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

55–056 PDF 2010

IMPLEMENTING THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

TRAVEL INITIATIVE AT LAND AND SEA PORTS: 

ARE WE READY? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, 

MARITIME, AND GLOBAL 

COUNTERTERRORISM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 7, 2009 

Serial No. 111–18 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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


Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

ERIE J.J. MASSA, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

VACANCY 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARTIME, AND 

GLOBAL,.COUNTERTERRORISM 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, Chairwoman 

JANE HARMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

AL GREEN, Texas 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex 

Officio) 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michichgan 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

ALISON NORTHOP, Staff Director 

DENISE KREPP Counsel 

CARLA ZAMUDIO-DOLAN, Clerk 

MANDY BOWERS Minority Subcommittee Lead 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and 

Global Counterterrorism ..................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Mark E. Souder, a Representative in congress from the State 

of Indiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and 

Global Counterterrorism ..................................................................................... 2 

The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 26 

The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas ..................................................................................................................... 22 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 50 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 24 

The Honorable Eric J.J. Massa, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York .......................................................................................................... 28 

WITNESSES

PANEL I 

Dr. Richard Barth, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Policy development, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Joint Statement ................................................................................... 9 

Accompanied by, 

Mr. Thomas Winkoski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 13 

Mr. John Brennan, Senior Policy Advisor, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. 

Department of State: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

PANEL II 

Mr. Angelo Amador, Director of Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 42 

Preprared Statement ........................................................................................... 43 

Ms. Maria Luisa O’Connell, President, Border Trade Alliance: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38 

FOR THE RECORD

Prepared Statements: 

The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New York, and Chairwoman, Committee on Rules .................. 5 

Page

IV 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Louisiana, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security 4 

Questions and Responses: 

Questions from Hon. Loretta Sanchez, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Border, Maritime, and Global Counterrorism: ...............................................

Responses from Dr. Richard Barth .............................................................. 53 

Responses from Mr. John Brennan ............................................................. 55 

Responses from Ms. Maria Luisa O’Connell ............................................... 55 

Responses from Mr. Thomas Winkoski ....................................................... 57 

(1) 

IMPLEMENTING THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

TRAVEL INITIATIVE AT LAND AND SEA 

PORTS: ARE WE READY? 

Thursday, May 7, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND

GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Loretta Sanchez [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sanchez, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cuellar, 

Green, Massa, and Souder. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. [Presiding.] Good morning. This subcommittee will 

come to order. The Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global 

Counterterrorism is meeting today to receive testimony on ‘‘The 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative at Land and Sea Ports: Are 

We Ready?’’ 

Again, thank you all for joining us. Today the subcommittee will 

receive testimony on the current status of the implementation of 

the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, or WHTI, as we call it, 

at our land and sea ports. 

We have two great panels this morning that would allow us to 

hear from government officials responsible for the implementation 

of WHTI, as well as representation from industry groups who are 

dealing with the implementation and how it is affecting their respective industries. 

I look forward to receiving your testimony and having an open 

dialogue and for you to ask our members’ questions. 

The goal of WHTI is to strengthen border security while facilitating the entry of U.S. citizens and legitimate foreign visitors. 

Having an efficient and operable passport card program created by 

WHTI will help the United States ensure those who enter our 

country, are who they are. 

And with that said, residents of border communities, who have 

years have traveled back and forth across the border with really 

just an oral declaration in some cases back in my father’s time, just 

walking across when nobody was there, will have to adapt new procedures for them to cross the borders to see family and their 

friends. 

I have had concerns about whether the outreach to the local communities along the southern and northern borders has been adeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:41 May 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-18\55056.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
2 

quate. And during the implementation of the air travel portion of 

WHTI, we saw that there was a lack of public outreach, and it created some confusion. 

And for these reasons a few years ago, I was one of the people 

who supported the provision to delay the implementation of WHTI 

at the land and sea ports until June 1st of 2009. 

So now we have the date approaching, and the questions on our 

minds are how is the program working? Have people submit it? Do 

people know? What is the outreach? What about the surge factor? 

Are you ready for that? 

And more importantly, how is the infrastructure at the land borders and seaports going to be able to handle this situation? And 

how is the commerce of our country dealing with this, considering 

that Canada is our number one trading partner, and Mexico is our 

number three partner with respect to trade. 

So I am hopeful that you are going to tell me that the implementation is going smoothly, that you have some contingency plans for 

what we consider to be a surge. We have this to remember about 

18 months ago when we had the deadline with respect to passports 

and how that really impacted, and really the State Department 

was not ready for that, and we hadn’t thought through the implications of that. 

So I look forward to your testimony and for your answers to our 

questions. 

And I will recognize my very able colleague from Indiana, Mr. 

Souder, my ranking member, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

With the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative implementation 

date of June 1st quickly approaching, this is a very timely hearing. 

We are now 5 years since enactment of the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act, which included the mandate for secure 

travel documents for entry into the United States. 

On June 1st, when the implementation starts for the last phase 

of WHTI at land and sea ports of entry, we are nearly 9 years from 

the terrorist attacks be for all travelers entering the United States 

are using secure documents. 

Despite the long lead time to set up this program and several 

legislative delays, I think June 1st will be an important milestone 

for homeland security that marks fulfillment of the 9/11 Commission recommendation. 

I would like to commend both the Department of Homeland Security, especially Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of State for implementing this important program. 

With the commendations out of the way, there are several issues 

with WHTI that I would like to raise and hope to hear more from 

witnesses during the testimony and questions. 

First, I appreciate the work that DHS has done with the Amish 

community to ensure that they maintain the ability to cross the 

border without compromising their religious beliefs regarding photographs. I have heard from several of my constituents, and they 

seem supportive of the alternative documentation. 

This situation I plan to monitor very closely, because I still have 

some concerns about secure travel documents and finding a solution for Canadian Amish entering the United States. 

3 

Secondly, I think we must continually evaluate the security of all 

our travel documents. I agree with the message in the 9/11 Commission report that the ability to travel is just as important to terrorists as is the ability to raise funds. 

It is critical that this committee follow up and ensure that terrorists and criminals are not able to use fake or forged documents to 

enter the United States under WHTI. 

The last concern I would like to raise involves public outreach 

and education. I was impressed by the accounts in the written testimony of the outreach in media conducted leading up to WHTI. 

I think it is important to recognize that regardless of what efforts 

you take and the amount of education outreach conducted, there 

will be growing pains. That being said, I would like to hear more 

from both panels about what is being done and, where possible, information gaps may exist. 

If I may add a side comment, we are running into this with the 

television conversion where it is going better than expected, other 

things where it has gone less well than expected. And while the information of all maybe I along the border—for example, my area 

is one tier away, and there is no clue, basically, of what they are 

faced with. 

WHTI is one tool in the layered approach to securing our border. 

I think it is an important element, but needs to be part of larger 

improvements to the border, including port of entry upgrades and 

more CBP officers, in addition to enhanced security between the 

points of entry. 

I think our second panel with the Border Trade Alliance and the 

Chamber of Commerce may provide important testimony on how to 

improve these elements. I am hopeful that this subcommittee will 

take an active role in this Congress in improving border security 

legislation to address these issues. 

Given where I think we are with the program and the flexible 

and pragmatic approach to implementation, to use words from your 

testimony, I would be very concerned about any further action by 

Congress to delay this program. 

I have heard rumors that some language may be added to the 

supplemental appropriations bill. I hope that is not true. And if 

that is, I hope the chair will join me in opposing it. 

I would like to thank all witnesses for being here, and they yield 

back my time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Other members of the subcommittee are reminded 

that under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted 

for the record. 

4 

1 [See committee file.] 

FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative at Land and Sea 

Ports: Are We Ready? 

May 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM 

311 Cannon House Office Building 

• On June 1, 2009, just a few weeks from today, the Western Hemisphere Travel 

Initiative will take effect. 

• For the first time in our history, every person entering the U.S. through a land 

or sea port of entry will need to show proper documentation. 

• This day has been a long time coming. 

• Just a couple of years ago, Congress was forced to delay implementation of 

WHTI (‘‘witty’’) because, simply put, the Departments of Homeland Security and 

State were not prepared. 

• So, we are here today with one simple question: Are we ready? 

• This Committee, and the nation as a whole, hopes you can answer with a resounding ‘‘YES’’ because much is at stake. 

• On a typical day, Customs and Border Protection processes more than 1.1 million international travelers into the United States at land, air and sea ports. 

• Among the overwhelming majority of legitimate travelers, CBP is charged with 

identifying and interdicting those who may seek to enter the U.S. to do us harm. 

• The documents required under WHTI are an important part of assisting CBP 

officers in that vital effort. 

• The program also fulfills an important 9/11 Commission recommendation regarding document security at our borders. 

• At the same time, it is important to remember that cross-border travel and 

trade is essential to border communities and our nation’s economy. 

• In these tough economic times, we must ensure that WHTI is implemented efficiently and effectively to minimize any unnecessary delays at our ports of entry. 

• To this end, I look forward to hearing from our government witnesses about 

how they have: 

• educated travelers about the upcoming deadline; 

• trained officers on the new document requirements and procedures; 

• ramped up staffing; 

• issued WHTI-compliant documents like passports and passport cards; and 

• deployed new document readers at ports of entry. 

• I also look forward to hearing from our private sector witnesses about how 

we can ensure that the June 1 implementation goes as smoothly as possible. 

• From border violence to the H1N1 flu outbreak to new rules for crossing our 

borders, America’s border security challenges are constantly evolving. 

• This Committee remains committed to ensuring that the Department of 

Homeland Security has the tools it needs to meet this challenge, while facilitating legitimate travel across our borders. 

• I thank the Chairwoman for her leadership on this issue and for holding this 

timely hearing. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And I also ask unanimous consent to submit for 

the record a statement from Representatives Bart Stupak and John 

McHugh, co-chairs of the Northern Border Caucus 1, and a statement from Representatives Louise Slaughter, who represents a district in western New York at Niagara Falls. 

All three members have a keen interest in this important issue, 

so unanimous consent. They are accepted. 

5 


11118-58.eps
6 


11118-59.eps
7 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And I welcome our panel of witnesses. Some of you 

have been before us before. 

Our first witness, Dr. Richard Barth, currently serves as the acting principal deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Policy at 

the Department of Homeland Security. In this capacity he manages 

the department’s international affairs, state and local law enforcement, immigration statistics, private sector and screening coordination offices. Mr. Barth joined the department in 2006, when he was 

appointed assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development 

by Secretary Chertoff. 

Our second witness will be Mr. Thomas Winkowski, who was appointed assistant commissioner for the Office of Field Operations at 

Customs and Border Protection in August of 2007. In that position 

he oversees programs and operations at 20 major field offices, 326 

ports of entry and 58 operational container security initiative ports 

in Canada, Ireland and the Caribbean. Mr. Winkowski joined the 

U.S. Customs Service in 1975. 

And our third witness, Mr. John Brennan, is a senior adviser in 

the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. In that capacity he is responsible for a number of programs, including the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. He also manages the Mexico 

2012 plan, which will ensure new generation Mexican border crossing cards to replace the five million cards that will expire in the 

next few years. 


11118-60.eps
8 

And, gentlemen, I will remind you that your full statements will 

be inserted into the record. And I now ask the witnesses to summarize their statements for 5 minutes or less, beginning with Dr. 

Barth. 

Welcome again, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BARTH, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BARTH. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder and other distinguished members of the committee. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the department’s approach to the implementation of the second phase of the 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative for both the land and sea environments. 

As recommended by the 911 Commission, Congress moved in 

2004 to statutorily close a critical vulnerability that existed far too 

long. A significant number of individuals, U.S. and Canadian citizens, could present themselves for entry into the United States 

without proof of their identity and citizenship. 

I wish to assure the committee on behalf of Secretary Napolitano 

that our approach to implementing WHTI has been and will continue to be pragmatic, as we work to achieve the goal of increased 

security while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. 

In preparation for June 1st, 2009, in partnership with the Department of State, the governments of our western hemisphere 

partners, the border communities and other stakeholders and the 

public and private sectors, our strategy has focused on three main 

areas: the availability of documents, adequate infrastructure and 

technology, and the extensive communications and outreach necessary to implement the program effectively. 

And I would add that we have incorporated many of the helpful 

suggestions of groups such as the Border Trade Alliance. As Secretary Napolitano has noted many times, our partnership with private sector groups such as this is critical to much of what DHS 

does today. 

Our communications efforts began in 2004. In September 2008, 

we significantly ramped up our efforts and kicked off a multimedia 

communications campaign to educate the traveling public about the 

new document requirements. 

The variety of secure WHTI-compliant documents addresses the 

needs of different travelers. The vast majority of adult U.S. citizens 

are able to present any one of the following documents: a U.S. 

passport, a passport card, a state-issued DHS-approved enhanced 

driver’s license, or a Trusted Traveler card from our NEXUS, 

SENTRI or FAST programs. 

We are making other alternatives available to certain populations, including the merchant mariner document when on official 

business, a U.S. military ID with travel orders, or a WHTI-compliant enhanced tribal card. 

Since we stopped accepting only oral declarations by U.S. and 

Canadian citizens on January 31st, 2008, we began a transition to 

9 

a more secure border and have seen a high rate of compliance with 

document requirements. 

Despite predictions that travel and trade would be brought to a 

halt with the January 31st document requirements, we have 

through phased and flexible approach implemented the changes in 

travel document requirements without causing discernible increases in wait times at the border. 

To be sure, however, that unexpected problems do not surprise 

us in the early days, weeks and months of fully implementing the 

WHTI document requirements, Secretary Napolitano will be personally monitoring the situation so that we can proactively work to 

ensure what I called for at the beginning of the short summary: 

Travel and trade facilitation with enhanced security at our borders. 

I have outlined in a very broad way our requirements and implementation efforts for the second phase of WHTI for the land and 

sea environments. I am happy to elaborate and answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much. 

[The joint statement of Mr. Barth and Mr. Winkowski follows:] 

PREPARED JOINT STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. BARTH AND THOMAS WINKOWSKI

Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder, and other distinguished Members of the Committee. We are pleased to appear before you today to discuss how 

we will implement the second phase of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

(WHTI), which is both a statutory mandate of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 and a 9/11 Commission recommendation, to 

designate specific identity and citizenship documents that can be used to gain entry 

at our land, sea, and air ports of entry. Secretary Napolitano, along with her partners in other agencies and departments, is working to secure our homeland by 

strengthening our ability to accurately identify all persons—U.S. citizens and visitors alike—before they enter the United States. Our approach to implementing 

WHTI has been, and will continue to be, both pragmatic and flexible as we work 

to achieve the goal of increased security while significantly facilitating the flow of 

legitimate trade and travel. 

The initial phase of WHTI was successfully implemented for air travel on January 

23, 2007. Since then, compliance has been and continues to be high—over 99 percent. This compliance was the result of the collaborative planning process on behalf 

of DHS and DOS, working closely with the airline industry, travel industry and the 

public, well in advance of implementation. 

We are prepared to complete this effort by successfully and efficiently implementing WHTI at all land and sea ports of entry on June 1, 2009. On February 26, 

2009, the secretaries of DHS and DOS jointly certified to Congress that all statutory 

criteria had been met prior to implementing the WHTI at land and sea borders on 

June 1, 2009. 

As the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report states, ‘‘For terrorists, travel documents 

are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, 

plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents 

great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels to 

present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection 

points.’’ 

On January 31, 2008, we added another layer to create a more secure border— 

a border that continues to welcome legitimate travelers and efficiently facilitate 

entry into the country. It also is a border that inhibits entry of individuals who cannot confirm their identity and citizenship. In spite of warnings that taking such 

measures would bring travel and trade to a standstill, we implemented these 

changes in travel document requirements—requiring a government issued photo 

identification and proof of citizenship—without causing discernable increases in wait 

times at the land and sea borders. Compliance rates since requirements were initiated January 31, 2008, remain consistently high—well over 93 percent for United 

States and Canadian citizens queried. In fact, our surveys showed that more than 

six weeks in advance of scheduled January WHTI implementation, roughly 80 percent of U.S. and Canadian citizens exceeded the January 2008 requirements and 

were presenting WHTI-compliant documents when crossing the border. 

10 

Our layered security strategy involves identifying and interdicting individuals attempting to harm or illegally enter the country as early as possible—if not before 

they enter our country, then at our ports of entry. Through its requirement that individuals carry a passport or other limited set of acceptable documents, WHTI will 

greatly reduce the opportunities for identity fraud or misrepresentation. Travel documents that were developed or enhanced specifically in response to WHTI include 

embedded, advanced technology with appropriate privacy protections and infrastructure. These documents allow DHS the ability to verify an individual’s identity and 

perform real-time queries against lookout databases even before the traveler arrives 

at our U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers’ inspection booths. By 

eliminating the need to manually input data and by automating part of the process, 

implementation of WHTI allows our officers more time to focus greater attention on 

each individual traveler. WHTI provides the platform to implement an integrated 

secure land border system, and we have taken every step to take full advantage of 

that opportunity. 

