, but I don’t know

the answer to that question.

Senator BILL NELSON. When do you expect to clear the backlog

of pending applications—there are some 2 million applications.

Ambassador HARTY. There’s actually just under 3 million applications in the system, sir. We expect, given the hiring we’re going

to do and the things I’ve described today, that, by the end of September, we will get to 8 weeks, and, by the end of the year, back

to 6 weeks. We will brief you if that is not the case. It is certainly

my intention to do everything we can to get there and to make sure

that the Web site is as regularly updated as possible to make sure

that Americans know what to expect. The service standard and

transparency there is an important thing that we need to make

sure we get it right.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And ‘‘the end of September,’’ translate

that into numbers for me.

Ambassador HARTY. I’m sorry, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. There’s 3 million now. So, at the end of

September, you’re going to have how many millions still pending,

that you get it down to 8 weeks, and, at the end of the year, you’re

going to get it down to 6 weeks. And so, how many millions are

still pending at that point?

Ambassador HARTY. When we are back down to—at the end of

September, we’ll have about 2 million churning through the system, but it’s—it’s the volume, sir, it’s not—you know, a——

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes, I——

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. passport comes in——

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. I understand.

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. Today and goes out tomorrow.

You know, they’re——

Senator BILL NELSON. I understand. It’s the volume. But it’s 2

million applications that have to be handled.

Ambassador HARTY. That’s right.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK?

Ambassador HARTY. That’s right, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. And by the end of the year, how many will

it be?

Ambassador HARTY. It’s an estimate, sir, somewhere between a

million and a million and a half.

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. And why are you confident

that—in your testimony today, that you’ll be able to meet that

target?

Ambassador HARTY. We have looked at the traditional, sort of,

seasonal flow of passport applications, and we have—although it’s

all higher, if you were to chart it out on a graph, it is also following

a historic pattern, so we are entering the slower season for passport applications just at the same time that we are ramping up, as

we have described this afternoon. And so, that combination of those

two things is going to allow us to begin to take a bigger chunk out

of the work in progress that we’ve got now. And we are—I am monitoring that, sir, on a daily basis. Every morning, at 9:30, we do

this.

41

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. You have told us that you’re trying

to get the word out with regard to the new travel requirements up

to September the 30th for the Western Hemisphere Initiative.

What measures are you taking to prioritize other passport applications for citizens that are traveling to other countries outside of the

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?

Ambassador HARTY. A couple of things, sir. First, the passport

application has a space where you tell us when you’re traveling

and where you’re going. And so, we’ve asked—we’re working with

Citibank to try and make sure that we can reprioritize it a different way so we can get the work in and identify that which has

to get out more quickly than others.

Also, at each of our agencies, we’ve got people doing that same

thing, pulling application—it’s laborious, it’s not a situation that

we want to be in, it’s just a situation that we’ve got to spend the

time on to make sure we reach in and identify as many of those

applications on an agency-by-agency basis as possible. I’ve sent

dozens of people to our National Passport Center, for instance, just,

in fact, to go through files to find applications to move things more

quickly. Of course, on the expedite side, although we’ve been

through a little bit of that today, we are also moving expedites to

the front of the line at every possible turn. If somebody hasn’t identified on the envelop that it is an expedite, we’re also asking that

our Citibank colleagues, sort of, identify that and move that to the

front of the line for us.

We are, of course, also receiving phone calls, ourselves, and the

National Passport Information Center is able to receive a lot more

of those phone calls now, because they’ve put in all of those lines.

And so, we are working with people as they call us. We’re also

pulling cases out of the system. It’s not the best way to do business. It is the situation we are in, and it’s why we want to get out

of it as quickly as we can so that we can get back to a more standard approach to doing the work that we do.

Senator BILL NELSON. And, come September 30, what is going to

be your adjustment on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative,

since you’ve suspended the requirement for a passport up

through—this is for air travel only—for——

Ambassador HARTY. To countries within the affected area, yes.

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Those four areas that we

talked about——

Ambassador HARTY. Uh-huh.

Senator BILL NELSON. So, come September 30, now they have to

have a passport. So, how are you going to handle all of that?

Ambassador HARTY. It is a transition phase. I don’t want to

speak for DHS just yet. We will, together, work through making

sure people understand what the requirement is, do the public diplomacy work, assess this, and make sure this has worked. I would

like to keep open the possibility that—well, I’ve got to work with

DHS and see what exactly they are going to do on October 1, and

make sure the public understands that.

By that time, sir, I fully expect to have an additional 400 bodies

onboard, and that will help us continue to crank the work out.

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you expect that you will delay the implementation past September 30?

42

Ambassador HARTY. It’s not our expectation at this time, sir, but

I certainly will keep an open mind on that subject.

Senator BILL NELSON. Much to the chagrin of Secretary Chertoff.

Ambassador HARTY. We will certainly have a consultation about

it, sir, if that is required.

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. I think your people have the answer, back there, to the question that I had asked.

[Pause.]