The WHTI Land and Sea Final Rule, published on April 3, 2008, in the Federal 

Register, was developed after extensive consultation and constructive dialogue with 

various stakeholders, including communities and officials on both sides of our borders, and after carefully considering the more than 1,300 comments received during 

the public comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The policy decisions in this Final Rule, such as the development of special provisions for children 

and cruise lines and our approach to working with Native American communities 

on the development of a WHTI-compliant enhanced tribal document, reflect the valuable input we received from the public and stakeholders. 

In preparation for June 1, 2009, Secretary Napolitano has ensured that DHS has 

focused on three main areas—availability of documents; infrastructure and technology; and communications and outreach. 

Availability of Documents 

WHTI compliance is not limited to a passport. DHS, through CBP, and DOS have 

offered alternatives to the traditional passport from which the traveling public can 

choose the one that best meets their travel needs. In addition to a U.S. passport, 

the vast majority of U.S. citizens will be able to present the following WHTI-compliant documents to enter the United States through a land or sea port of entry from 

within the Western Hemisphere: a passport card; an enhanced driver’s license from 

an issuing state, territory or province, issued pursuant to an agreement with DHS; 

or a trusted traveler program (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST) card. U.S. citizens may also 

present a U.S. military ID with travel orders, an enhanced tribal card issued by a 

qualifying tribal entity, or a merchant mariner document if on official business. 

The flexibility of the number of secure, WHTI-compliant documents addresses the 

needs of different travelers, while providing CBP officers at primary inspections 

with advance information and the ability to verify the information on the document 

with the issuing agency. Some citizens who already have a traditional passport book 

for travel overseas may benefit from getting a passport card as well if they live near 

one of our land borders and make frequent trips across the border. Individuals who 

frequently cross the southern border may be best served by obtaining a Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) card that will give them 

access to SENTRI-only lanes. Some U.S. citizen border crossers might choose an enhanced driver’s license that offers the benefits of a traditional driver’s license but 

also serves as a limited use travel document. 

Most of our cross border travelers already have WHTI-compliant documents— 

more than 92 million Americans now hold a passport or passport card. The states 

of Washington, New York, Vermont, and Michigan have issued more than 120,000 

enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs). The Canadian provinces of British Columbia and 

Quebec are already issuing EDLs and the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario will 

begin issuing EDLs by the end of May 2009. Our trusted traveler programs, 

NEXUS, SENTRI, and Free and Secure Trade (FAST), have more than 585,000 

members. 

We have sent out over 600 letters to all the federally recognized Native American 

tribes and offered to work with them toward developing a WHTI-compliant enhanced tribal document. On March 3, 2009, CBP signed a memorandum of agreement with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to develop an enhanced tribal card. Upon 

successful development, testing and issuance, this document will be available to 

members of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to establish their identity, tribal membership and United States or Canadian citizenship for the purposes of border crossing. 

We look forward to working with other Native American tribes to develop enhanced 

tribal cards. This partnership is critical to the success of WHTI and demonstrates 

11 

our commitment to listening to the concerns and ideas expressed by the Native 

American and other communities. 

Infrastructure and Technology 

In preparation for full WHTI implementation, DHS awarded a contract on January 10, 2008, to begin the process of deploying vicinity radio frequency identification 

(RFID) facilitative technology and infrastructure to 354 vehicle primary lanes at 39 

high-volume land ports, which process 95 percent of land border traveler crossings. 

As of April 30, 2009, RFID technology has been successfully installed and operational at 33 of the 39 high-volume land ports. We remain on time, on budget, and 

on track to implement WHTI as planned on June 1, 2009. At the remaining land 

and sea ports of entry, lanes are equipped with optical character reader technology. 

This technology will read any travel document with a machine-readable zone (MRZ), 

including passports, border crossing cards, trusted traveler cards, enhanced drivers 

licenses, passport cards, and lawful permanent resident cards. 

Communications and Outreach 

CBP launched a multi-media communications campaign in September 2008, ‘‘Let’s 

Get You Home,’’ designed to educate the traveling public about new travel document 

requirements that will go into effect on June 1, 2009. We are now executing the 

third phase of our comprehensive press, stakeholder, and traveler outreach effort, 

concentrating on 12 major border media markets. To date, television and radio spots 

have aired more that 21,000 times and we have published 8 print advertisements, 

which have run more than 124 times. We have created a web site 

(www.getyouhome.gov) to serve as the primary source of information on WHTI documents and have distributed over 6 million educational tear sheets to travelers as 

they cross the border. In the last year, we have issued approximately 125 press releases; provided more than 200 media interviews; generated over 2,000 media clips; 

produced 8 television commercials in English, French and Spanish; and produced 

two public service announcements, which have aired on 280 radio stations more 

than 11,700 times. We have focused on WHTI at 12 trade shows and conduct, on 

average, 50 WHTI-related outreach events per month across the country. 

As we approach June 1, 2009, we are in the midst of conducting press events at 

every land border port, reminding the traveling public to apply for their secure, 

WHTI-compliant documents now so that they will have them for June 1. 

Operations on June 1, 2009 

DHS is committed to implementing WHTI in a commonsense, flexible way that 

facilitates the flow of legitimate travelers and improves the security of U.S. borders. 

DHS will be practical and adaptable in its approach, using the same approach of 

informed compliance instituted successfully during other major changes at the borders over the last two years, including the January 2007 implementation of WHTI 

in the air environment, and the January 2008 end to acceptance of oral declarations 

of citizenship at the land and sea ports. 

DHS anticipates that some travelers will not have appropriate documents—a fact 

that CBP deals with on a daily basis. CBP has steps in place to deal with those 

scenarios. We expect to use our full range of authorities to be flexible in accommodating U.S. and Canadian citizens without WHTI-complaint documents in the initial 

phase of implementation. 

CBP is prepared to implement WHTI requirements on June 1, 2009, and we have 

taken the steps to ensure operational readiness on a national scale. 

Just last week, CBP brought together trainers, operations specialists, and public 

affairs officers from around the country to Arlington, Virginia, for a WHTI Implementation Conference. Our field personnel were thoroughly updated on policies and 

procedures for the June 1, 2009, implementation, and had the opportunity to discuss 

mitigation strategies for real-world situations that they are likely to encounter. In 

turn, these CBP trainers will ensure that all land border officers receive updated 

training and are prepared for implementation. A similar conference was conducted 

prior to January 31, 2008, and was highly successful in getting the message out to 

our frontline personnel. 

On May 29, 2009, CBP will establish the WHTI Operations Center at CBP Headquarters. This operations center will be staffed 24 by 7 to continuously monitor port 

operations before, during and after the June 1, 2009, implementation. The center 

will conduct daily teleconferences with the field and provide immediate response to 

questions and concerns. Daily reports will be provided to senior leadership on the 

successes and challenges. Senior managers will be working at the ports and uniformed public affairs officers will be on-site to provide accurate public affairs guidance. 

12 

Potential Impact of WHTI 

Concerns have been expressed about the potential impact of the WHTI documentation requirements on traveler wait times at our land ports of entry. Allow me 

to emphasize that under no circumstances will CBP deny admission to a United 

States citizen, even if he or she does not possess a WHTI-compliant document. The 

risk that document requirements will negatively impact ports of entry in June 2009 

is minimal, as the majority of travelers have been presenting documents for inspection at the border for over 16 months. Since January 31, 2008, compliance rates 

have steadily improved—more than 93 percent of U.S. and Canadian citizens 

queried while crossing the land border are in compliance with document requirements. Most travelers are complying with the January 31, 2008, change in document procedures and will comply with WHTI requirements in June 2009. Preliminary data from on site observational audit studies conducted at three northern border ports and two southern border ports indicate approximately 80 percent of U.S. 

and Canadian citizens are already presenting WHTI compliant documents as required for June 1, 2009. 

Our decision to adopt vicinity RFID technology for the land border was based on 

the need to process legitimate travelers as speedily as possible without impacting 

security. After extensive review of available and possible technologies, DHS selected 

vicinity RFID as the best technology for our land border management system—and 

the standard to which all future land border travel documents will comply. Vicinity 

RFID technology affords the most benefits for the facilitated movement of travelers. 

Facilitation requires the ability to read a travel document in advance, verify identity, pre-position information, and, most importantly, perform automated watch list 

queries without impeding the flow of traffic. Our research and testing indicates that 

RFID technology is able to accomplish each of these requirements. 

DHS and CBP have instituted best practices for the collection, protection, and use 

of personal information for WHTI. No personal identifying information is stored on 

the RFID tag and all data is stored at remote locations on secure storage devices 

that can only be accessed via DHS’s secure, encrypted networks. Issuance of an attenuating sleeve by DOS for the passport card and the states for the EDL will protect the tags from unauthorized reads when not in use at the border. Implementation of a card specific tag identifier number will ensure that a card cannot be cloned 

or duplicated. 

On average, the use of RFID technology saves six to eight seconds of processing 

time per passenger. Although we expect to quickly process the documents of most 

travelers, we will not focus on speed as the singular measure of success. Speeding 

up the document querying and authentication process gives more time for our CBP 

officers to ask questions and conduct inspections of those who require additional 

scrutiny. Time now spent examining a document will instead be used to probe those 

seeking to enter the United States who may present a higher risk. 

While the new document requirements and the implementation of WHTI are anticipated to have minimal negative impact on current wait times, other factors such 

as port design, infrastructure, traffic volume, and vehicle mix greatly affect border 

wait times. DHS and CBP are taking advantage of WHTI implementation to improve port infrastructure, but some challenges such as physical limitations will not 

be resolved in advance of WHTI implementation. Wait times are monitored on an 

hourly basis and proactive measures are taken to reduce wait times to the greatest 

extent possible using a variety of mitigation strategies and staff and lane utilization. 

Both DHS and DOS have worked closely with the Canadian and Mexican governments on numerous fronts, including the Smart Border Declaration and the Shared 

Border Accord. The objectives of these initiatives are to establish a common security 

approach to protecting North America from external threats, and to streamline the 

secure and efficient movement of travel and trade. We remain committed to such 

consultations that have fostered WHTI accomplishments. In particular, DHS has 

been involved in clear, action-driven plans with our Canadian counterparts regarding secure alternative documents that are available to Canadian citizens for WHTI 

purposes, including the issuance and production of EDLs for Canadian citizens as 

an alternative to the Canadian passport. 

We recognize that concerns remain about the impact of WHTI on border communities. We acknowledge that WHTI represents a social and cultural change, but assure the American people and Congress that WHTI will provide substantive enhancements to border security. The investments made at the ports of entry and to 

CBP systems are providing significant benefits to communities on both sides of the 

border and facilitate the legitimate flow of people and trade. WHTI is a key step 

in creating an effective and more efficient twenty-first century border. Our experience, to date, with both WHTI air implementation and the January 31, 2008, transition has been positive with no discernable negative impacts to the borders. We are 

13 

confident that the deliberate, practical approach we have taken for the next phase 

of WHTI implementation will afford us the same results. WHTI conforms to our future vision of the land border in a way that meets our national security needs, our 

economic imperatives, and the public’s trust. 

Conclusion 

Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder and Members of the Committee, 

WHTI is on time, on budget, and on track to complete implementation at the land 

and sea ports of entry on June 1, 2009. We continue to move in the right direction 

of increasing identity document security, increasing information sharing among 

partners, and deploying the necessary resources to protect the border. Strong borders are a pillar of national security and WHTI is a key cornerstone supporting that 

pillar. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, we will be happy to answer any 

of your questions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Doctor. 

And will now recognize Mr. Winkowski to summarize a statement for 5 minutes or less. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS WINKOWSKI, ASSISTANT 

COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, CUSTOMS 

AND BORDER PROTECTION 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder 

and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for this opportunity to discuss how U.S. Customs and Border Protection will implement the second phase of the 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative at our land and sea ports of 

entry. 

CBP is fully prepared to implement WHTI on June 1st, 2009. We 

have made alternative secure documents available to travelers. 

Radio frequency identification readers and infrastructure will be 

operational at the top 39 and ports of entry, and we are in the 

midst of an aggressive communications campaign that will extend 

beyond June 1st to encourage travelers to obtain appropriate documents. 

Preliminary data indicate that the vast majority of travelers will 

be complying with WHTI document requirements and will be prepared for travelers, and we will be prepared for travelers who are 

noncompliant. 

CBP has broad discretion that it utilizes every day with travelers 

who lack of proper documentation. We plan to be flexible and pragmatic in our enforcement of WHTI and apply this flexibility on a 

case-by-case basis. 

In preparation for June 1st, CBP remains focused on the critical 

areas of communication, technology, deployment and field preparedness. CBP is executing the third phase of a comprehensive 

press, stakeholder and travel outreach effort, concentrating on the 

12 major media markets along the northern and southern borders. 

We have implemented extensive communications to saturate 

these markets. To date, television and radio ads have aired more 

than 21,000 prints—excuse me—more than 21,000 times. Print advertisements have run more than 120 times. A Web site has been 

created as a primary source of information on WHTI documents, 

and over six million education tear sheets have been distributed to 

travelers. 

As part of our push prior to WHTI implementation, we are conducting press events at every land border port, reminding the travVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:41 May 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-18\55056.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
14 

eling public to apply for the secure documentation now in order to 

have them for June 1st, 2009, and beyond. 

RFID technology is already operational at 34 of the 39 high-volume manned ports and is on track to being installed and operational at the remaining five high-volume manned ports prior to 

June 1st. 

At all other land and sea ports of entry, lanes are equipped with 

optical character reader technology. This technology will read any 

travel document with a machine-readable zone, including passports, border crossing cards, Trusted Traveler cards, enhanced 

driver’s licenses, the passport card and lawful permanent residence 

cards. 

CBP will use the same approach of informed compliance instituted successfully during other major changes at the borders over 

the last 2 years, including the January 2007 implementation of 

WHTI in the air environment and the January 2008 end of the acceptance of oral declarations of citizenship at all land and sea 

ports. 

We anticipate that some travelers will not have appropriate documents, and we will use our full range of authorities to be flexible 

in accommodating the United States and Canadian citizens without 

WHTI-compliant documents in the initial phase of the implementation. 

CBP has also taken steps to ensure that our personnel are fully 

prepared for WHTI implementation. Just last week we brought together trainers, operations specialists and public affairs officers 

from around the country for a WHTI implementation conference. 

Our field personnel were thoroughly updated on policies and procedures and had the opportunity to discuss mitigation strategies for 

real-world situations that they are likely to encounter. In turn, 

these trainers will ensure that all land of border officers received 

comprehensive training and are prepared for implementation. 

On May 29th, 2009, we will establish the WHTI operations center at CBP headquarters, which will be staffed 24/7 to continuously 

monitor port operations before, during and after the June 1st, 

2009, implementation. 

The center will conduct daily teleconferences with the field and 

will provide immediate responses to questions and concerns. On 

June 1st senior managers will be working at the ports. Primary 

lanes will be fully staffed, and our uniformed public affairs officers 

will be on-site to provide accurate public affairs guidance. 

WHTI is on time, on budget and on track to complete implementation at all manned and sea ports of entry on June 1st, 2009. We 

continue to move in the right direction of enhancing identity document security, increasing information sharing among partners, and 

deploying the necessary resources and technology to protect the 

borders. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any of your questions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

And now we will hear from Mr. Brennan for 5 minutes or less. 

15 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BRENNAN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, 

BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. BRENNAN. Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder, 

distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this chance 

to discuss the role of the Department of State and providing American citizens with passports and passport cards to prepare them for 

the June 1st final implementation of WHTI. 

The economic well-being and general welfare of border communities and of our neighbors to the north and south depend on the 

free flow of people and goods. We are committed to implementing 

WHTI in a thoughtful manner that facilitates trade, travel and 

tourism while enhancing our national security. 

To this end, we have worked closely with the Department of 

Homeland Security and in particular the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to inform the American public of the upcoming WHTI 

deadline and to give U.S. citizens the documents they will need to 

comply with WHTI. 

Since the program was announced in 2005, we have issued passports in record numbers. In July 2008 we began issuing passport 

cards designed to work with the new systems CBP has installed at 

the land borders. We issued the millions card in April, and demand 

is rising. 

Since the beginning of April, there have been more than 40,000 

passport card applications each week, more than double the number we saw in October. We believe this and other trends show the 

American public is aware of the new documentary requirements 

under WHTI and are coming into compliance with them. 

In 2007 to department issued 18.4 million passports, and historic 

high. In 2008 we issued 16.2 million. Current year demand is below 

last year’s level. Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans holding 

passports continues to rise. 

More than 92 million Americans have passports today, and we 

estimate that about 33 percent of the U.S. citizen population now 

holds a passport or passport card. We are on track to issue more 

passports this decade than in the two previous decades combined. 

In response to the unprecedented demand we saw in 2007, we 

have increased our passport issuing capacity by 95 percent. With 

our increased resources, we are capable of issuing 26 million passports a year. 

Citizens can apply for passports and more than 9,400 acceptance 

facilities, post offices, courts of clerk and other government offices 

nationwide. To meet the needs of border residents, we have 301 acceptance facilities located within 25 miles of the U.S.–Canada border and 128 within 25 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border. 

This year the department will open three new passport agencies 

in Detroit, Dallas and Minneapolis. We will hold an official ribbon 

cutting ceremony for the Detroit office on May 11th. The office is 

already open for service to the public. 

We are doubling the size of adjudicating capacity of the national 

passport Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and we have expanded existing agencies in Seattle, Chicago, Houston, Miami and 

New Orleans. 

We have established two new large-scale production and personalization facilities, one in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and one in TucVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:41 May 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-18\55056.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
16 

son, Arizona. Each is operational, and each has the capacity to 

produce 10 million travel documents a year. 

We began production of a wallet size passport card in July of 

2008 and have issued over 1.1 million as of today. The card is made 

to fit the specific needs of border communities for a less expensive 

and more convenient alternative to the passport book. 

The card was designed and priced specifically as a limited user 

passport that works with the RFID architecture found only at the 

land borders of the United States. It is not an international globally interoperable travel document and cannot be used for international air travel. 

Passport cards have the same validity as passport books—10 

years for an adult, 5 years for a child under 16—but the card is 

considerably lower in price. First time adult applicants pay $45. 

Children’s applications cost $35. And adults who already have a 

passport book pay only $20. 

We continue a vigorous public outreach campaign as the WHTI 

deadline approaches. Our passport agencies have held over 90-odd 

week events since February, ranging from travel shows to naturalization ceremonies. 

Passport Day in the U.S.A. was held on Saturday, March 23rd, 

as a national campaign and provided thousands of citizens with a 

convenient opportunity to apply for a passport. We will continue to 

use radio, newspapers and magazines, especially in border areas, 

to which the travelers who would be most affected by the June 1st 

implementation. 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Brennan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BRENNAN

Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder, Distinguished Members of the 

Committee, 

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and the role of the State Department in providing American citizens 

with reliable, secure passports and passport cards to prepare them for the final 

phase of WHTI implementation at land and sea ports on June 1. 

The goals of WHTI are to strengthen border security and facilitate entry into the 

United States for U.S. citizens and legitimate foreign travelers. We have worked 

closely with the Department of Homeland Security, especially U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, to ensure that we meet both these goals. On June 1, we will complete a four-year effort set in motion by the passage of the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Under that legislation, the Departments of Homeland Security and State were charged with developing and implementing a plan to 

require travelers, U.S. citizens and foreign nationals alike, to present a passport or 

other secure document denoting identity and citizenship when entering the United 

States. 

Since the WHTI program was announced in 2005, eligible U.S. citizens have been 

issued passports in record numbers. In July 2008, we began issuing passport cards, 

which are specifically designed to work with the new systems U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection has installed at the land borders to facilitate identification and 

inspection of travelers. We issued the millionth card in April and demand for the 

passport card is rising. In April, we received more than 40,000 applications each 

week, more than double the numbers seen in October. Our workload indicates that 

Americans are aware of the new document requirements under WHTI and are coming into compliance with them. In FY 2007, the Department issued 18.4 million 

passports—a 50 percent increase over FY 2006 and an 80 percent increase over FY 

2005. In FY 2008, we issued 16.2 million passports, slightly down from the 2007 

high. In FY 2009, we believe we are on track to issue slightly fewer than in the 

previous year. 

17 

Despite a drop in demand in the current fiscal year, the percentage of Americans 

holding passports continues to rise. New passports are being issued in greater numbers than old passports are expiring. More than 92 million Americans, 30 percent 

of the total U.S. population, now hold a passport or passport card. When this figure 

is adjusted to reflect an estimate of the U.S. citizen population as opposed to general 

population, we believe the figure would be closer to 33 percent. WHTI has stimulated a fundamental shift in the number of Americans who are documented with 

passports. We are firmly on track to issue more passports this decade than in the 

two previous decades combined. 

Increasing Passport Production Capacity 

In response to the unprecedented demand seen in FY 2007 and the elevated baseline for demand established in the past few years, the Department has increased 

its passport issuing capacity by 95 percent since FY 2007. As a result of this substantial increase in processing and production capacity, we are maintaining the 

service levels listed on our website; we are currently processing routine passport applications within four-to-six weeks and expedited applications within two weeks. We 

are prepared to meet demand greater than the 18.4 million passports issued in FY 

2007. Despite the recent economic downturn, which we believe has been a significant factor in lowering current year demand, we remain prepared to handle an increase if circumstances change. 

The Department has implemented a long-term strategy to increase staffing levels 

and infrastructure necessary to meet the higher demand for passports stimulated 

by WHTI. We hired hundreds of additional passport adjudicators and support staff. 

The Department maintains a reserve corps of passport adjudicators to supplement 

our full-time Passport Services staff. This gives us the ability to react quickly to demand surges. We have systems in place to quickly augment the adjudication workforce and to distribute passport processing workload among our facilities. 

The Arkansas Passport Center (APC) opened in Hot Springs in 2007 and was a 

key addition to our passport facilities. APC is a departure from our other passport 

centers, which have production and adjudication resources, in that it focuses solely 

on printing and mailing passports. It has the capacity to print 10 million travel documents per year. The centralization of passport printing and mailing frees up space 

and personnel at our existing passport agencies, allowing them to focus on the critical areas of customer service and adjudication. Using the Arkansas Passport Center 

as a model, we opened a second printing and mailing facility in Tucson in May of 

2008. This facility, like the one in Arkansas, will have the capacity to print more 

than 10 million travel documents per year. The Tucson center gives us redundant 

capabilities that substantially improve our passport production systems. 

Expanding Passport Acceptance Facilities 

One of the Department’s key objectives is to ensure that passport services are provided in a secure, efficient, and courteous manner. Our services need to be easily 

accessible in order to make our application process as convenient as possible for citizens. Currently, citizens can apply for a passport at more than 9,400 passport acceptance facilities at post offices, clerks of court, and other government offices nationwide. The vast majority of passport applications are submitted via a designated 

acceptance facility or mailed directly to us. 

We have heard the concerns of border residents, and maintain an extensive network of acceptance facilities along the northern and southern border regions. There 

are currently 301 acceptance facilities located within 25 miles of the U.S.-Canada 

border and 128 acceptance facilities located within 25 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Since the end of calendar year 2006, we increased the total number of facilities 

within 25 miles of the Northern border by five percent and the total number of facilities within 25 miles of the Southern border by 15 percent. 

Our largest acceptance agent partner, the United States Postal Service (USPS), 

has held several successful passport acceptance events in border regions around the 

country. These ‘‘Passport Fairs’’ help meet high customer demand for passports in 

underserved areas. The USPS plans more of these passport acceptance events leading up to the June 1, 2009, implementation date. 

Passport Agencies 

The Department plans to officially open three new Passport Agencies in Detroit, 

Dallas, Minneapolis, in 2009 to serve border communities readying themselves for 

WHTI land and sea rule requirements. I am pleased to inform the Committee that 

the Detroit ribbon cutting is to be held next week, on May 11th, and the others will 

follow shortly. These new agencies will provide expedited service to citizens with imminent travel plans, and will have the capability to issue passport books and cards 

on-site to qualifying applicants. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

18 

2009 provided the Department with funding to construct additional passport facilities, which will enable us to expand our operations further over the next two years 

to provide services in more locations. 

The Department evaluates several criteria to determine the location of new passport agencies, including accessibility, distance from an existing passport agency/center, volume of current passport applicants, service and volume of international and 

domestic departures, and population trends. 

We took action to expand our existing agencies along the northern border in Seattle and Chicago, and are doubling the size and adjudication capacity of the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Along the southern border, 

we are expanding our facilities in Houston, Miami, and New Orleans. 

Passport Card 

We began full production of a wallet-sized passport card in July 2008, in response 

to the desire expressed by American citizens who live near the land borders for a 

more portable and less expensive document than the traditional passport book. The 

passport card is designed for the specific needs of border resident communities and 

is not a globally interoperable travel document like a traditional passport book. 

The passport card will facilitate entry and expedite document processing at U.S. 

land and sea ports-of-entry when arriving from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean region, and Bermuda. The card was designed and priced specifically as a limited-use 

passport that works with the radio frequency ID architecture for WHTI documents 

found only at the land borders of the United States. By regulation, it may not be 

used for international air travel. It does constitute primary proof of U.S. citizenship 

and is adjudicated to the same exacting standards as passport books. 

The card has the same validity period as a passport book: 10 years for an adult, and five years for children 15 and younger. First-time adult applicants pay $45 for 

their cards, and cards for children cost $35. Adults who already have a passport 

book may apply for the card as a passport renewal and pay only $20 (no execution 

fee required). (Children 15 and younger are required to appear before an acceptance 

agent and therefore must always pay the execution fee.) 

To meet the operational needs of the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and to facilitate document processing at U.S. ports-ofentry, the passport card uses vicinity-read radio frequency identification technology 

(RFID). The vicinity-read RFID chip in the passport card contains no personal information; it has only a reference number that points to a stored record in a secure 

DHS database. This reference number does not appear on the face of the card and 

is not used for any official record keeping purpose. RFID readers mounted at the 

side of the traffic lane at ports of entry allow Customs and Border Protection officers 

to pull up the database records of card holders as they roll up to the inspection 

booth, facilitating inspection and entry of legitimate travelers. The cards are issued 

with a protective ‘‘attenuation’’ sleeve for storage which prevents reading of the card 

when not in use; the signal from any RFID reader is blocked while the card is kept 

in its sleeve. 

This card is the result of an inter-agency effort to produce a durable, secure, and 

tamper-resistant card for the American public, using state of the art laser engraving 

and security features. To ensure durability for the ten-year validity period, we chose 

to make the card of a sturdy polycarbonate composite material rather than the 

standard plastic used for ID and credit cards. The Department has benefited from 

the collaborative efforts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), Sandia National Labs, the DHS Forensics Document Lab (FDL), and, of 

course, colleagues at CBP. To ensure the durability and integrity of the card, the 

Department subjected the test cards to a full battery of durability and chemical testing at Sandia National Labs in accordance with guidance from NIST. In consultation with the DHS/FDL, the card is designed with multiple layers of overt, covert 

and forensic security features to guard against tampering and counterfeiting and to 

provide easy visual verification to CBP officers. 

Public Outreach 

Public outreach is the key to successful implementation of WHTI. To better prepare American travelers for the June 1, 2009, implementation date, the Department 

has contracted with a marketing firm and launched an outreach campaign providing 

information to Americans about WHTI requirements, the new passport card, the differences between the card and the traditional book, and encouraging them to apply 

for their documents early. 

We are in the final stages of full WHTI implementation. Working together, the 

Department of State and DHS are in the final phase of our concentrated public education efforts utilizing targeted advertising with local media in areas with high populations of persons who use the land borders. Over the past year there has been 

19 

significant media coverage of WHTI across the country, at the national level and 

in the critical border states. The Department of State has reached out across the 

country at events ranging from travel shows to naturalization ceremonies. We have 

joined with CBP at events on the border as the new WHTI infrastructure has been 

rolled out. Our own paid advertizing has complemented the DHS media campaign 

with billboards, radio spots, e-mail blasts and web banners aimed specifically at border communities. Our passport agencies, along with the numerous passport acceptance facilities in every corner of the United States, have made a tremendous effort 

to be out in their regions, especially along our border. We will continue to reach out 

to our customers and neighbors with passport fairs, press releases, and visits to 

their post offices, town halls, and libraries. 

Reaching Target Demographics 

We have seen several trends that indicate our combined efforts in increasing production capacity, adding acceptance facilities and agencies, and outreach are reaching many of our key target demographics. Passport card applications are increasing. 

Passport and passport card applications tend to be higher in border states than in 

non-border states. This is true for both the northern and southern borders. 

Conclusion 

We understand that security and efficiency at our borders are essential to the national security and economic well being of the United States, and of our neighbors 

to the north and south. The economic well being and general welfare of border communities depend on the free flow of people and goods. μAs we have stated since announcing WHTI four years ago, we are committed to implementing WHTI in a 

thoughtful manner that facilitates trade, travel, and tourism while enhancing our 

national security. We believe we are well positioned to meet current passport demand, and we have substantially augmented our capacity in order to meet future 

growth. We have worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to inform the American public of the upcoming 

WHTI deadline and to give traveling U.S. citizens the documents they will need to 

comply with the new WHTI requirements. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank all the witnesses. 

And as customary, it is now time to question. I will remind all 

members that we will have the lights on, and members will get 5 

minutes. And I will begin the questioning of our witnesses. 

Mr. Winkowski, welcome. This stimulus package that we passed 

earlier this year provided $700 million for port of entry infrastructure improvement. While the increasing size of cross border commuters and there is an aging port infrastructure, I believe that 

WHTI is going to put even additional stress on these ports of entry. 

So my question to you is can you give this subcommittee an update where CBP is in improving some of the major land ports on 

our northern and southern borders? Is there a priority list for ports 

of entry that need the most infrastructure improvement? Maybe he 

can start with those two questions. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, thank you very much for that question. As 

you stated, we received $720 million in the stimulus package and 

truly appreciate the support for that funding. 

Actually, CBP received $420 million for the CBP-owned facility, 

most of which are up on the northern border. And the GSA received $300 million to refurbish several ports of entry, primarily on 

the southwest border. 

So we have a plan. We have a joint program management office 

with the GSA. We have a number of facilities that are in the process of going through environmental studies and things of that nature. This is absolutely critical for us because of the aging infrastructure. Many of our buildings are more than 40 years old. That 

money has been earmarked for certain locations in priority order 

that we have worked up along with the GSA. 

20 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And what types of improvements are we talking 

about? And why is the GSA involved? I mean, I know, but maybe 

some of the other committee—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, well, in CBP we own some of the facilities, 

so that is that $420 million that we got from the stimulus package 

and other locations permanent on the southwest border. GSA owns 

those facilities, and we lease from them. 

The enhancements go from major renovations, adding additional 

lanes, additional facility space, additional cargo locations to muchneeded repairs and alterations. It is on a site-by-site location. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Barth, do you have anything to add to that, 

or——? 

Mr. BARTH. No, I think that as Mr. Winkowski said, this is long 

overdue, and we appreciate the funding by the Congress. The relationship of GSA is very strong, and we expect to spend the money 

to good effect in the very near future. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. BARTH. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Winkowski, we have put a lot of money into 

the budget in the last 3 or 4 years, in particular with respect to 

staffing. 

And I think, for example, I was talking to Chief Aguilar, we have 

gone in the last 4 years or so, actually about 3 years, from about 

8,000 to almost 20,000 or so, from a staffing slot perspective. And, 

of course, he has been talking about how difficult it has been to recruit and the training that goes behind this. 

Do you think that the implementation of WHTI is going to exacerbate any of the staffing shortages that we have seen? And the 

second question would be about the training of the officers with respect to the new requirements and procedures. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. First of all, the Congress has been very, very 

generous to us in field operations when you look at the increase 

that we received, particularly in the area of our CBP officers and 

also in the agricultural specialist side. 

As you know, WHTI, the WHTI budget gave us nearly 300 additional CBPO positions, and we very much appreciate that and have 

the majority of those officers on board. 

My view of this is that WHTI is going to make their job much 

more efficient and effective. We need to keep in mind, and we could 

take a kind of walk down memory road, that prior to January of 

2008 when we eliminate the oral declarations, that are officers had 

over about 8,000 different documents that individuals could present 

to us on the border to prove their identity and their citizenship. 

That is no longer the case, and certainly when WHTI comes in, 

that will eliminate that process totally. So I believe WHTI, with 

the RFID technology, the new license plate readers, the whole 

WHTI package, the WHTI solution, and our new vehicle primary 

client, it will make our officers much more efficient and effective. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

I am going to try to make another set of questions, but I would 

like to give some to the other members here. I think we all have 

so many questions. 

21 

At this particular time, I would like to recognize the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana, for his 

questions. 