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you want to just have your staff member testify?

Ambassador HARTY. That would do terrible things for retention,

sir. [Laughter.]

I’d prefer to do it myself. I will invite her, if I misspeak, to correct me—the initial projections were, in FY05, just under a million;

in FY06——

Senator BILL NELSON. This was for Western Hemisphere Travel

Initiative.

Ambassador HARTY. Right.

Senator BILL NELSON. A million in 2005.

Ambassador HARTY. Point-nine. Nine—point-nine. In 2006, 1.8.

And, originally, in 2007, 4 million; revised, given what we now

have seen happen, to 6.5.

But what I was failing to understand for a minute there was—

these are, of course, projections—we don’t ask people to tell us

where they go or how often they will travel, and we don’t exactly

know whether or not these numbers bear fruit or whether—and it’s

the same thing I’ve mentioned earlier, though from a different

angle, that the—what we also did not know was how many people

would choose to apply for a passport just to have the document,

with——

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes.

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. No travel intentions.

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes, I understand that. You’ve made that

quite clear.

So, in 2005, you estimated that 900,000 people would apply for

a passport due to the Western Hemisphere Initiative that otherwise had not had one.

Ambassador HARTY. Yes.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. How many did?

Ambassador HARTY. That’s the part we don’t track, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. You don’t know that.

Ambassador HARTY. No, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And, in 2006, you estimated that 1.8

million new people would apply for a passport that otherwise didn’t

have one, because they were just traveling within that Western

Hemisphere area.

Ambassador HARTY. Right.

Senator BILL NELSON. And then, in 2007, you said 4 million new

people, and you’ve revised that up to 6.5.

Ambassador HARTY. That’s right, sir. Now——

Senator BILL NELSON. And the overall application of passports,

you said earlier in your testimony, is somewhere around 12 million?

43

Ambassador HARTY. 12.1 million in 2006. This year, we expect a

little over 17 million.

Senator BILL NELSON. 17 million.

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. Of which 61⁄2 million of the 17 million are,

in fact, new required passports as a result of Western Initiative.

Ambassador HARTY. An estimate, sir, but yes.

Senator BILL NELSON. And when was that projection originally

made, for 4 million in 2007—for 2007? When did you make that

projection?

Ambassador HARTY. 2005 study, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Well, you knew it was coming down

the road, that you were going to have a lot of new ones.

For the record, in the 2008 budget request, what has been requested to address this expected new demand——

Ambassador HARTY. The 2008 budget request——

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. For the Western Hemisphere?

Ambassador HARTY. Right. The 2008 budget request falls short,

in that we requested 75 positions, but we are, of course, now in

conversation with the Department about another 400, so we’re

looking at 400 for FY07 fourth quarter, and another 400 in 2008

first quarter.

Senator BILL NELSON. OKay. Now, share with the committee, on

the $60 expedited fee, how you’re going to go back—about determining if you are going to return all of those fees, or, if you’re going

to determine that you’re not going to return all of them, how are

you going to determine what was, in fact, expedited and what was

not? What are your parameters?

Ambassador HARTY. Previously today, sir, I said I didn’t want to

misspeak on this subject. I have—we have had, for many years, a

system in place for people to request a refund of their expedite fee.

I don’t know what is legally required before the Government can

cut a check back. I will find out, and I will report that back to you,

sir.

I just know that I need help from our legal division on that.

Senator BILL NELSON. The $97 application goes into the Treasury, is that correct?

Ambassador HARTY. Most of it, sir. The $97 includes the passport, the fee that is charged by the acceptance facility, as well as—

well, the fee that is for the passport itself. The passport fee goes

to the general treasury. If there is an expedite fee, that goes to the

Department of State. Several years ago, we managed to—and the

Congress gave us a passport surcharge fee, which is $18, and that

comes to us, in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, to do what we do,

with respect to passports.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. So, if the $60 expedite fee goes into

the Department of State, would you not think that the Department

of State has the authority, when a person, in fact, has not received

the service of expediting their passport, that the Department of

State has the authority to return that $60?

Ambassador HARTY. Since we have a program that does do that,

sir, yes, I do think that.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK.

44

Ambassador HARTY. How—the mechanics of it are what I am

loathe to comment on without——

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. What we want to find out is: What

is going to be your criteria for what has been expedited and what

has not, so those people get their 60 bucks back?

Ambassador HARTY. We have traditionally told people 2 to 3

weeks for an expedite, sir. So, many, many, many people have gotten that—have gotten their passports expedited, so there will be

people who don’t need that service, or who have—who, in fact, paid

for the service and got the service. So, we will do a review of how

many cases where that’s not the case.

Senator BILL NELSON. Is it present policy that you just said that

you consider an expedited passport 2 to 3 weeks?

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Is it logical for this committee to assume that, therefore, anyone with—who has not received their

passport within that 2-to-3-week present policy of expediting will

get their $60 back?