Mr. SOUDER. Let me first follow up, Mr. Winkowski, with the— 

you said 8,000 documents, an historic—when you get all the enhanced driver’s licenses and everything together, how many do you 

think? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. We are going to come down to a handful. When 

you count, you know, the passport, the passport card, the NEXUS, 

the FAST, the SENTRI, the enhanced driver’s license, and also in 

some limited cases we have—and Dr. Barth referred to this in his 

testimony—you know, the military IDs and the merchant marine. 

In fact, we are down to less than about 10. 

Mr. SOUDER. And since these are—well, will the states vary? In 

other words, one of the questions here is they are more technical 

documents now with more sophistication in them. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. Will you have the ability to read all the variables 

fast? in other words, the different state cards, the military cards, 

because the sophistication is greater? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. That is correct. Particularly when you are looking at the passport card, our Trusted Traveler program and our 

EDLs, which all those documents are vicinity RFID readable. 

So the idea here is when a car comes up, they show their card 

to the tech—the pad on the lane, and by the time that automobile 

enters up to the booth where the officer is, we have already done 

all of our checks. 

We are estimating, Congressman, that we can save between 6 

and 8 seconds per passenger. And that is real-time. 

Mr. SOUDER. And are the state driver’s licenses included in that? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, they are. They are—— 

Mr. SOUDER. Because they all have to be machine readable on 

the machine that you have. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. You can read them with the technology, the vicinity technology, where you hold it up to the pad and it reads it. 

And it also can be read by a machine. 

Mr. SOUDER. And are the Canadians doing a similar thing on 

their side? I know British Columbia—will their provincial licenses 

be able to be read? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Right. Yes, in the same manner, yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. And do you expect this to be your fastest growth 

category in state driver’s licenses? What kind of mix are you looking at here in the——? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I think our fastest growth, as Mr. Brennan 

mentioned, is the passport card for the U.S. citizens with—the Canadians are highly compliant with their passports, so we are hoping that as the province is open up and more EDLs are issued, that 

Canadians will get the EDLs. 

Mr. SOUDER. And, Mr. Brennan, you gave some numbers on you 

know the 40,000 a week million. What percentage of the number 

of people who cross currently—this is difficult, because there are 

more of a crossing—what percentage are you estimating of what 

you have out right now versus historic usage is the gap? 

22 

Mr. BRENNAN. I am not sure I fully understand. In terms of what 

we have out now and—— 

Mr. SOUDER. If 15 million people—you know, not number of 

crossings, but number of people—if there are 15 million people who 

in the course of the year cross the border north and south, what 

percentage are covered with eligible? And that is a pretty basic 

question. 

Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, with the RFID documents? 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. 

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. I think it is a little bit too early to tell, because we will only know that when the cards are—when all the infrastructure is in and the cards are being read. There are only 1.1 

million in circulation at present, so as a percentage of total travel, 

that is going to be low. 

Mr. SOUDER. No, this—I am sorry. I have a business degree—this 

is a kind of a pretty basic question. I realize the detailed accuracy 

with the card. But if you know how many states have a compliant 

driver’s license, everybody in those states would be, you know, 

qualified. 

If you have the number of people in the military level qualified 

thing, that is another percent, and—but this is kind of pretty basic, 

because one of the major goals you should have is here is the number of people who cross, here is how many we have. That will vary 

by year. It is not a precise science, because you are doing estimating. 

But in estimating, I would think that would be one of the primary things that the department should be trying to estimate. It 

is what is the gap and are we closing it? 

Mr. Winkowski? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. If I could take a crack at that, we are estimating and really confident on this number, that 80 percent of the 

crossings today have WHTI compliant document, okay? Now, it is 

an assortment of documents, so we have the passport, the EDL, the 

passport card. 

We are estimating that by June 1st that number is going to increase. So we have about 271 million crossers on the northern border and southern border. Our numbers show that 80 percent right 

now are compliant, and that number will grow. 

Mr. SOUDER. And 80 percent of the numbers of people, or 80 percent of the numbers of crossings, because people who cross a 

lot—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Crossers. Crossers could be multiple times. 

Mr. SOUDER. Okay. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The chair now recognized Mr. Green of Texas for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I greatly appreciate the opportunity to visit with the witnesses. I have listened to the testimony, and I am impressed with 

what I have heard. 

I would like to ask a couple of questions concerning a circumstance that might arise that were not anticipating. Let us assume that things don’t quite as well as we would like them to. Is 

23 

there a plan B in place? Example: card reader fails, and we now 

have some backup for that reader. Is there something in place to 

help us in the event we have systems failure that does not anticipate it? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, and we have mitigation procedures in 

place. That actually happens today. It is few and far between when 

it does happen, Congressman, but we do have it at times when our 

system goes down, and we have mitigation procedures in place. 

Or in a case where there is slow response time, we have mitigation procedures in place that enables us to continue to protect the 

homeland while at the same time being cognizant of backups and 

traffic delays. 

Mr. GREEN. Do these mitigation procedures involve rerouting 

traffic, or—I don’t want you to give me anything that would compromise security, but I am curious as to how you can accomplish 

this, given that plan A is designed to move people as quickly as 

possible. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. In some locations the bridge authorities have 

electronic networks that they can show to drivers as they are on 

the highways to go use different bridges. 

I think that is one thing that we need to get much better at from 

the standpoint of being able to direct traffic from one location that 

is backed up to two miles down the road that is not as busy. 

I think the stimulus package money will enable us to do some 

of that in partnering up with our partners in the bridge authorities. 

Mr. GREEN. Now, let us talk about exceptions. I know that we 

always have some exceptions, and I am respectful of exceptions. 

The question is how many have we made in terms of documentation? If I need to be more explicit, I can, but if you understand, 

then you can respond to what I said. I would appreciate it. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. If you could give me a little more—— 

Mr. GREEN. We have an exception for the Amish, and I think 

that is a good thing. I respect religion. Are the other exceptions? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, we have the Amish, as you mentioned. We 

also have our tribal nations. 

Mr. GREEN. Tribal? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Tribal nations. 

Mr. GREEN. Tribal nations. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Our Native Americans. We are working. Come 

June 1st, the Native Americans will be able to continue to present 

their picture tribal card. We are working very diligently with them 

in developing an enhanced tribal card. 

We have one tribe in Idaho that has already agreed to and 

signed the necessary documents to develop the enhanced tribal 

card. We have several more to go. And we have been working with 

tribes very, very closely. We have about 40 tribes, as I recall, that 

leave near the border, the northern, southern border. 

Ten have acknowledged the memorandum of agreement, and we 

are working out the details. It is complicated. There is costs associated with the tribes developing the enhanced tribal card. There is 

an issue with vendors. 

For example, in Idaho the one tribe that is flooding on to produce 

the ETC, they are very smart. I believe their tribe has about 140 

24 

members, and it is hard to find a vendor that is willing to put the 

infrastructure in place and the costs associated with that for 140 

cards. 

Mr. GREEN. With about 50 seconds, let me ask this. Commerce 

lanes. I assume that you have specific lanes for commerce. Is this 

correct? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Yes, we have the commercial cargo lanes, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And are you comfortable with the number of cargo 

lanes, such that we will get the traffic, the commercial traffic, 

through? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. No. In some areas we are woefully—the infra- structure is not acceptable. Thhe $720 million from the stimulus 

package will help us rectify that in a number of locations. 

And you need to keep in mind that we are estimating that it is about $6 billion to fix the infrastructure at our land borders. And 

I think we are off to a good start. We very much appreciate the 

$720 million that we received. 

But there are areas around the country that we don’t have 

enough infrastructure in place, whether it is the cargo side or the 

pedestrian side of the vehicle side. 

Mr. GREEN. My time has expired. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

And now we have Ms. Lofgren, a colleague from California for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Several of us have expressed concern about the reliability, physical security and counterfeit resistance of two of the WHTI cards 

issued by the State Department, the passport card and the Mexican border crossing card. 

And Howard Berman, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, myself and a number of other members have asked GAO 

to take a look at the security features of these cards. And I am confident that GAO will do a thorough job and report back. 

But I am wondering if we have thought through. We have issued 

now a million of cards, if I heard you correctly. What are we going 

to do if GAO comes back and says, ‘‘Here are the deficiencies, and 

it is vulnerable?’’ 

Mr. BRENNAN. We are, of course, working very closely with the 

GAO. You know that we believe that the card is a good product, 

that it is durable, that it is secure. And we—and GAO—we know 

that there are differing views. And GAO is undertaking their investigation now. 

When they come back and recommendations, we will of course 

take them on board, and we will attempt to incorporate them. But 

we don’t know what their findings will be. 

We have attempted to be as cooperative and forthcoming with 

them in their investigations to date. And we have in fact encouraged them to move forward as quickly as they can, because they 

do have recommendations that would affect changing the cards so 

that we could determine how to implement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do we know when the report will be done? 

Mr. BRENNAN. We don’t really. I don’t really want to speak for 

GAO, but I have consulted with them. They are aware of what we 

25 

are doing now. They are aware of what plans we might have for 

the future. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman? Madam Chair? Madam Chair? 

I wonder if we could ask GAO for a status report on the report they 

are doing and at least an estimate of when they expect the report 

to be concluded, because one of the things I wondered is if it is a 

near-term saying, whether it might make sense to hold off. If it is 

going to be a year, obviously that would be a different outcome. 

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, we agree completely. And I will be frank and 

perhaps step over the line a little bit. We have asked GAO to complete that. Their study, of course, includes the card, the card’s use, 

you know, it is reading and data transfer, a variety of things. 

And we have asked them to complete the section that deals with 

the card as quickly as possible. And if that is acceptable to the 

members who have requested it, then we will, of course, appreciate 

that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I will move on to my next question, because 

I think we really need to ask GAO, and it is not fair to ask you—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The chair will take it under consideration and talk 

to GAO. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate that. 

I want to talk about the readers. Now, my understanding is that 

we are only going to install the RFID readers and flash card—the 

RFID readers at—is it 34 or 39 of the 150 land? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Thirty-nine. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thirty-nine. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Thirty-nine locate ports. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So I guess the question I have is that since everyone will know where the readers are, what level of security are we 

going to have? You know, if I want to have a counterfeit card, then 

I go to the area where there is no reader, right? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, no, not actually. There is a couple of 

things. The 39 locations have multiple crossings, which account for 

95 percent of the crossings. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thought it was 96 percent, but still— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Right. But the locations that do not have the 

RFID will still have the machine-readable technology, so they will 

still be read and go through this different—it is the same system. 

It is just how it is read. 

With the RFID vicinity, you sit in your car, and you flash 

your—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you will have machine readers that every single land port. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. They have been there for years, yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Well, that is good news. 

I am wondering in terms of the—and maybe it doesn’t make a 

difference, if it is only 4 percent, but whether the movement of individuals and goods across the 4 percent were we won’t have the 

RFID readers is going to be smooth, and whether we should anticipate jam ups and interference with commerce at those sites. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. No, we don’t anticipate that. The locations that 

don’t have the WHTI solution are very small. We do have a plan, 

and Congress has been very generous with this program, where we 

26 

can go out and begin expanding to all 100 locations on the northern 

and southern border, okay? 

Our focus was on the big ones, the 39 ports of entry that captured 95 percent of the crossing activity. Our plan here is to go out 

and put the WHTI solution in all the locations. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you to my colleague from California. 

Just to elaborate, what you are saying is that the WHTI card, 

or these readers, would be at these 39 places, but that is just to 

get the information ahead of time before the car or the person 

crosses. But that same card will be read by machines that all of 

the crossings that we have. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. That is correct. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. It is just a way of sending information two or 

three cars ahead of time. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. That is correct. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. 

I now recognize my colleague from Texas, from a big border 

state. I think you have several crossings yourself in your district. 

Mr. Cuellar, for 5 minutes? 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much. 

And I think out of all the members of Congress, I think I have 

more border crossings than anybody else, so border crossings are 

very important to me. 

Madam Chair, thank you very much for having this particular 

meeting. 

And to the three witnesses, thank you for the service that you 

all provide. 

One quick question. First of all, Mr. Winkowski, I appreciate the 

work. I think you have done an excellent job in improving at improving the operations and make him sure. I know, for example, at 

Laredo we have become, I guess, the first port in the country that 

is 24 hours a day. And I appreciate, you know, exactly. And we appreciate that and having the proper staffing. 

But I would ask you just one quick thing. We—Chairman 

Thompson, myself—and I think I first asked you this question back 

when we were in the bathroom. Could you give us now under this 

new administration what will be the staffing that you would need 

to properly staff the northern and the southern border? 

I think we have heard the 4,000 members, but if you can get that 

over to the committee, I know that both Chairman Thompson and 

myself had asked, and I had asked you when we were in El Paso. 

One, I would ask you to do that. 

And, of course, the other thing is what would it be to—what do 

we need? And I have heard the numbers 4.9, but I would like to 

get it from you all as to the facility staffing. And again, I would 

ask you all to get that, because we want to work with you. We 

want to provide you the staffing. 

I know that under the president’s proposal for the Southwest initiative, he talked about—I think he is talking about another 65 

new customs agents. I think personally it should be a lot more than 

65, because we have done a good job at men and women of men 

and women in green, which is Border Patrol, but it is the men and 

27 

women in blue, which is Customs, to make sure our legitimate 

trade and movement of people and goods move, go on. 

So I would ask you to provide that to us. But I know last year 

I think we were on it for about 6 months, and quite honestly after 

both the chairman and myself asked for it, we thought were going 

to get it. We got a lot of off the record comments, but I would ask 

you to do that, because I think we want to help you. 

But again I want to thank you for the work that you all have 

been doing in this particular area. 

My second question goes then to Mr. Brennan. We met with Secretary Clinton before she took off to Mexico. And one of the issues 

that we talked to her about was on the passport that has to do 

with midwives. You are familiar with midwives, are you? 

Mr. BRENNAN. I understand that there is ongoing litigation on 

this, yes. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. And I am not talking about litigation. I am 

talking about just the issue itself. The issue that I have is in fact 

I think there were five members that were present, including myself, that said, ‘‘Hey, we were delivered by midwives.’’ 

As you know, midwives are used in different parts of the country, 

but let me talk about in an area that has a lot of Hispanics in the 

border don’t have the resources to go to a hospital, so therefore 

they are delivered by a midwife at home. 

And the reason I say that is because even though I have asked 

the department that said they are not red-flagging midwives, but 

it almost feels, at least talking to my constituent workers, people 

that do with those cases, that there is almost a red flag. 

I understand there has been some fraud with some midwives. I 

do understand all the history. I have worked on this legislation 

even at the state level. I do understand all the history. 

But I would ask you all to look at the midwives, because it is 

something that—or the issues of passports dealing with midwives, 

because I don’t want you all to automatically target the people that 

were delivered by midwives—just say, you know, where there has 

been fraud, so therefore we are going to target you all. 

I would ask you to look at that and then let me sit down with 

you later on this particular issue. I am just saying it is an issue 

on the border. Secretary Clinton says she was going to assign 

somebody. And I am sure I don’t know if it was you, whoever it 

was, but I would ask you to look at this particular should, because 

it is a big issue. 

Mr. BRENNAN. It is a big issue, and we have people working on 

it. And they are actually under the passport office, and I am not 

really engaged with them on a day-to-day basis. 

As I have mentioned, there is ongoing litigation that involves 

some aspects of this, and we are certainly more than willing to 

meet with you at your—to discuss the issue further. And I can get 

the people who have the best answers for you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Yes, and make sure they come up with another answer, because I met with them I guess almost a year ago, and they 

said they were going to change things, but I still get—— 

Mr. BRENNAN. A lot has happened in the year, sir. 

Mr. CUELLAR. And I was going to say there is a new change, and 

I appreciate it, and I would like to sit down with you, because it 

28 

is an issue, and it is coming up pretty quickly. So as soon as you 

all can set up the meeting, I would appreciate it. 

But Mr. Brennan, I thank you and the other two witnesses. And 

I appreciate the service and job. 

Mr. BRENNAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Massa, are you ready to ask your questions? 

Five minutes to the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I apologize for arriving late, but I wanted to make sure and 

that the district I represent has flowing through the vast majority 

of the travel and engines coming from the Niagara area border and 

as to the New York Thruway. 

And so when the field hearing was held in the past, our area was 

a prime focus for these matters. And I apologize if this has been 

asked before, but as you know, the accessibility of passports, one 

of the main documents now required under this initiative, has 

some measure of significant backlog associated with it. 

And I have been hearing an awful lot of feedback from constituents in my district. And again I ask your patience if this has already been addressed. But to the individual that would be best 

qualified to answer this, can you help me with explanations that 

I can give to my constituents back home about what is being done, 

what can be done. 