Ambassador HARTY. The policy discusses how long we have the

passport actually in our hands, as opposed to in the lockbox or before the clerk of court mailed it to the lockbox, and so, in the parameters that you are describing, there’s a little bit of leeway

there, sir. I will work with our attorneys on this, as well, and come

up with a policy.

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, I think it’s important that you come

back and enunciate that policy to us, because everyone that was up

here, their constituents are going to be calling them when they

don’t get their $60 back, and they’re going to say, ‘‘I didn’t get my

passport until 3 months later, and they’re still keeping my 60

bucks.’’

Ambassador HARTY. Right.

Senator BILL NELSON. And when you come back and share with

us your new policy, would you also tell us whether or not you’re

going to require people to ask for a refund or if you are going to

do that on your own without them having to do that?

Ambassador HARTY. Yes, sir; I will do those things.

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you think that, having gotten through

the seasonal application bump, that we are going to see a decrease

of applications?

Ambassador HARTY. Historically, that has been the case, sir. Yes;

we do. We will watch this, as I have mentioned, every day to see

if that is, or is not, the case.

Senator BILL NELSON. There certainly appears to be plenty of

evidence that it won’t lessen, on the basis of everything that’s been

said here in the hearing.

Ambassador HARTY. The numbers are absolutely higher, but the

pattern of when people apply seems to be holding consistent with

previous years.

Senator BILL NELSON. But certainly not when you overlay the

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and when you overlay what

you said, that suddenly people want this prized possession of a

passport as a means of identification.

Ambassador HARTY. That’s why, in fact, sir, while our prediction,

which, of course, is subject to the results of the study we’re doing

45

now, that’s due out later this summer, our prediction is for 23 million next year. My desire is to staff for 26 million.

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Thank you. I’m sorry that you have

to have these pointed questions.

Ambassador HARTY. No, no, sir. That’s my job.

Senator BILL NELSON. I understand that you think it’s your job,

but it’s also your boss’s job, too, to make sure that Americans don’t

get this riled up.

As I went over to vote, I had a number of Senators come up to

me who were aware of this hearing. Some of them, Senators from

Vermont, Senators from Michigan, in addition to Senator Coleman,

who you had heard from, from Minnesota. Detroit, Michigan, they

have people going back and forth all the time to work.

Ambassador HARTY. Right.

Senator BILL NELSON. You see the crisis there. In my State, back

and forth all the time to the Bahamas——

Ambassador HARTY. Right.

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Other parts of the Caribbean.

You see the potential. You can imagine what it’s like in California,

Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, back and forth there. So, we’re

not—we’d better watch this one very, very carefully. And it is our

responsibility in our oversight function to see that the executive

branch of government is, in fact, performing; and so, we will hold

in abeyance, in the meantime—we will hold in abeyance a formal

hearing; in the meantime, we will have informal discussions with

you as to how it is going.

And thank you for coming up and spending the time that you

have. And the information that we did not receive——

Ambassador HARTY. We will get——

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. As requested by the——

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. It to you——

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Senators, if you would share

that with us, we would appreciate it.

Ambassador HARTY. Certainly. Thank——

Senator BILL NELSON. Thank——

Ambassador HARTY [continuing]. You, sir.

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. You very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PRESS RELEASE OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

PASSPORT DELAYS ARE UNACCEPTABLE, KERRY TELLS SECRETARY RICE

WASHINGTON, DC.—Senator John Kerry (D–Mass) has joined a bipartisan group

of his colleagues to express concern regarding extensive delays in processing passports for millions of Americans. Kerry sent a letter to Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice, asking her to immediately develop a plan to deal with the backlog—which is estimated at nearly 2 million applications. The backlog was largely

created by the new Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which requires U.S. citizens to have a passport when entering the United States while traveling from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, or Bermuda. The State Department has now had to suspend this requirement because of the backlogs; however, pending applications to

travel abroad are still severely delayed.

46

Kerry said the situation is hurting families and threaten imminent travel plans

because of the delays, even when people have applied well in advance and followed

the rules, which has forced some to either make expensive changes to their plans

at the last minute or pay the State Department extra fees to expedite their application. Kerry signed the letter to Rice outlining his concerns and asking that the State

Department waive the expedited fees and additional shipping costs.

‘‘I am very concerned with these delays and wonder why the State Department

was so unprepared for the upswing in the number of passport applications,’’ Kerry

said. ‘‘It’s unfair for our government to punish people with unreasonable delays and

unforeseen costs when the problem lies with inefficiency at the State Department.’’

The letter signed by Kerry can be found at http://kerry.senate.gov/newsroom/pdf/

ricepassport6-18final.pdf.

RESPONSES OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY MAURA HARTY TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR BILL NELSON

Question. What were the projections for passport demand following the enactment

of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative? What were these projections based

upon—the Department’s internal projections, or the study provided by Bearing

Point? Please provide both Bearing Point’s and the State Department’s internal projections for passport applications for 2005 to present as well as the number of actual

passport applications.

Answer. In 2003, the Department of State anticipated a possible requirement for

passports for Western Hemisphere travel and began to plan for such an eventuality.

The Department convened a working group, which included a number of agencies,

to examine the diplomatic, legal, political, operational, and financial implications of

removing the passport exemption for Western Hemisphere travel and reported their

findings to Secretary Powell in May 2003. At that time, reliable data on the number

of U.S. citizens traveling in the Western Hemisphere were not available, so the impact on passport workload was speculative. However, the working group correctly

anticipated that the impact on workload would be significant and recommended that

any passport requirement be rolled out in four stages, to flatten demand and provide sufficient preparation time. The four stages proposed were Central America

and South America in 2005, the Caribbean in 2006, Mexico in 2007, and Canada

in 2009.

In December 2004, WHTI was mandated legislatively as part of the Intelligence

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). Rather than a 4-year rollout, the

legislation required that the Departments of State and Homeland Security develop

a plan to implement the new requirement on or before January 1, 2008.

By that time, an independent contractor, Bearing Point, had already been hired

to project demand for passports associated with WHTI. In December 2003, Bearing

Point reported that estimated demand associated with WHTI would be 9.2 million

total for air/sea/land across a 3-year implementation period. In December 2004, they

revised the estimate to 4.4 million for air travel; and in October 2005, they revised

the estimate to 1.5 million for sea travel. Bearing Point did not estimate total passport demand for any period. The estimated passport workload projections were made

by our staff; Bearing Point’s data was one of several sources used to project increases anticipated as a direct result of WHTI. The workload assumptions used in

the Bearing Point study were based on an implementation schedule that would be

phased in between 2005–08. The actual implementation schedule changed from

those original assumptions to the air phase start date of January 2007.

The Department of State’s initial projections following the enactment of WHTI in

the IRTPA legislation in December 2004 were presented to OMB in January 2005,

as follows:

Fiscal year Estimated total passport applications WHTI-related applications

2005 .......................................................................................... 10.5 million ................................. 900,000.

2006 .......................................................................................... 12.0 million ................................. 1.8 million.

2007 .......................................................................................... 15.0 million ................................. 4 million.

This and all subsequent budget requests included funds for additional staff, training, facilities, passport books, and passport production supplies.

Projections were revised again in April 2006 and March 2007, as follows:

47

Fiscal year Estimated total passport applications WHTI-related applications

2007 (4/06) ............................................................................... 16.2 million ................................. 5.2 million.

2007 (3/07) ............................................................................... 17.7 million ................................. Not estimated.

Actual receipts for FY 2005–FY 2007 are as follows:

[In millions]

Actual receipts

FY 2005 ................................................................................................................... 10.4

FY 2006 ................................................................................................................... 12.3

FY 2007 (to date) ................................................................................................... 10.5

In October 2005, another study conducted by Bearing Point in July estimated that

approximately 13 million U.S. citizens who did not possess passports crossed the

land borders in the preceding year. The proportions were split between 40 percent

crossing the border with Mexico and 60 percent to Canada.

Bearing Point’s projections for land travel, estimated in 2005 when the land portion of WHTI was required by law to be effective no later than January 1, 2008,

were as follows:

[In millions]

Year Border crossings

July 2005–July 2006 .............................................................................................. 8.0

July 2006–July 2007 .............................................................................................. 5.7

July 2007–July 2008 .............................................................................................. 5.6

Shortly thereafter, the law was revised to allow extension until June 2009, and

to require that a lower cost alternative to the book-style passport be developed. In

January 2006, as part of the Rice/Chertoff Initiative, DHS, and State announced

that a lower cost passport card would be developed.

Question. When did the Department of State first realize that there was a backlog

of applications at the lockbox operation? What were the first measures taken by the

State Department and the contractor in response to the backlog and when were

those measures taken? Has the lockbox contractor performed adequately? If the government believes the contractor did not perform properly, are there any penalties

under the contract?

Answer. In January 2007, the lockbox service provider first started reporting

higher daily receipts than dispatches to the passport agencies; therefore, their processing time increased from the standard 24-hour turnaround. The first measure

taken by the State Department in partnership with the U.S. Treasury was to require the lockbox service provider to increase staffing to meet the demand. In the

opinion of the U.S. Treasury, who manages the lockbox contract, the service provider responded adequately but not before the backlog at the lockbox increased to

just under 1 million applications.

The Department of the Treasury may, under the terms of their agreement, penalize the contractor for the cost to the U.S. Government for the delay in depositing

the fees into the Treasury.

Question. When do you expect the passport application turnaround time to return

to normal?

Answer. The Department has developed a plan to eliminate the current workload

of passports and to return the processing time to our normal 6 weeks timeframe by

the end of 2007. In addition to an aggressive hiring plan, we have called for volunteers from within the Department and overseas to serve in our passport agencies.