People aren’t really against having a passport. It is the delays 

and the complexity of obtaining them that I am hearing so much 

about. So to the individual best qualified to address this, if you 

could assist me, I would be deeply appreciative. 

Mr. BRENNAN. I would guess that is me. And currently, passports 

on our Web site we are indicating it takes 4 to 6 weeks for regular 

application, 2 weeks for an expedite. These are basically the normal service levels that we have had for a long time. 

Right now there are no systemic backlog in the pipeline. We really have every confidence we can maintain those service levels as we 

move through this deadline and beyond. 

Mr. MASSA. So, sir, if I could just recap. A month to 6 weeks for 

a normal application—— 

Mr. BRENNAN. Correct. 

Mr. MASSA. And then 2 weeks for expedited. 

Mr. BRENNAN. That is what we are telling people, yes. 

Mr. MASSA. Is there an emergency passport capability on weekends? 

Mr. BRENNAN. There is ways to get emergency passports by special arrangement. 

Mr. MASSA. Yes. 

Mr. BRENNAN. That can be done at passport agencies. 

Mr. MASSA. I would appreciate if you could communicate with my 

office what the procedure. 

I recently had a case of an individual who admittedly through 

their own fault, but, you know, but for the wisdom of the good Lord 

above, there we have all gone, have lost something on the weekend. 

And that individual had a medical emergency in the family back 

in the United States and was unable, and we did not know how to 

help to help that person on the weekend. 

29 

I personally spent some humorous amount of time dialing 

through all the State Department numbers that were listed, and so 

if you could help me with that, I would be very appreciated. 

Mr. BRENNAN. Just to clarify, they were abroad, attempting to 

return? 

Mr. MASSA. Yes. But I suspect that there are also cases of being 

at home, and a medical emergency of a loved one overseas, where 

they would have to travel in an hour. 

Mr. BRENNAN. If you could get us on the case, we would be glad 

to look into it. The capabilities around the world do vary. 

Mr. MASSA. I ended up having a staff member go to the hospital 

and be with the family member, and then they came in on Monday. 

So everyone was happy in the end. But passports and their timeliness and their accessibility—and they should be hard. I don’t say 

they should be something that you find in the box of cereal. I understand that. 

But if there are exceptions and procedures that I could be educated on for the benefit of my constituents, that would be a help. 

Mr. BRENNAN. In general, overseas passport—emergency passports can be obtained in a day. But as I said, the circumstances 

will vary, depending on where these people were. And we will be 

glad to look into it, if you give us the details. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you. And the last portion in a minute is costs. 

Can you speak just a few seconds about costs of passports? 

Mr. BRENNAN. Costs of passports currently I believe is $100 for 

an adult. I would have to look up, quite frankly, the children’s cost. 

The passport cards, $45 for an adult first-time applicant, $35 for 

a child. 

Mr. MASSA. Are there any exceptions made for—conveniences 

made for those who are an exceptional financial difficulty, especially during the times that we live in? 

Mr. BRENNAN. There is no sliding scale on the passports. 

Mr. MASSA. No sliding scale. 

Mr. BRENNAN. No. People who already have a passport and wish 

to attain a passport card, because it is more convenient to use it 

to cross the border, the cost of that is $20 for a 10-year document. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you very much, sir. 

Madam Chair, I yield back my time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank the gentleman from New York. 

We were just having a little discussion earlier about sliding 

scales and things of this sort, which I think in these times especially, or for the tribal units, for example maybe, but we will discuss that with our Foreign Affairs appropriators and others, I 

guess, or maybe with Ways and Means also. It would be a multijurisdictional issue. 

I think we are going to ask a couple of more questions before we 

dismiss this panel to get to our second panel. 

I actually have a couple of questions for you, Mr. Brennan, just 

so we make sure that your time appears well spent in front of us. 

I don’t want you to think we are preferential to the Homeland people. 

With the deadline coming up in a few weeks, I was interested. 

You said that you were going to—I am sorry, that you learned from 

30 

the past month’s problems and that you have staffed up, and you 

have additional people to do passports and applications. 

I am interested in the trends of what you are seeing as far as 

what people are applying for. Specifically, have you noticed any relevant trends in passport applications and issuance as we approach 

the deadline? 

In other words, are we seeing more people along the northern 

border request these cards, or more from the southern border, or 

vice versa? 

And we also have some questions about the security features on 

the passport card. With the passport card now having been in use 

for a few months, can you talk to if you have seen any fraudulent 

cards and what you are seeing as far as the security aspects of the 

particular card? 

Mr. BRENNAN. We have some pretty good general information on 

trends. In terms of the cards specifically, card demand is going up. 

When I mentioned some figures in my opening statement, we were 

seeing about 20,000 card applications a week in October 2008. 

We are seeing between 40,000 and 50,000 a week now. That has 

been true since the beginning of April. We don’t know how long 

that trend will occur. 

This is not a huge number of applications, given the total number of passport applications received in a week. The vast majority 

of Americans are documented with passports—90 million compared 

to one. 

But we have seen that. There is greater penetration for passports 

and passport cards in the border states in terms of percentage of 

population and then in the population as a whole. But it varies 

greatly. 

Some generalizations can be made other than that. The passport 

card uptake is higher on the southern border then it is on the 

northern border. It is particularly high in your state, which as an 

absolute number is responsible for the largest absolute number of 

passport cards, and the percentage of people who hold it was also 

close to the top, but not at the top. 

We have seen some other states take off from relatively low 

bases, Arizona in particular. Texas, which is looking low, is moving 

up. There are countervailing factors which affect passport card demand, such as availability of enhanced driver’s licenses and things, 

so we see lower uptake in Washington State, which has a mature 

EDL program. 

So we have been tracking those trends closely, mostly to see, you 

know, what quarter we are hitting and where we are missing and 

reduce the penetration where we would expect it, which is in the 

northern and southern border, along with transportation corridors 

and reduce these trends continuing. 

You know we will get pockets, you know, where penetration is 

well above 40 percent of the total population for a WHTI compliant 

document. We issue either a passport or passport card. California 

as a state is quite high as well. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Have you seen any fraudulent cards. Have you 

seen any? 

Mr. BRENNAN. You might want to add CBP as well, but we do 

talk to them. We have not seen any fraudulent cards per se. In 

31 

other words, we are not seeing any attempts that I know of, or that 

I have been made aware of, to duplicate the card or produce a 

counterfeit of the cards that we have in circulation. 

What we do see is occurrences of the most prevalent fraud that 

we get for every card, which is imposture and look-alike fraud. In 

other words, people carrying legitimate cards and—but it actually 

has been issued to someone else. Both have definitely been detected, both for the border crossing card and the passport card. 

And maybe Commissioner Winkowski might want to talk to that, 

but there is things with WHTI that actually I think will help our 

ability to focus on impostures in inspection. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Certainly, you know the security features that 

are built into the card, the fact now that our officers in the booth 

can get all that information in front of him or her through our vehicle primary client out of WHTI. 

Before, it was a green screen with a bunch of numbers on it. Now 

that officer has got the picture, has got the number of crossings, 

when those crossings took place. So from the standpoint of keying 

in on those individuals that need a little extra scrutiny, that officer 

has got a full bag of tools. 

And your other question, Chairwoman Sanchez, just to give you 

a kind of comparison, when you look at the cards that we issue, 

the Trusted Traveler cards—for example, the NEXUS, you look at 

January 2007. We had about 2,800 applications in January 2007. 

January 2009, you know, 9,300. 

So we are seeing a spike. Up on the northern border, we are seeing individuals looking at their options and saying, ‘‘Gee, I really 

want to be part of the Trusted Traveler program.’’ 

So that is a very significant growth. And we are up to date. We 

are current. We are turning those around in about 8 to 10 days. 

Mr. BRENNAN. Sorry if I was a little obtuse with the question 

earlier about penetration, but the figures really appear at—was 

CBP’s end. But our feeling, based on what we have seen, all right, 

with issuance trends and what they have told us is that frequent 

travelers have the message and have the documents right now to 

basically comply. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. 

Mr. BRENNAN. There is always more that can be done, and there 

are populations that we know perhaps we need to continue to work 

with long after the deadline. But reduce the awareness out there, 

and we have made the ability to get the documents robust. And we 

will be able to supply them. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Yield some time to Mr. Souder for a few more questions. 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, the problem is the gaps and where they are. 

If it was 170 million—is that what you said the total was—and 80 

percent of that was covered, or 85? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I said 270 million were. 

Mr. SOUDER. And that is the number of crossings or the number 

of people? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. The number of crossings. 

Mr. SOUDER. And you know what the number of people who 

across? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I don’t know. 

32 

Mr. SOUDER. Because, you know, if you said the number of crossings, we are covering 80 percent of them, that means 50 million 

crossings are going to run into a problem. 

Yet now, if that moves up another 5 percent, that is not like a 

little number. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. No, no, but I—— 

Mr. SOUDER. And I am not proposing, as you heard earlier, that 

we delay, because quite frankly, at some point here that government’s word for people, the 80 percent who have laid out the 

money, starts to become a real question. 

Here they have laid out hard cash, they have conformed with the 

system, and our credibility is sinking each year that we keep delaying. So I am not arguing a delay. And I also believe that your policy of agent discretion is important in this. 

But let me ask Dr. Barth. I assume you have a robust plan of 

feedback, that when agents are practicing discretion, that that is 

going to be fed back into the system for rapid analysis and attempted proposals to Congress to figure out how to do this gap before the 20 million all descend on our offices, or whatever percentage of them do. 

Mr. BARTH. Yes, sir. The department is working very closely with 

all of our Northern border partners to make sure that we have an 

eyes open, fully aware system to make sure that if there is any 

fully unexpected problem at the northern or southern border, that 

we will be able to work with CBP to work around those problems 

immediately. 

The secretary has looked the acting commissioner of customs in 

the eye, and they have an absolute pact to make sure that this system will not fall apart—— 

Mr. SOUDER. Because we are going to have questions like we 

talked about backlogs, different—you know, where we have little 

bursts. 

I am talking bout also a systematic evaluation, because I don’t 

think it is too hard to figure out an estimation that two groups are 

going to be the bulk of the traveling that drops. 

One are the casual travelers, because if you have it with the job 

or you are right on the border, you are going to do that. One is 

going to be casual travelers. And if it is tourism, restaurants, shopping areas are damaged, 10 percent can put you out of business, 

that casual travelers are going to be part of it. And your people at 

the border are going to figure this out almost immediately. 

There is also going to be scuttlebutt. There is going to be letters, 

trying to get information in how we address that question. 

The other is people who have lost their jobs or are low income. 

And even if they were, now that is—I have raised this for years in 

our national parks have. 

If we are not careful, tourism or casual type behavior will become 

inaccessible to lower-income people in America, and that it is not 

like we don’t have ways to do this. 

Reduced and free lunch programs require identification. There is 

all kinds of worries about, you know, if you came into a park and 

you had to show your reduced and free lunch, how do you do this 

type of thing? But there needs to be a creative way to address this 

question. 

33 

For example, and that me just give you very personal example, 

in July I was—we are not in this position—I would have had no 

clue, because I started looking at I am going to be up along the 

north border and going into Canada. You can go to all the vehicles, 

Expedia, Orbitz and so on, be looking at hotels, all this kind of 

stuff—no warning that you need anything. 

You can go to the Web sites of the different tourist lodges, different programs of what you are looking at—no warning that this 

is coming. But unless you go to a travel show or live in an immediate border state, the second-tier, you are basically clueless. 

I saw nothing in researching a trip that suggested I was going 

to need something at the border. And that is kind of a warning 

that casual travelers—in other words, I don’t go to Canada a lot, 

but I am only 140 miles from the border. 

And a significant percentage of my home area casually travel, 

but maybe once every 3 years, once every 2 years, or if they are 

visiting a relative, they could think of going over for dinner—oops, 

do I really want to get a card, because it is an unplanned visit. 

This is going to be the gap in the system, and we are going to 

have to figure out how to get that analysis. And I think we should 

be doing, and have prepared to go, a GAO study that just assumes 

and that you are internally studying this gap—similar on international travel. 

And I also want to say that I think the biggest promise is the 

state enhanced driver’s licenses, and it is because if in New York, 

everybody is eligible, why would they need a card, right? Is that 

correct? If they have an enhanced driver’s license in New York, 

Washington—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Right, they would not. All they would need is 

their enhanced driver’s license. 

Mr. SOUDER. So the enhanced driver’s license is all they need to 

cross. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. That is right. 

Mr. SOUDER. So nobody in New York needs to get a passport 

card. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Only if they apply for that feature, that enhanced driver’s license feature. So, you know, you go in for regular 

driver’s license, you don’t want an enhanced driver’s license—— 

Mr. SOUDER. So it is not automatically—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. No, no. 

Mr. SOUDER. You have to request it. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. No. There is an extra fee associated. 

Mr. SOUDER. So are we working with states to try to get the 

state—this is what Washington and British Columbia were interested in working on, where every driver’s license was in effect 

qualified. 

Mr. BARTH. The driver’s license issue is a complicated one, far 

more than it appears. The U.S. federal congressional he mandated 

standards as they now exist for driver’s licenses address 50 states, 

the territories, for certain features that do not include the WHTI 

enhancement of the microchip that contains a number that provides the photograph for the customs inspector to expedite and facilitate the traveler. 

34 

It costs extra to have that feature, and the department has been 

working aggressively with all the border states, both north and 

south, to get them to a point where they will offer their citizens the 

enhanced driver’s license with that chip, but it is not a requirement—— 

Mr. SOUDER. So if I am a New York driver, how much is that 

likely to cost me for my enhanced driver’s license versus the—— 

Mr. BARTH. Typically, it costs about $15 to $20 more, but it varies from state to state. The state controls the added cost. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. We have got Washington State. We have got 

Vermont, Michigan and New York, and continuing to, and a number of provinces in Canada, so where we are making inroads there. 

We want to give people choices. I mean, we want to give them 

choices. I mean, when you look at the border, at the passport card, 

that was really something that came up from the public, that they 

wanted some kind of document that was convenient, something 

they could put in their wallet. 

Then you had the states jump on it from the standpoint of the 

enhanced driver’s license. So I wanted to give people choices— 

Trusted Traveler. You want to, yes, you want to bring a passport 

around, you can do that also. So we wanted to open that up and 

not say this is the only document or these are the, you know, two 

documents you can have. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I will recognize the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to associate 

with myself with the comments of the ranking member. 

I think you get some points, but I would like to perhaps place 

myself on report, if I may. I know it is just those of us here in the 

chamber. I am a New York driver. I just got a drivers license. How 

do I know if it is enhanced or not? 

And I offer that question, because I would consider myself to be 

kind of informed some days, but when I went to get my driver’s license, I saw no literature, no posters, no information. No one asked 

me the question. I had no knowledge. And I got this in October of 

last year, arguably before I had the honor of being seated. 

And this drives to real fundamental question. What can we do, 

as this date approaches in a month, to have regional or local 

media? I know that we are going to be putting a great deal of effort 

in my office on this, because I expect a tidal wave of phone calls. 

How can we avoid those problems, and are there any plans for 

some communication from the federal government to our constituents? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Absolutely. First of—— 

Mr. MASSA. Oh, they can feel free to check my license. I just 

don’t know if it is enhanced or not. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. New York has issued 60,000. I don’t believe that 

they started in October. It was just recently that they began 

issuing the enhanced driver’s licenses. 

To your other question—— 

Mr. MASSA. I am providing a sample for consideration here. I am 

not used to surrendering my license to uniformed officers. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. It would say ‘‘enhanced driver’s license.’’ 

Mr. MASSA. It would say it. 

35 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You can ask for it. You can get it. 

Mr. MASSA. Yes, I didn’t know. I mean, I just—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, I am not sure when. New York just recently began this, and I am not sure they were issuing them in October. I can get you the exact month that they were doing that. 

Mr. MASSA. No reason. I am illustrating this as a potential challenge, and I would—— 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. The other question you had regarding, you 

know, the outreach. You know, we continue to have a very, very 

aggressive outreach in all the northern border locations and the 

southern border locations. 

I have been up in Buffalo area on business, and there is billboards, there is all kinds of advertisements on TV, print, media, 

certainly a lot of news on this out of the various Buffalo—— 

Mr. MASSA. Would the department be open to a mailing? 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. In what regard? 

Mr. MASSA. Well, you find that when people receive things at 

their home addresses, they tend to be aware and pay attention. 

And it is something with which we have some experience. I am 

wondering if the department might be willing to do that. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. Well, I think at this point what I would like to 

suggest is that we bring this up June 1st, and then we do our gap 

analysis of how we are doing from a complying standpoint? Do we 

have specific areas that are not complying, because perhaps we 

didn’t do a good enough job in reaching out to that particular area, 

and look at an option like that of doing flyers. 