This additional workforce will enable the passport agencies to concentrate their

work effort on the routine applications that have been in the system the longest

while continuing to process incoming applications for expedited service. By reducing

the number of applications in our system and bringing more passport specialists onboard, we can work to return our processing time to our standard of 6 weeks. We

will also train other Department employees to accept applications from the public

at counter agencies and to perform customer support and other vital, nonadjudicatory services.

With the additional adjudicators, other volunteers, and new employees in place,

and with no unexpected rise in applications, CA expects to return to our traditional

processing time by the end of calendar year 2007.

Question. Following the suspension of the WHTI rule for air travelers on June 7,

what measures have been taken by State and the Department of Homeland Security

48

to ensure that the public is adequately informed about what documentation they

will need to prove that they have applied for a passport?

Answer. The U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security announced on

June 8, 2007, that U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or other

countries in the Caribbean region who have applied, but not received their passports, can reenter the United States by air by presenting a government-issued photo

identification and Department of State official proof of application for a passport.

This transition period is in effect through September 30, 2007.

Members of my staff working with DHS have helped to communicate the flexibility being shown to American travelers to the airlines serving those destinations.

We have posted information on our Web site about entry requirements. In our updates and conversations with your offices and applicants, we are advising travelers

to contact their airlines to confirm boarding requirements. We have done scores of

media interviews, radio, print, and television. We have even put a notice on

‘‘YouTube.’’ Finally we have worked with IATA to make continual updates to the

Timatic system to ensure that airline employees are aware of changes made by

countries such as Mexico, Bermuda, the Dominican Republic, Aruba, and Jamaica

to recognize and accept the USG’s flexible policy.

Question. What steps are being taken now, and in the FY 2008 budget request,

to address the expected demand after the next phase of WHTI goes into effect?

What are the Department’s plans to ensure that the backlog does not continue as

the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is fully implemented?

Answer. Passport demand will continue to grow as we move closer to full implementation of WHTI. We have another workload study underway to refine our demand estimates for FY 2008 through FY 2010.

We are building capacity within the current system. We are adding 400 additional

government staff by the end of FY 2007, and plan to hire another 400 in the first

quarter of FY 2008. We are expanding the physical structure of existing facilities,

especially at the National Passport Center and the Miami Passport Agency, and

streamlining our processes where possible. We are also ramping up the Arkansas

Passport Center, our new mega processing center, to reach its full capacity by the

end of CY 2007 of personalizing and mailing out 10 million passports annually. We

have plans in place to establish a second contract production center in Tucson, Arizona, next year. We are currently evaluating our options to meet projected demand

and will explore aggressively expansion projects to ensure that we can provide

Americans with passports in a timely and secure manner.

To meet long-term demand growth, we quickly formed a working group to review

earlier plans for expansion and will be reporting to the committee as requested with

a formal Strategic Plan.

Question. How many of the millions of Americans who applied for passports since

implementation of the air phase of WHTI paid for expedited service they did not

get? What measures beyond those currently in place is the Department planning to

take to ensure that those Americans get their fees for expedited service back?

Answer. The Department is currently reviewing procedures to refund expedite

fees. We are evaluating the best process for returning funds to applicants. We anticipate we will be able to publicize the new procedures on our Web site in the next

several days. Everyone who requests expedited service had their application moved

to the front of the line. Regrettably, that did not always result in completion in the

stated timeframe. As our Web site states, anyone who paid the expedite fee and

does not believe they received expedited service can apply for a refund.

Question. A copy of all reports or surveys prepared by Bearing Point or other private contractors to estimate the number of passport applications (including high,

middle, and low-range projections) resulting from the WHTI, and a thorough explanation of how the Department of State reached its final estimates, including all

other factors that the Department used to reach those estimates.

Answer. We expect to submit to you within a matter of days the Bearing Point

reports and surveys; after completing the Department of State’s formal procedures

for the release of nonpublic information to congressional oversight committees.

In January 2005, following the formal enactment of WHTI in the IRTPA, the Department drew upon the Bearing Point data, our historical trends in passport demand, and consultations with the Departments of Homeland Security and Commerce to present initial projections to OMB.

It is important to note that during this process numerous critical variables

changed several times. These included: (1) The introduction of a passport card concept and (2) implementation timelines that were modified in terms of content (air

49

and sea vs. land, changed to air vs. land and sea) and actual timing. The Bearing

Point study did not take these changes into account because it predated them.

Our final estimates for FY 2007 demand were thus based primarily upon consultations as previously described, information in Bearing Point’s final October 2005

report, and evaluations of prior year figures for passport demand. Although we anticipated demand would follow traditional cycles and increase in the second quarter

of FY 2007, we did not anticipate the supercommpressed demand that we actually

experienced in the first few months of this year. We believe publicity and confusion

caused by the phased implementation of WHTI likely caused some to apply in advance of actually needing documentation to travel, effectively shifting land border

passport demand forward. Given legislative changes regarding the deadline for implementing the land-phase of WHTI and the Rice-Chertoff announcement regarding

the introduction of a lower cost passport card, final estimates for FY 2007 did not

include land border passport demand.

We continue to review and to update our estimates for passport demand. Another

significant factor which we are now examining is what I have heretofore referred

to as the ‘‘unknowable’’ element of demand associated with nontravel related desire

for documentation.

Question. The Department of State’s monthly projections for passport demand, beginning in 2005 through the most recent data available, and a side-by-side comparison of those projections and the number of actual passport applications (incorporating in this response the information requested by Senator Lugar in this second

question for the record submitted on June 19, 2007).

Answer. See attached chart.

50

51

Question. An explanation of the initial measures taken by the lockbox contractor

in response to the backlog at the lockbox, including when those measures were

taken.

Answer. As soon as we became aware of the backlog at the Citibank lockbox, we

worked with the Department of Treasury and Citibank to eliminate it. Several enhancements in staffing, equipment, facilities, and technology were implemented expeditiously to improve passport application processing. The specific actions taken by

Citibank in cooperation with State and Treasury included the following.

MANUAL PROCESSING NEEDS

• Hired an additional 381 employees by May to reach a total of 1,062 lockbox employees.

• Established a new data-processing center in Buffalo, NY.

• Hired a management team and more than 100 employees for data entry of passport application information.

ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND HARDWARE

• Increased the number of application image scanners from 8 to 17.

• Increased application server capacity, data storage, and network bandwidth to

accommodate increased volume.

• Added 100 desktop computer workstations and two printers to support increased staffing.

EXPANDED PROCESSING FACILITIES

• Leased an additional 5,300 sq. ft. building in Delaware for mailroom and application storage on March 13, 2007, to enable three shifts to operate 24/7.

• Converted the employee lunchroom within the Delaware primary facility into a

secure storage area for applications.

• Added modular units to house employee amenities outside primary building

(2,500 sq. ft.).

• Added the Buffalo site (4,500 sq. ft.) on February 6, 2007, with three shifts.

LEVERAGED PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES

• Purchased new software to deliver greater keying capacity and improve the

quality of data entry,

• Implemented a new process to scan and batch applications without separating

items in the application package.

Question. An account of exactly when more employees were hired to help reduce

the application backlog, including month by month calculations of hiring practices

for 2006 and 2007.

Answer. The attached charts track passport staff hired to help reduce the application backlog and show a month-by-month calculation of hiring practices.

52

Question. With regard to the Department of State’s plan of action for reducing

passport processing time, an outline of the target recruitment level for volunteers,

the qualifications necessary to become a volunteer, and the amount of time necessary to train new volunteers and employees recruited to assist with the passport

application backlog.

Answer. The Department has developed an action plan to reduce the backlog of

passport applications in our system and return to our traditional service standard

for routine applications of 6 to 8 weeks by September 30, 2007. We will achieve this

goal through a combination of increased personnel resources, targeted work transfers, and maximized production capacity at our mega-processing centers.

The Department estimates that we will require some 300 additional adjudicators

to meet the target. Toward that end, we have mobilized Department personnel, including individuals currently assigned to posts overseas. We have already deployed

experienced adjudicators to task forces at the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, NH, the New Orleans Passport Agency, and in Washington, DC. We will

also send officers to other regional passport centers around the country.

At the same time, we are expediting the hiring of approximately 400 new fulltime passport specialists during the fourth quarter of FY 2007; we will work to

make them as productive as possible as quickly as possible.

53

We have used various sources to identify qualified officers who will work for varying periods of time between now and September 30:

• Two hundred Presidential Management Fellows, Career Entry Program participants, and entry-level officers currently working in bureaus throughout the Department will be deployed to NPC, New Orleans, and the Washington Passport

Agency for the remainder of the summer to adjudicate passport applications.

Most will have been trained and begun work by either July 16 or July 23.

• Forty-six retired State Department employees are now working on a WAE basis;

we are looking to hire 50–100 more.

• Forty-five Foreign Service Officers who are assigned overseas are coming home

temporarily to adjudicate passports at regional passport agencies. The first

group arrived July 16.

• Twenty experienced consular officers who returned to take a 3-week advanced

training course in Washington will instead adjudicate passports, most in New

Orleans.

• We are postponing the nonhard language training or post assignment of 120

entry-level officers who will complete general consular training this summer, so

that they can stay to adjudicate passport applications. The first of these began

adjudicating passports on July 10.

The Department has recruited among its qualified employees for personnel to

serve as passport adjudicators. Employees who don’t qualify as adjudicators are volunteering to assist in various other capacities (answering telephone inquiries, accepting documents at passport agency counters, and other nonadjudicatory responsibilities).

In order to serve as adjudicators, employees must meet the hiring criteria for

passport adjudicators and successfully complete the Passport and Nationality module of the basic Consular Course (for Foreign Service officers) or the Passport Services Directorate’s National Training Program.