We are coming up on June 1st. We can get, I think, much better 

picture of how this is going to shake up from the standpoint of compliance. Like I said earlier when you weren’t you here, we are anticipating—right now we are at 80 percent compliance rate. We anticipate a higher rate—— 

Mr. MASSA. I thank the commander, and I placed myself in the 

20 percent that is noncompliant, so—— 

Mr. BARTH. If I could add, Sir—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You have a passport, don’t you, Eric? 

Mr. MASSA. Yes, I do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Well, then you are compliant. 

Mr. BARTH. If I could add, the department has run television and 

radio spots over 21,000 times, particularly on the border states, 

while we have issued print advertisements in local northern and 

southern state print media, 124 times. We have advertised widely, 

the Web site that is available that tells you how to get what you 

need. 

And the CBP at the border particularly focus on that 20 percent. 

They have handed out over six million tear sheets to those particularly who are noncompliant for the past number of months—tear 

sheet that it says what is the problem, why you need it, and what 

the variety of cards are that you can get and where you can get 

them. 

So I think a mailing is an additional excellent idea. I think we 

did take that fact and consider it, particularly if the compliance 

rate stays lower than we would like. I think we have reached—— 

Mr. MASSA. And I thank the Department, and I commend them. 

36 

I just had my own experience, and I know that I am going to 

focus on this back in the district over the next 3 to 4 weeks, because I know what will happen, especially during the summer 

months, and the importance to the tourist economy in upper Western New York State. It is just critical. 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. WINKOWSKI. I understand that. And just to add that our Web 

site, since it has been created, over 390,000 visitors. And our advertisement that Dr. Barth talk about, over 275 million but they call 

impressions, people watching these commercials. 

So I think we have done a very effective job of reaching out. We 

will know more as time goes on, because our work doesn’t stop on 

June 1st. We have additional work to do. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you, sir. 

And I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. BRENNAN. If I could add a point or two, our media spending 

in the last month before the deadline is going to focus very heavily 

on newspaper, radio and magazines specifically in the border tier. 

So we are going to continue to look at that—and not mailings, 

but we do and have done things like e-mail blasts, looking for a 

target demographic in those areas and sending e-mails about 

WHTI. 

But I understand the concern about reaching general audiences, 

but there had been national parts of this campaign. And our general Web site, travel.state.gov, which is one of the most visited in 

the U.S. government, features this. 

And we have, I believe, looked at and I think implemented, but 

I don’t have the media plan in front of me, things like banners on 

things like Orbitz or other travel sites like that and use that in the 

tact to reach this general audience, their second-tier audience. 

But certainly more needs to be done, and we will continue to 

work on this. 

Mr. MASSA. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you to my colleague from New York. 

And I would just add that Mr. Souder suggested that, just from 

that standpoint of being a district that would have travelers that 

would go across the northern border, for example, we might ask if 

the departments have an insert that we could put into whenever 

we do a Congressional mailing to some of our own constituents in 

areas like that. That might be a good thing to have. 

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chair, if I can, I was just talking to our esteemed director, that perhaps in the next—ideally, next week or 

the next week, but particularly those on the immediate border, if 

the department could come over—I understand you are going to deliver a pack of materials—but to say this is where we did our ads. 

This is what we have planned. This is what the billboards look like. 

This is because we may have suggestions. Clearly, there are 

some gaps here. If you have 80 percent covered, you have clearly 

reached out pretty effectively to the day-to-day crossing that were. 

But there are going to be gaps here, and the next part we do for 

business is we market and how to be creative with some of the different agencies for the gaps we are hitting it, and also how to respond and how to use our office. 

37 

In fact, the emergency number—every single office runs into this 

weekend thing, that if there was a way, and most of the—let us 

say a significant percent are going to call our offices. And so if 

there is a way that our offices had an emergency number, there are 

ways to interact here, because the other alternative is for them to 

yell at us, and then you all get yelled at when you come up. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Souder. 

I am going to excuse the panel. Thank you for being before us. 

I excuse the panel. Tried to get the next panel up, which has two 

members on it. And we are going to try to get your testimony in, 

because we have just had the bells ring on the floor, so if we could 

make that switch pretty quickly. 

I welcome the second panel of witnesses. Because of the crunch 

in time, I would ask the witnesses if they could summarize, if you 

can, in even less than 5 minutes, it would be great. 

Our first witness is Ms. Maria Luisa O’Connell, president of the 

Border Trade Alliance, a grassroots nonprofit organization that 

serves as a forum for participants to address key issues affecting 

trade and the economic development in North America. 

And our second witness is Mr. Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He is responsible 

for working with the business community to develop the chamber’s 

position on a number of issues, including border security. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements are inserted 

into the record. And I will ask Ms. O’Connell to summarize her 

statement in 5 minutes or less, if possible. Again, we have a vote 

on the floor, so we are trying to get this in. 

STATEMENT OF MARIA LUISA O’CONNELL, PRESIDENT, 

BORDER TRADE ALLIANCE 

Ms. O’CONNELL. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman 

Sanchez and Ranking Member Souder, for having us here. 

I am not going to read it. I am just going to try to wing it and 

try to do it in 5 minutes or less—maybe just three points that we 

need to remember. 

One, there is a unique approach that we have to make at the 

U.S.–Canada and the U.S.–Mexico border in terms of how the implementation is being presented. Our constituents from the U.S.– 

Canada border tell us that technologically speaking, everything is 

ready. DHS and DOS have set up everything in place. 

The economic impacts of WHTI have already been felt for the 

past 2 years. We have lost the casual traveler. And Member 

Souder, we have lost them. Businesses have lost a lot of the daily 

or just continuous traveler that wanted to go back and forth, or if 

they are going to a Detroit Lions football game, we said the team 

is going to win. That is a bad joke. Or go to a—— 

We have seen those travelers come down. So the challenge in the 

U.S.–Canada border has been what are the economic impacts that 

we already are feeling, and how are we thinking in the border, adding more layers? 

On the U.S.–Mexico border, the challenges that we have had, 

and we are very concerned, is are we going to take a step forward 

from the—I mean, we are getting hit many ways on the U.S.–Mexico border. 

38 

On the U.S. American border, they just kind of what we feel 

about the economy, but also we have other factors around the U.S.– 

Mexico border. And the chances that we have seen there is we 

don’t have enough infrastructure, both borders, to—but we have 

enough staff. 

And three, people on the U.S.–Mexico border have a harder problem of getting IDs on time or the passports on time, because our 

U.S. post offices cannot keep up with what the demands have been. 

So that is what we have heard, people having to travel 50 or 40 

miles far away. So that is one thing that we need to acknowledge. 

And for this committee, it is important that we cannot have a 

blank policy, or a one size fits all policy for both borders, because 

we have many challenges in both borders. 

The second thing in infrastructure, I think our powers from CBP 

were very kind of saying, yes, you have been very gracious to give 

us $720 million, but all due respect, that is a drop in the bucket. 

That is nothing when you look at it that last year the U.S. land 

ports of entry generation $830 billion with a B. We got $720 million 

with an ‘M’. 

And when we talk to many at the station because it blows my 

mind, and we are not investing that in the infrastructure. And 

when we have to manage expectations, if Congress wants to keep 

up with all of this legislation, then we are going to have to give 

the resources to the officers on the ground. 

The third point is that we cannot forget this is the first time that 

CBP is going to implement 100 percent requirement verification of 

ID. So history has not been on the side of the government. They 

have done a great job during which I think they have been very 

resourceful of going to events and communicating, but the challenge that we are waiting to see and our concern is when June 1st 

comes back, if the system goes down. 

I had a picture that unfortunately I couldn’t show because the 

committee did not allow me or something. But it is when the system went down in Nogales, and it is an IBA system, this is the 

largest system for the commercial site. 

The port was closed for 6 hours, 6 to 8 hours. There were lanes 

of four—a port that is two lanes had four lanes of trucks in line. 

And the system went down. No one could do anything. And no one 

was talking. Well, it is not our problem. 

Finally, someone had to go in the middle, and we are talking 100 

degrees, and we are talking about 60 percent of the lentils—probably that we all enjoy, because we all eat our pods, right—comes 

through Nogales, sitting on the heat. 

So we have to be prepared for those types of things, so we have 

the infrastructure and the resources, the staff resources, to do it. 

And so that would be 5 minutes or less, trying to summarize some 

of the highlights. I think my testimony is submitted, but if there 

is time for any questions, I would like to address some of these 

issues. 

[The statement of Ms. O’Connell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIA LUISA O’CONNELL

Good morning Madam Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder and other 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting the Border 

Trade Alliance (BTA) to participate in this important hearing focused on balancing 

39 

security and travel at our land ports of entry. My name is Maria Luisa O’Connell 

and I serve as the President of the Border Trade Alliance. 

For the past 23 years, the BTA has been involved with all aspects of trade, travel, 

security and commerce in our border communities along the U.S.—Canada and 

U.S.—Mexico borders. 

About Us 

Founded in 1986, the BTA is a tri-national, grassroots, non-profit organization 

that serves as a forum for participants to address key issues affecting trade and economic development in North America. 

Who We 

Are The BTA represents, through our members and sponsors, a network of more 

than 2 million public and private sector representatives, including: business leaders, 

area chambers of commerce and industry, academic institutions, economic development corporations, industrial parks, transport companies, custom brokers, manufacturers, and federal, state, and local government officials and agencies. 

Our Vision 

The BTA’s vision is to be the recognized leader in authority for the facilitation 

of international trade and commerce in the Americas. 

Our Mission 

Our core values include a commitment to improving the quality of life in border 

communities through the development of trade and commerce, and a commitment 

to work as a community-based grassroots organization. 

Madam Chairwoman, in addition to sharing the Border Trade Alliance’s position 

and recommendations on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), my testimony today will also touch upon on several key policy considerations that the Border Trade Alliance urges this committee to keep on hand as you work to oversee 

the work of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in your committee’s refinement of existing federal border security programs, and in the development of 

any future similar initiatives. 

The pending implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) 

on June 1st of this year at U.S. border crossings is likely to have the largest impact 

on the land border crossing experience of any of the secure traveler programs to 

date. While SENTRI, NEXUS, FAST and other programs are voluntary in nature, 

WHTI will become a mandatory requirement for all U.S. citizens traveling within 

North America and the Caribbean. 

The BTA has been integrally involved in all of the various secure traveler programs put forth by Congress and implemented by the federal government. The BTA 

supports efforts to increase security for legitimate trade and travel at both our 

international borders. 

Our border communities, along our shared borders with Canada and Mexico, support diverse international economies that are dependent upon cross-border trade 

and travel. A large percentage of traffic at our borders is repeat, daily crossers who 

account for a significant portion of the sales tax and commercial revenues generated 

in our border communities, and are responsible for conducting the more than $2 billion cross-border trade that occurs at our land ports each and every day. 

The policies and procedures designed to facilitate secure trade and travel at our 

borders have changed dramatically during the past decade. The changes at our borders have not occurred without reasonable concerns about their impact on legitimate 

trade and commerce. Similarly, the incredible growth in trade at our borders has 

not been without its share of growing pains. The infrastructure at our border crossings, for the most part, has not kept up with the increased volume of trade and travel. 

U.S. land ports of entry last year conducted a record $830 billion in cross-border 

trade. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2008, U.S. land border crossings processed 45.7 million pedestrians, more than 10.7 million trucks and more than 107.5 million personal vehicles. 

The pending implementation of WHTI is a serious concern shared by border 

stakeholders throughout North America. 

Therefore, the question posed in the title of this morning’s hearing on WHTI is 

very appropriate. Are we ready? 

Speculation and anecdotal evidence varies from hopeful optimism to fearful pessimism about the prospects of WHTI implementation at land border crossings. 

Truthfully, until June 1st arrives the jury is out on how successful this transition 

will be at our land ports of entry. 

The BTA does wish to recognize DHS and the Department of State’s collaborative 

WHTI team. DHS and DOS have both been very open to working with border stakeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:41 May 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-18\55056.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
40 

holders as they work to implement this very large federal security program, which 

was mandated by Congress several years ago. 

There are two different major questions we need to address regarding our preparedness for the implementation of WHTI at land ports on June 1st of this year. 

This first being the obvious question of is the traveling public aware of and able 

to obtain the necessary documentation, Passports, PASS Cards, enhanced driver’s 

licenses, etc., needed to comply with the June 1st requirement? The second question 

is one that has many border communities and cross-border commercial interests 

concerned. Are we prepared for the May 7, 2009 Written Testimony of Maria Luisa 

O’Connell, President, The Border Trade Alliance Before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism economic consequences of the June 1st implementation? Are we prepared to handle any delays 

that result at our land ports of entry? What impact will WHTI have on tourism generated border crossings? What is the cost impact of compliance with WHTI on crossborder businesses? Families? Communities and local government? 

Secondly, the BTA would like to point out that the implementation of WHTI, as 

is the case with all U.S. border policies and programs, impacts our borders with 

Canada and Mexico uniquely. While BTA members from the U.S. border with Canada report that the necessary technological infrastructure is in place and that DHS, 

DOS and local port authorities have done an excellent job of communicating the upcoming requirements to the traveling public, they also report that WHTI has already had a negative economic impact in terms of reduced crossings by tourists, an 

important source of cross-border economic activity in many U.S.-Canada border communities. 

Along the U.S. border with Mexico, WHTI is a cause for concern as it represents 

yet another potential deterrence for U.S. citizens to visit Mexico for work, to visit 

families or for tourism. Concerns from BTA members along the Southwest U.S. border include the ability of citizens to readily obtain the necessary documentation in 

a timely manner. Several BTA members have reported that it is now necessary to 

travel well into the interior to places such as San Antonio, Texas or Phoenix, Arizona to be able to obtain an appointment to apply for a U.S. Passport or PASS Card 

as facilities at the border, primarily U.S. Post Offices, are unable to handle the 

amount of requests. There are also continued concerns about the public’s awareness 

of WHTI when traveling across the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The BTA would like to expand briefly upon the earlier point regarding the unique 

impact that U.S. federal border policies and security programs have at our shared 

borders with Canada and Mexico. It has become apparent during the past decade 

that all too often during the deliberation and development of U.S. border policy, the 

prevailing mindset in Washington, D.C. is that one-size fits all. While there are 

shared underlying issues along both the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders, such 

as the ongoing need to invest significantly to increase capacity and update infrastructure at our busiest land ports of entry, there are many challenges and complex 

dynamics that are unique to the U.S. border with our NAFTA partners. The BTA 

strongly urges this Committee, Congress and the Administration to not neglect our 

unique bi-lateral relationships with Canada and Mexico along with the individual 

needs and concerns of these bi-lateral relations in pursuit of a one-size fits all, national border policy. 

In anticipation of the upcoming implementation of WHTI the BTA would like to 

raise several additional questions to this committee as well as to DHS and DOS, 

both of which are tasked with managing this newest federal secure traveler program. 

Does the present passport and PASS Card reader technology have sufficient redundancy to ensure minimal delays if there are any issues with this technology? In 

short, what is the backup plan should these readers, our their associated communications network go offline? 

Have DHS and DOS assessed what geographic areas or regions are handling the 

greatest volume of Passport or PASS Card applications and are those areas fully 

able to handle this volume of applications? 

What steps have been taken or are being planned by DOS and DHS to ensure 

that they can quickly dispatch the necessary resources to process Passport and 

PASS card applications in areas of greatest need? 

Have DHS and DOS considered expanding the acceptance of the PASS Card 

under WHTI for air travel within North American and the Caribbean? Do the departments have sufficient flexibility to accommodate this expansion of the PASS 

Card or does it require an act by Congress? 

Are CBP staff adequately trained and do they possess the appropriate resources 

to rapidly process state-issued Enhanced Driver’s Licenses at land ports located outside the state that issued them? 

41 

What are the standard metrics for measuring passenger traffic compliance? Commercial driver compliance? Changes in passenger traffic volume? Changes in commercial traffic volume? Increase in referrals to secondary inspection? Changes in 

processing/crossing times as a result of WHTI implementation? 

These are a few of the questions that BTA members have continued to ask in advance of the June 1st deadline for implementing WHTI. 

Much of what the BTA advocated for early and often during the development of 

WHTI has come to fruition: the development of a low-cost, wallet sized alternative 

passport document or PASS Card; the timely installation of tested technology at all 

U.S. border crossings; the acceptance of other federal security documents such as 

NEXUS, SENTRI or FAST cards under WHTI; and the sustained public education 

efforts by DHS and DOS. 