For adjudicators with some prior experience, the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA)

has also provided refresher training on citizenship and nationality regulations along

with domestic training in the specialized computer systems we use for passport adjudication. For personnel who will perform customer service tasks, CA has provided

training on citizenship issues, document acceptance requirements, fees, and related

matters, so employees can quickly be productive in their new roles. Personnel also

receive onsite training in their specific assigned duties once they report to the passport agency/center.

Question. Consular management mechanisms the Department of State has put in

place to maintain the accuracy and security of passport adjudications as these new

employees and volunteers came onboard, including the projected expectation for

increases in fraudulent passport applications during this high-volume adjudication

period.

Answer. Information contained on all passport applications is automatically

checked against several internal and interagency databases, which immediately

identify individuals who may not be entitled to a U.S. passport. Every passport application is scrutinized by a trained Passport Adjudicator, who is an expert in citizenship law and passport fraud detection. Passport Adjudicators have at their automated systems and a variety of passport fraud reference to aid them in making a

final determination. Their tools include a database that identifies those individuals

who have previously attempted to fraudulently obtain a U.S. passport. All of these

checks are performed and procedures followed regardless of the urgency to issue the

passport.

A robust fraud prevention program is already in place to ensure fraudulent applications are identified. This program is managed at each agency and center by a

Fraud Prevention Manager (FPM) dedicated to training Passport Adjudicators and

identifying fraud trends and techniques. Passport Adjudicators refer suspected

fraudulent passport applications to the FPM, who in turn refers cases requiring law

enforcement investigation to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as warranted.

The Department is supplementing the existing fraud prevention program with additional resources to ensure the integrity of the U.S. passport is preserved. All personnel on the adjudication task forces must, at a minimum, pass the passport section of the basic consular course and must attend a mandatory seminar prior to

being assigned to work. All shifts are supervised by a highly qualified, experienced

passport employee who can address any question and provide expert guidance on

all passport fraud-related issues that an adjudicator may encounter. In addition,

senior fraud experts from Consular Affairs’ Fraud Prevention Program and Passport

Services’ Office of Passport Integrity are also deployed to each task force. These inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:13 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PASSPORTS sforel1 PsN: sforel1
54

dividuals supplement the existing pool of FPMs to train, mentor, and provide guidance to adjudicators.

Question. An account of your discussions of the passport backlog, including requests for additional resources, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte,

and Under Secretary of State for Management, Henrietta Fore.

Answer. Secretary Rice and Under Secretary Fore have taken a clear interest in

providing CA the resources necessary to meet the current challenge. Secretary Rice

herself contacted DHS Secretary Chertoff by phone and again during an in-person

meeting to work out the modalities of the flexible accommodation for reentry into

the United States. Deputy Secretary Negroponte and Under Secretary Fore on several occasions have publicly exhorted the Department to provide needed volunteers

for passport task force duty.

Question. An outline of the attrition rate for full-time government employees and

contract employees who contribute to passport application processing.

The attrition rate among contract employees involved in passport processing

about 40 percent annually. The attrition rate among full-time government employees has averaged roughly 7 percent for the last two fiscal years (7.14 percent for

FY 2007; 6.95 percent for FY 2006).

Question. The total number of Americans who paid the expedited service fee for

passport processing since the implementation of WHTI and an explanation of how

the Department of State and the Department of Treasury will facilitate the refund

of fees for those who did not receive this expedited service.

Answer. So far in FY 2007, from October 1, 2006, through July 11, 2007, State

has received approximately 4.3 million passport applications for which an expedited

fee was paid. Every one of these applicants who paid the expedite fee did, in fact,

receive expedited service in that his/her application was automatically given a

higher priority in the queue. We process those applications more quickly than those

for standard passports. To further ensure expedited service, CA has been paying for

expedited passports to be mailed via Federal Express and has not, as had been past

practice, asked customers to cover this additional cost.

The Department has reviewed the issue of refunds and decided to maintain our

longstanding policy of inviting any individuals who paid for and believes they did

not receive expedited service to request a refund. We will grant refunds where

required.

Question. An explanation of the measures you are taking to prioritize passport applications for citizens who are traveling to countries outside of WHTI.

Answer. We routinely screen our pending work to prioritize by departure date and

destination. Also, all customers who contact us to inquire about the status of their

applications are asked for their destination and departure date, so we can ensure

that their inquiries are given timely attention.

RESPONSES OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY MAURA HARTY TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR RICHARD LUGAR

Question. I note that under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)

there is a credit-card-sized ‘‘passport card’’ that is envisioned to serve in lieu of a

traditional passport booklet. The card could be used for those U.S. citizens crossing

our borders by land and sea but not by air. What can you tell us about the status

of the card, particularly as it relates to possible production delays that we have seen

with passports?

Answer. The Department of State has an ambitious and aggressive schedule to

develop the card as soon as possible. The Request for Procurement to industry was

issued on May 25, and we expect to begin testing product samples this summer. In

accordance with testing requirements established in the certification by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, we will conduct the full range of security, durability, and privacy tests on the passport card and protective sleeve to ensure we are issuing the best and most secure card to the American public. Absent

any technical challenges that may arise as a result of testing, we expect to begin

issuing the cards to the public as soon as possible in 2008. We will issue a notice

in the Federal Register when State is ready to begin accepting applications for the

passport card and will, of course, conduct a robust public outreach campaign to inform particularly the border resident communities.