The BTA is appreciative that Congress, including many of those present today at 

this hearing, took stock in the early recommendations made by border stakeholders 

to ensure that WHTI could be as successful as possible on day one. As that date 

rapidly approaches the BTA urges this Committee, Congress, DHS, and DOS to ensure that WHTI is a success beyond June 1st and that it not only serves as a benefit 

to our improved security but that it also enhances the efficiency of processing the 

millions of travelers who cross annually at our land ports of entry. 

We must remind ourselves that 100 percent verification of federally issued travel 

documents for U.S. citizens at our land ports of entry is a new responsibility for U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP must continue to be given the adequate 

resources to be able to staff the new workload created by WHTI. 

Further, Congress needs to do more to address the decades old, backlog of 

infrastructural investments needed at U.S. land ports of entry, the majority of 

which were designed without anticipation of the vast federal security operations 

now present at all U.S. border crossings. The $720 million included for land port 

infrastructure upgrades as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

was a very appreciated step forward. However, with the exception of the Mariposa, 

Arizona and San Ysidro, California ports of entry, the majority of projects funded 

by CBP and the General Services Administration using these stimulus dollars were 

for small land ports of entry with low crossing volumes. If we are to ensure for the 

success of WHTI and our ability to generate more national economic activity 

through trade, we need to reinvest more than 8/10ths of a percent of the economic 

activity generated by our land ports toward enhancing trade and travel facilitation. 

Congress needs to ensure that what is funded provides the biggest return for the 

taxpayers’ dollars in terms of increased economic activity. 

In closing, I would like to share several of the BTA’s key policy points for Congress and the Administration to consider in regard to federal border policy development and delivery: 

Successful border security efforts require the utilization of risk-based assessments 

based upon real-time intelligence to direct the most efficient allocation of scarce federal resources in order to attain the greatest security benefit. 

The Department of Homeland Security should assume the leadership role among 

federal agencies in conducting a performance and utility assessment of the multiple 

layers of federal security programs and policies that currently govern legitimate 

trade and travel along the U.S. shared borders with Canada and Mexico. 

DHS, in conjunction with its federal agency partners, needs to collaborate to expedite the approval process for the prioritization, selection and funding of land border 

infrastructure projects that improve the facilitation of cross-border trade and travel. 

Congress should ensure that scarce federal dollars are committed toward programs, policies, and projects that result in the greatest benefit in terms of economic 

and physical security. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chair and Ranking Member along with 

all the Members of this Committee for its focus on the need to achieve a balance 

between security and facilitation of legitimate travel at our borders. The BTA offers 

its assistance to you in working to identify solutions to these important border 

issues. 

The Border Trade Alliance is honored to participate in this hearing and it will 

be my pleasure to address any questions you may have. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Ms. O’Connell. Thank you for your testimony. 

And I will now recognize Mr. Amador to summarize his statement in 5 minutes or less, please. 

42 

STATEMENT OF ANGELO AMADOR, DIRECTOR OF 

IMMIGRATION POLICY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. AMADOR. Will do. A lot of the things have already been said, 

you know, the question as to what is plan B? You know, what are 

they going to do when they face these kinds of problems. 

And also it is how do we measure wait time. You know that is 

a big problem, because WHTI is not being implemented in a vacuum, and we need—they talk about the delays, they talk about the 

lack of sufficient officers, you know. 

And I will mention two bills that we are supporting, the Ports 

Act that we ask that if you can co-sponsor, that will be great. And 

it would provide 5,000 additional CBP officers. We don’t think 65 

is enough, and most of that is talking about, you know, inspecting 

for weapons and other things, not to facilitate travel. 

It also provides—and the bill number is 1,555—it also provides 

for 350 additional support personnel and 1,200 specialists at CBP. 

And it authorizes $5 billion with a B, because that is what all the 

studies say that they need to address infrastructure. 

Now, when they measure what success—you know, if they went 

and said tomorrow 100 percent of the people crossing the border 

are coming in with WHTI documentation—I will ask the question, 

what happened to the other 20 percent, because we already know 

that travel has decreased. 

I have family in Buffalo. I have families in Syracuse. They have 

a level of expertise, being professional engineers—and they stop to 

going to Niagara, as they used to do with their families, just for 

lunch or just to see the falls, because they thought the passport requirement was in place. 

And I told them, well, actually, you don’t need it for your kids 

and actually could get a license. Now they are all waiting for renewal of the license to do that, but you know the question of who 

is showing up and who is not showing up is actually for us also 

more important. 

That is why we are also supporting the Travel Promotion Act, 

which passed the House last year, which would provide a publicprivate outreach campaign, you know, for these new policies, and 

also to show the good side of the United States so that people 

abroad, especially in the borders, would not only hear about security, but also hear about all the other things. 

They have done a better job at public relations, why the office 

of public relations at CBP has a toolkit out. We have been working 

with them. Last year they thought that the best PR campaign 

watches the negative publicity in the newspaper. We disagree with 

that, but there is still changes. 

One, we need flexibility in June. We are not asking for a delay, 

but they need to be flexible. They need to try to expand the exceptions—for example, the under age 16. 

They acknowledge that at 16 is when you can get an adult passport and a license, but you know we need the exception to apply 

for kids that are 16 years old, because unlike, you know, the wishes 

of many teenagers, you don’t get your license when you wake up 

on the day of your 16th birthday. 

There are other extensions, and there are things that can be 

done again through regulation. They don’t even need legislation. 

43 

1The NACC has offered recommendations to the three governments, both within and building 

upon the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (‘‘SPP’’), to enhance the secure 

flow of people, goods and services in North America, please see ‘‘Meeting the Global Challenge: 

Continued 

For example, if they have a passport card that is good for travel 

across the land borders, it should be good for air travel as well. We 

don’t understand why that requirement is not so, except for, you 

know, would foreign requirement work in the part of the agents, 

but it will facilitate travel. 

You know, if you drive to Canada, then an emergency comes up, 

you should be able to fly with the same identification, and also because we hear from people on both borders that is easier to carry 

the passport card. 

I am sure that a lot of us, or all of us, maybe have a passport, 

but we don’t carry it with us. If you have a passport card in your 

wallet, you would be able to travel to emergencies. 

I just for me offices, when you talk to people in the southern and 

northern border, they tell you, you know, they will go across to, you 

know, Laredo or across Niagara, you know, just for lunch, and they 

usually leave their passports at home. 

So we need to do a better job of disseminating, because we want 

to make sure that, you know, 50 million is a lot of crosses, and we 

want to make sure that these people, the reaction is not, well, let 

us just not go. 

With that, I will stop, and I am happy to take your questions. 

However, I would also point out that—thank you, staff, this is some 

of the best staff that I have worked with. I wish the staff on the 

Judiciary Committee was as good as this one, particularly Mandy 

Bowers, I believe, has asked any questions that you may ask, and 

Patricia Savale, somebody I have worked with for years, so—you 

know, they usually go thankless, so I just want to take this opportunity to do that as well. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Amador follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANGELO I. AMADOR

Indroduction 

Thank you Chairwoman Sanchez, and members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present today on the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel 

Initiative (‘‘WHTI’’). In addition, I would also like to thank all of you who voted in 

favor of key amendments in 2006 and 2007 to help guarantee that WHTI is implemented properly and efficiently. The Chamber urges you to continue your excellent 

oversight of this important program. 

I am here today in two capacities, as Director of Immigration Policy for the 

United States Chamber of Commerce (‘‘Chamber’’), and as Executive Director of the 

Americans for Better Borders Coalition (‘‘ABB’’). The Chamber is the world’s largest 

business federation, representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region. ABB is a coalition that unites regional business organizations and a wide array of companies and national trade associations 

working to ensure the efficient flow of tourism and goods across our borders while 

addressing national security concerns. 

Also, the Chamber serves jointly with the Council of the Americas as the Secretariat of the U.S. Section of the North American Competitiveness Council (‘‘NACC’’), 

a trilateral advisory group of business leaders from Canada, Mexico, and the United 

States. The NACC was formed in 2006 to provide a voice for the private sector and 

engage them as partners in enhancing North America’s competitive position in global markets, promoting increased employment, and fostering a higher standard of living.1

44 

2008 Report to Leaders from the North American Competitiveness Council’’ http:// 

www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/0804lgloballchallenge.htm. 2For a detailed discussion of other border issues, please see ‘‘Finding the Balance: Reducing 

Border Costs While Strengthening Security.’’ U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Chamber of Commerce, February 2008, http://www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/ 

0802lfindinglbalance.htm. 3 U.S. Department of State. 2008. ‘‘Background Note: Canada’’. 

4For a full discussion of the substantial economic gains to the three countries from NAFTA, 

please see ‘‘The Economic Benefits of NAFTA’’ from the Canadian-American Business Council, 

April 2008. 

These comments reflect the information and concerns expressed to date by our 

members on the implementation of WHTI. To be clear, the Chamber is committed 

to continue working with Congress and the Departments of Homeland Security and 

State to successfully and efficiently implement WHTI. The efficient movement of 

people, goods and services and a secure border are not mutually exclusive or competing objectives. In fact, ‘‘the primary mission’’ of the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’) includes ‘‘ensur[ing] that the overall economic security of the United 

States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the 

homeland.’’ 

Like you, the Chamber strongly supports strengthening the security of our nation. 

The Chamber continues to support a multi-layered, risk-based, approach to enhance 

security at all of our ports of entry, while at the same time facilitating trade and 

transportation of both products and people. The Chamber would also like to see increased cooperation between the United States and its neighbors to secure our 

homeland. A unilateral approach alienates our neighbors and has a negative impact 

on both security and the economy. 

Considering the economics of this debate, we must understand that cross border 

mobility is a critical component to most of our member businesses as well as the 

overall economic stability of the U.S. The economic downturn is having a dramatic 

impact on the movement of goods and people across our borders. 

Due to the downturn, we are seeing a large decrease in all types of crossings, yet 

at the same time the average inspection time has increased. Over the next year or 

so, as our economies begin to recover, the structural problems at the border will reemerge in the form of unacceptable border delays. We must be prepared for this resurgence of demand. It is important to remember the summer of 2007, which saw 

the longest delays since 2001 for U.S. bound traffic. 

It is important to note that WHTI is not being implemented in a vacuum. The 

difficulties and confusion that arise from new regulations have a profound impact 

on our economic security. Inefficiencies at the border threaten our global competitive 

advantage, and WHTI places further pressure on our eroding infrastructure, which 

will harm legitimate commerce, trade and tourism.2

Increased delays at the border due to poor WHTI implementation would not only 

affect border communities and last minute travelers, but would also impact the entire North American economy by slowing down commerce. Seamless WHTI implementation could still harm our economy if it leads to diminished travel and tourism. 

The northern border is the site of our largest bilateral trading relationship in the 

world, with U.S.$1.6 billion 3 in two-way trade and 300,000 travelers crossing the 

border on a daily basis. Major benefits flow from this relationship, including 7.1 million jobs in the United States and 3 million jobs in Canada. 

Congress and the Administration deserve credit for many positive changes to 

WHTI, since it was first announced, and I will discuss those in my statement together with the Chamber’s recommendations for improvement in the context of the 

final rule published on April 3, 2008. However, before discussing WHTI, I would like 

to take this opportunity to address certain border issues and make several recommendations to facilitate legitimate trade and travel across our land borders. Focusing solely on implementing WHTI efficiently without a holistic approach to other 

border issues will not lead to an efficient and secure border. 

Existing Delays at the Borders 

The Chamber is concerned that the U.S.-Mexico and the U.S.-Canada border 

crossings are increasingly becoming a competitive disadvantage when compared to 

the rest of the world. The Chamber is troubled that security concerns are not being 

balanced with economic interests in the border management decision making process. Thanks to both the North American Free Trade Agreement (‘‘NAFTA’’) and the 

closely connected economies of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, the North American 

supply chain for many companies is tightly integrated.4

While Europe moves towards a more integrated border environment, the United 

States is unilaterally moving towards a system that is threatening the competitive 

45 

5The Secure Borders Open Doors Advisory Committee (‘‘SBODAC’’) to the Departments of 

Homeland Security and State issued a report which recommended that metrics should take a 

more prominent role in both departments’ operations. ‘‘Report of the Secure Borders Open Doors 

Advisory Committee,’’ January 2008 (Pages 35, 38–42) http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ 

hsaclSBODACreport508-compliantlversion2.pdf. Perhaps this Committee will consider proposing the creation of a private sector advisory board to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made in the SBODAC report and new recommendations as we move forward. 

advantages we gained through NAFTA. For companies that rely on just-in-time delivery and an integrated supply chain, the impact of border delays, fees and stringent security procedures are magnified as their products are required to clear customs multiple times in the manufacturing process—creating a competitive disadvantage. 

In the already struggling automotive industry, parts cross from Canada and Mexico multiple times, heading to plants throughout the United States, whether it is 

to a long-existing assembly plant in Detroit, Michigan, or a newer one in San Antonio, Texas. In the food industry, a vegetable grown in the United States may find 

its way into a product that is processed just across the border in Canada or Mexico 

and then shipped back to the United States. 

Thus, delays at U.S. ports of entry not only harm Canadian and Mexican processors—it backs up the entire supply chain, affecting our own farmers, car manufacturers and numerous other sectors of our economy. In addition, delays at U.S. ports 

have also resulted in trucking companies significantly raising prices to ship products 

and/or companies in the U.S. opening storage facilities to keep inventory. These increased costs are multiplied and passed down to the American consumer in the form 

of higher prices for goods and services. Further, there is an impact to the local environment, as commercial and pedestrian crossing vehicles sit for hours in delayed 

traffic burning fuel and emitting fumes. 

a. Measuring Border Wait Times 

WHTI is still weeks away from full implementation and already we are seeing 

wait times at the border increasing. To address this issue, DHS should become more 

engaged with its counterparts in Canada and Mexico, as well as industry representatives, to reach an agreement on proper measurements for border wait times. Data 

from the private sector on border wait times vary widely when compared to the data 

kept by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). 

The private sector data shows much longer wait times than CBP data—particularly for the most extensive delays. The difference is associated with the fact that 

CBP calculations customarily only includes time spent in the primary inspection 

lane, while ignoring time spent on backed-up roads approaching the primary inspection lane or time spent on secondary inspections. These measuring discrepancies 

need to be addressed, so the severity of delays and their causes can properly be assessed.5

Congress should appropriate funding for the development of an automated border 

wait time tracking system. Providing an accurate, independent and universal method of measuring border wait times is essential to the creation of staffing models, 

the proper allocation of resources, and to improve security while facilitating trade. 

Last year, CBP implemented a system called Automated Wait Time Data at all of 

its major airports. The Chamber applauds this effort and recommends that CBP 

takes similar steps on our land ports of entry. A truly objective system will provide 

CBP with the knowledge needed to effectively manage the border. 

b. Travel Promotion Act 

In a post 9/11 world the buildup of certain regulation and security procedures 

have signaled to the international community that the U.S. is closed for business, 

particularly for tourism and business conferences. During this time of great international economic crisis it is imperative that we do not create barriers to conducting 

business and visiting the U.S. for legitimate purposes. On a daily basis, the international media attacks the U.S. for not appropriately balancing security and efficiency. Tourists often feel unjustly interrogated. Businesses would rather export two 

hundred employees from the U.S. for a conference, rather than have the fifty employees from overseas go through the arduous process of crossing into the U.S. 

These perceptions have a profound impact on tourism, conferences, business and 

consequently our economy as a whole. 

For this reason, we believe it is imperative for Congress to enact the ‘‘Travel Promotion Act,’’ which the House passed last year in a bipartisan effort. The United 

States has some of the greatest natural treasures in the world. However, changes 

in regulation and process have lead to confusion and downright resistance of the 

international community from visiting. 

46 

Legitimate travelers should feel welcome in the United States, and we need a program to ensure that occurs. This is difficult to do when there is lack of transparency 

concerning implementation plans and almost no concerted outreach to the traveling 

public regarding upcoming changes in requirements for border crossings. The Travel 

Promotion Act would address several of these issues by establishing a well-funded 

public-private outreach campaign to improve the efficient dissemination of new U.S. 

entry and exit policies. 

c. Fully Staffing CBP and Upgrading the Infrastructure 

Currently, inadequate staffing, reduced or changing hours of service, mandates for 

secondary inspection of some products, new fees, and outdated infrastructure at our 

land ports of entry are leading to long delays with a significant economic impact 

on businesses, without increasing security. 