55

We will continue to build up both physical plant and personnel numbers in order

to be able to meet demand for passports and the passport card.

Question. Please provide on a month by month basis the following information,

starting from June 2006 to July 2007.

• The estimated number of passport applications that State provided Citigroup.

• The actual number of passport applications Citigroup received.

• The number of applications Citigroup sent to State.

• The difference between what Citigroup received and sent to State, i.e., Citigroup’s backlog.

• The number of lockbox staff.

• The number of passports State adjudicated.

• The difference between incoming applications/adjudications (i.e., the backlog).

• The number of adjudication staff.

• The number of passport applications State referred to Diplomatic Security for

possible fraud.

Answer. The Department does not have the information on the number of lockbox

staff because this contract is administered by the Department of Treasury, but we

have reached out to Treasury to see if we can obtain that information. The attached

chart includes the other information you requested, with projections through July

2007, but actual numbers only through May 2007 because we are not yet at the end

of June.

56

57

Question. On a somewhat related note, last Friday, President Bush signed legislation that Senator Kennedy and I drafted, and which was cosponsored by many of

the members of this committee.

The legislation increased from 50 to 500 the number of Special Immigrant Visas

available for Iraqis and Afghanis who had served with the United States as translators/interpreters.

• What is the status of these visas? • How many of the 500 have been issued? • Where were they issued? • Has the recipient entered the U.S.? • What current obstacles remain regarding these visas, either within the U.S.

Government or overseas?

Answer. The visas that were noncurrent before the legislation was passed are currently being processed at the National Visa Center (NVC). NVC has created a special unit that is corresponding directly with the translators and their sponsors and

is assisting them to assemble the documents—including proof of identity—which

they will need for these visas to be adjudicated. The instruction packets were sent

out on Monday, June 18, the first work day after the President signed the legislation. One translator has responded with all of the documents required for visa processing. NVC is currently scheduling an appointment for that applicant’s interview

with the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan.

The Department has been able to issue 36 SIVs (along with 32 derivative visas

issued to dependents). Thirty-three of the 36 primary SIVs were issued by the U.S.

Embassy in Amman, Jordan; the remainder were issued by the U.S. Embassy in

Islamabad, Pakistan. All of the visas that have been issued were treated as ‘‘expedites’’—the basic data entry at NVC took only 3–5 days before the cases were sent

to post for adjudication.

The information about whether the recipients have entered the United States

would be available from DHS’ Office of Customs and Border Protection.

Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) are likely to be an issue in many cases, but

we do not expect SAOs to delay the majority of the participants. In addition, contact

is largely dependent upon e-mail because many have redeployed or relocated outside

Iraq; international mail does not function within Iraq. Problems with naming conventions and fraudulent Iraqi documents also present a challenge.

Question. One of the biggest complaints we have all received from constituents

throughout this is the lack of accurate feedback regarding the status and even the

location of an individual’s passport application. What improvements are you making

to provide more real-time information regarding the status of individual applications? How are applications currently sorted for adjudication—by the date the application was received? By departure date? Are all completed passports now being sent

via overnight mail to the applicants?

Answer. The initial problem was an unprecedented spike, which created a backlog

of unopened applications in mailed envelopes at our lockbox facility. We cannot confirm receipt of a passport application until it is data-entered into our Travel Document Issuance System (TDIS). Accurate status reports could not be provided to

many people. Applications are now being processed by our lockbox and entered into

TDIS very quickly.

Concurrently, our National Passport Information Center (NPIC) began receiving

enormous numbers of calls daily. NPIC expedited its hiring efforts, adding over 400

Customer Service Representatives (CSRS); added space; increased technical capability; and expanded its service hours. We also established two temporary phone

task forces—one at the Department and one at the Kentucky Consular Center—

working extended hours weekdays and weekends. To ensure that customers receive

accurate data, we are looking closely at our training program and will work with

our contractor to see that new employees fully understand how to identify and convey status reports.

Previously, applications appeared on the online status check only after the application was batched at the agency, which could take several days. The process has

been improved so that the application now appears on the online status check at

the earliest stage on its entry into TDIS. The online status information now updates

four times a day rather than once a day and is available 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week. The information obtained in the online status check includes all of the information needed by DHS for a land or sea border crossing from Canada, Mexico, or

the Bahamas. The online status check will also let the customer know that the passport has been sent.

Incoming applications are sorted by the date they are received. Traditionally, completed passports are sent by Priority Mail with delivery confirmation, unless the apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:13 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PASSPORTS sforel1 PsN: sforel1
58

plicant requests and pays for express mailing. However, we utilize without charge

whatever means necessary, including next-day, same-day, or courier delivery services to ensure that customers make their trips.

Æ