We should reconsider some of the new fees and inspections that have been imposed, increase funding for CBP to guarantee adequate staffing and extended hours 

of service, and upgrade our technology and infrastructure, so CBP officers can more 

efficiently monitor the flow of people and commerce. The ‘‘Putting Our Resources Towards Security’’ Act (‘‘PORTS Act’’ H.R. 1655) was introduced by Representative 

Silvestre Reyes, and is a step in the right direction. The Chamber encourages members of this Subcommittee to consider cosponsoring this legislation. 

The PORTS Act would: • provide for 5,000 additional CBP officers, allowing for an increase in total 

officers by approximately 30 percent over five years; 

• provide for 350 additional support personnel and 1,200 agriculture specialists at CBP, which will help ensure officers will not be pulled away from 

inspection duties to perform specialized or administrative work; 

• authorize $5 billion over five years for the General Services Administration (GSA) to address infrastructure deficiencies at our land ports of entry. 

GSA and CBP will be required to work together to prioritize repair work. 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

Implementing WHTI without addressing the existing border delays and the additional pressures that WHTI imposes fail to address the economic costs and security 

risks associated with having long lines of trucks idling at the busiest ports of entry. 

Many improvements have already been accomplished, but there is work to be done. 

a. Implementation Timeline 

The Chamber continues to reiterate the need for rational and measured implementation of new border crossing requirements. President Bush and Congress 

agreed that securing our nation’s borders is something that needs to be done correctly—rather than expeditiously—to avoid unnecessarily harming our economy. On 

January 4, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2008 (H.R. 2764) into law, which provided the Administration at least until 

June 1, 2009, to develop alternatives to a passport for use in land and sea ports 

of entry. 

Great progress has already been made in developing enhanced driver’s licenses 

(‘‘EDLs’’) to be acceptable at land and sea ports of entry. Furthermore, DHS and 

the Department of State (‘‘DOS’’) unveiled a federally issued, wallet-sized, lower-cost 

alternative to a U.S. passport, the U.S. passport card. In addition, Canadian provinces have also started issuing EDLs. 

On Tuesday of this week, Ontario announced that it will begin issuing EDLs. This 

is significant because almost 35 million passenger cars cross the Ontario/U.S. border 

each year. 

The Chamber does not believe further delay of WHTI implementation is necessary, but it would like to see improvements in the program. The Chamber also 

urges DHS to practice flexibility, particularly during the initial period of full implementation. 

b. Education/Marketing Campaign 

Congress and the Administration acknowledged when granting the 18-month extension that for WHTI to be successful, with minimum economic disruption, it required an aggressive campaign to educate the general public. Regrettably, last year 

DHS testified that its best education/marketing tool on WHTI was all the negative 

publicity it was getting in the media—ignoring the economic consequences of making the U.S. a less desirable destination. 

On a positive note, this year, the Office of Public Affairs at CBP has been more 

active in getting the information out by seeking to work collaboratively with stakeholders. It has created a more useful tool kit, which includes an easy to use Web 

page, which links directly from the stakeholders’ site. The Chamber is already making use of the tool kit to let its members know of the new changes. 

47 

Getting here has not been easy. The implementation of WHTI created a great deal 

of confusion for many travelers and businesses. While it appears that border crossers are aware of the upcoming deadline, confusion remains with regard to the actual 

requirements. For example, many families believe that all children need a passport 

even when traveling with their parents and, thus, many would be visitors are abandoning travel plans that require crossing the border. 

Once again, the Chamber believes that enactment of the Travel Promotion Act 

would help prevent similar issues from occurring in the future. The 2010 Olympics 

are to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, and implementing this important 

legislation would be a critical step to ensure successful travel throughout these 

Olympics. 

Due to the overwhelming popularity, media exposure, and close proximity of the 

games, it would be a wasted opportunity to fail to capitalize on the Olympics being 

held, literally, next door to the U.S. 

c. Cost Analysis 

The analysis done by DHS concentrates on travel and tourism and does not address the larger concerns of the business community, which include the impact on 

commerce in general. DHS has said that it will not conduct a more robust economic 

analysis. However, there is a study underway at the Government Accountability Office (‘‘GAO’’). 

As stated, the primary mission of DHS includes ensuring that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland. Thus, DHS should look into the GAO report, or conduct a new more comprehensive economic impact analysis of its own, and 

determine what changes in WHTI implementation could be made to alleviate any 

negative economic impact. 

d. Pilot Programs 

In the future, before pushing for full implementation of changes in travel requirements, pilot programs need to be performed to assess the potential impact on crossborder commerce, thus, making sure full implementation does not negatively affect 

our economy and security. A minor pilot test of WHTI at a 65% review rate in the 

port of entry of El Paso caused major delays, but, without Congressional intervention, DHS attempted to move ahead without proper preparation. 

Every attempt must be made to avoid the chaos, long lines, and 12-week paperwork backlogs that were created in 2006 with the hurried implementation of the 

WHTI air rules. Again, the problem then was exacerbated by an infrastructure that 

was not in place and by the lack of an efficient public-awareness campaign. 

Despite the business community’s warnings, the government was not prepared for 

the changes it made in policy. Pilot programs help address concerns before the damage is done. Specifically, for land ports of entry, pilot programs need to address infrastructure and staffing requirements with an emphasis on future plans for full implementation and technological requirements. The test results must be transparent 

with recommendations to ensure operational success in the future. 

e. U.S. Citizen Cruise Ship Passengers 

The Chamber is pleased that DHS and DOS, in the final rule, recognized the difference in demographics between the international airline traveler and those traveling in an uninterrupted-loop cruise originating in the U.S. While international airline travelers generally have a high level of passport ownership, the ratio of passport ownership for sea cruise travelers is closer to the U.S. population at large, 

which is significantly lower, especially for those travelers taking short (two to five 

days) Caribbean cruises. 

This industry would have suffered economic harm—without any apparent improvement in security—had the change not been made between the proposed rule 

and the final rule. The Chamber supports the alternative document requirements 

in the final rule for U.S. citizens departing and reentering U.S. territory on board 

the same cruise ship. 

f. Travel by Children Under Age 16 

Since 2005, when WHTI was first announced, the Chamber has been calling for 

flexibility in the document requirements for children. Children in both the United 

States and Canada have the lowest passport ownership rate of any demographic 

group. The implications of improper implementation in this area are broad, and include legitimate travel by families with children, children on school day trips, and 

children participating in cross-border sport activities. 

The Chamber strongly supports the alternative document requirements created 

for U.S. and Canadian citizen children under the age of 16. However, the Chamber 

48 

continues to recommend that the alternative be applied to children ‘‘Age 16 and 

Under,’’ and not as currently stated in the final rule as children ‘‘Under Age 16.’’ 

DHS and DOS recognize, that ‘‘it is difficult for the majority of children under 

16 to obtain a form of government-issued photo identification’’ and also ‘‘age 16 is 

the age that DOS begins to issue adult passports, valid for 10 years, instead of 5 

years for children.’’ However, given that neither government-issued photo identifications nor adult passports arrive automatically in the mail on a child’s 16th birthday, 

allowing children age 16 to travel under the alternative procedure would give them 

the time needed to apply for the appropriate documentation. 

g. Travel by Groups of Children Under Age 19 

The Chamber successfully called for language found in Section 546 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, requiring the certification 

by DHS and DOS that an alternative procedure for groups of children be created. 

The Chamber supports the alternative procedure found in the final rule for ‘‘Children Under Age 19’’ traveling as part of school groups, religious groups, social or 

cultural organizations, or teams associated with youth sport organizations. However, 

this alternative procedure should be applicable to groups traveling by air, not just 

those arriving at U.S. sea or land ports of entry. 

The language found in Section 546 clearly calls for an alternative procedure to 

be developed for groups of children traveling across ‘‘an international border.’’ Section 546 makes clear distinctions when the requirements are to apply only to land 

and sea ports of entry. While the statute clearly calls for availability of the passport 

card only for use at land and sea ports of entry before final WHTI implementation, 

it also clearly calls for an alternative procedure ‘‘for groups of children traveling 

across an international border’’ with no restriction based on the ports of entry type. 

h. Outer Continental Shelf Employees 

Chamber member companies received differing and conflicting information with 

regard to document requirements for workers aboard Mobile Offshore Drilling Units 

(‘‘MODUs’’) attached to the United States Outer Continental Shelf (‘‘OCS’’) traveling 

from the U.S. to and from MODUs. The Chamber sought the clarification and standardization of the procedures that now appear in the final rule. 

Thus, the Chamber supports the more official clarification contained in the final 

rule, which plainly states that the WHTI requirements do not apply when traveling 

from the U.S. to and from MODUs in the OCS. Once again, had WHTI been applied 

to these group of workers, it would have negatively impacted this industry without 

any security benefit. 

i. Individual Cases of Passport Waivers 

The Chamber has been calling for passport waivers to be provided in cases of 

emergencies, such as ‘‘volunteers responding to fires and emergencies across the border (an everyday occurrence).’’ The Chamber strongly supports the description in the 

final rule of the possible waivers to be granted in a case-by-case basis. Also, the explicit acknowledgement that CBP has the authority to temporarily admit non-immigrant aliens into the United States on a temporary basis in case of a medical or 

other emergency is welcomed. 

The Chamber believes that CBP should proactively confer with local emergency 

responders in border areas to help facilitate entry procedures into the United States 

when emergencies occur. Of particular importance are groups such as fire fighters 

that respond to cross-border calls, emergency workers that would respond in a natural disaster, Medivac personnel, and others that deal with emergencies where even 

a few minutes could make the difference between life and death. 

j. Passport Card 

The new passport card, also known as the PASS card, is a wallet-sized alternative 

to a U.S. passport designed to facilitate efficient and secure cross-border travel at 

land and sea ports of entry under WHTI. The Chamber advocated for the development of this alternative and continues to urge the U.S. government to make it truly 

economical to obtain and acceptable at all ports of entry, including air. For it to be 

a true substitute to a U.S. passport under WHTI, the passport card should be accepted at air ports of entry as well as the proposed land and sea ports of entry. 

Also, the application fee at first blush seems reasonable, $20 for adults and $10 

for minors (under age 16). However, applicants applying in person have to pay an 

additional ‘‘execution fee’’ of $25. Many applicants are required to apply in person 

and are, thus, subject to this fee, for example, first time adult passport applicants, 

all minors, adults holding expired passports issued more than 15 years previously 

or when the bearer was a minor, and those applying for replacement passports that 

have been lost, stolen, or mutilated. 

49 

6 Also see ‘‘Finding the Balance: Reducing Border Costs While Strengthening Security,’’ February 2008 (page 18), http://www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/ 

0802lfindinglbalance.htm. 

In addition, there is currently a fee of about $15 for pictures taken at the government application center. Thus, what starts as a $20 alternative to the $115 passport 

($75 application fee, $25 execution fee, and $15 picture fee) becomes a $60 alternative ($20 application fee, $25 USD-execution fee, and $15 picture fee). These costs 

do not take into consideration expediting fees, given the time frame for production 

of a passport card is no shorter than for a passport.6

The cost of the passport card should be $20 for adults and $10 for minors, regardless of whether it is a renewal or original application, if it is truly to be an economical substitute to a passport. It should also not be burdened with the same additional 

‘‘fees’’ and ‘‘charges’’ already imposed on passport applications, e.g., there should be 

no execution or picture fee. Furthermore, special discounts should be made available 

to families applying for several cards at a time. The Chamber understands that the 

$25 execution fee is paid to the Post Office or county clerk who acts as the acceptance agent for the U.S. passport or passport card paperwork. 

One approach to avoid the execution fee would be to have CBP deploy staff to 

high demand areas to accept and verify identity documents and applications. This 

would be particularly helpful in border communities. CBP occasionally deploys officers to businesses to accept and process applications for trusted traveler cards, such 

as NEXUS, via what they call mobile enrollment teams. Finally, the time frame for 

production of a passport card should be significantly shorter than for a passport, increasing its appeal and eliminating the need to increase its cost even further with 

expediting fees. 

k. Enhanced Drivers’ Licenses 

The Chamber supports the decision by DHS and DOS to officially announce that 

documentation such as the Border Crossing Card (‘‘BCC’’), the Secure Electronic 

Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (‘‘SENTRI’’) card, NEXUS card, and the 

Free and Secure Trade (‘‘FAST’’) card will become acceptable substitutes for a passport. 

However, as the Chamber has stated since 2005, these documents still require a 

special discretionary form of identification solely for border crossing purposes and, 

in the case of NEXUS, SENTRI and FAST, are significantly more difficult to obtain 

than a passport. Thus, the Chamber continues to call for the acceptance of 

a ‘‘document that is as close to being non-discretionary as possible,’’ in particular, enhanced driver licenses. 

The Chamber applauds the departments’ continued commitment ‘‘to considering 

travel documents developed by the various U.S. States and the Governments of Canada and Mexico,’’ particularly since they can be issued by a ‘‘State, tribe, band, province, territory, or foreign government if developed in accordance with pilot program 

agreements.’’ 

Following in the footsteps of the state of Washington, the states of Vermont, New 

York, and Arizona have signed such an agreement with DHS to create EDLs that 

will be WHTI compliant. In Canada, the provinces of British Colombia and Ontario 

have also begun issuing EDLs to its residents. 

The Chamber looks forward to more states, provinces, and territories joining in. 

DHS and DOS should continue to work on expanding these WHTI compliant driver 

licenses and state identifications for land and sea border crossings. The Chamber 

is concerned that currently there is not a critical mass of WHTI-compliant EDLs in 

circulation. This could result in many tourists and business people avoiding crossborder travel. 

EDLs denote identity and citizenship, while containing vicinity radio frequency 

identification (RFID) technology and other security features. They hold significant 

potential to serve as a less expensive and more practical form of documentation 

than a passport. EDLs are vital to ensuring WHTI is smoothly implemented and 

the security needs of North America are met without impeding the movement of 

people, goods, and services across the border. 

However, as with the passport card one of the limitations of the EDLs is its acceptance only for land and sea border crossings and not air crossings. Hence, an 

EDL would be useless for a person who might, cross the border by automobile, but 

needs to return by air. A broader, more universal acceptance of the EDLs is 

50 

7The U.S. Chamber of Commerce along with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce released 

a report which emphasized the importance of EDLs and recommended that there is a need for 

rapid deployment, a broad communications plan, as well as that EDLs should be accessible for 

air travel. ‘‘Finding the Balance: Reducing Border Costs While Strengthening Security,’’ February 2008 (page 17), http://www.uschamber.com/publications/reports/ 

0802lfindinglbalance.htm. 8 Canadian-American Business Council, ‘‘The Economic Benefits of NAFTA,’’ April 2008. 

needed to facilitate travel in all modes of transportation within the WHTI 

area.7

Conclusion 

In the final rule, DHS stated that it intended to fully implement WHTI on June 

1, 2009, the earliest possible date, because it considered it in the best interest of 

national security—with no mention of economic security. The Chamber believes 

that more emphasis needs to be placed on doing it right versus doing it 

fast. The Chamber continues to ask DHS to recognize the need to advance the dual 

objectives of enhancing security and improving economic prosperity, which are mutually reinforcing. 

Border management policy has a tremendous economic impact not just on border 

communities or the travel and tourism sector, but on our economy at large. North 

America has the largest trading relationship in the world and it all relies on the 

efficient movement of goods, services and people across our northern and southern 

borders.8 For America’s economy to grow and remain competitive in the global market, we need to address the deteriorating problems at our borders and ensure that 

programs like WHTI do not exacerbate the problems we are trying to fix. 

The Chamber greatly appreciates the excellent relationship we have developed 

with this Committee and we hope to continue and expand that relationship in the 

future. I wish to thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce and our broad membership concerned with WHTI and efficient border management. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GREEN. [Presiding.] Thank you. The chair expresses her regret. She had to step away momentarily. 

We will now recognize the gentle lady from Texas for 5 minutes, 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chair very much, and I hope 

I will make a strong effort to be brief. My opening remarks will 

simply be that I think this program requires our study of assessment. I think all of us can recall when we were inundated by constituents, who were in line trying to get passports when this was 

first coming in. 

Let me just quickly ask—and I look forward to working with the 

witnesses and working with the chair to help make this better and 

ensure that there is an outreach by the government. 

Ms. O’Connell and Mr. Amador, just give me one fix that would 

improve this program. 

And as you do that, I will conclude by saying, as a member of 

the House Judiciary Committee—I don’t know if you are talking 

about the House or Senate—I know the members work very hard 

and consider ourselves very competent. We will certainly try to 

work on what I think is a competent staff, but we want to make 

sure that they work with you. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, CHAIRWOMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

Mr. Chairman, I thank all of the individuals testifying today. this hearing will examine the implementation of the Western Hemisphere travel initiative at land and 

sea ports. I welcome today’s witnesses and I look forward to hearing their insight 

on the implementation of the programs. 

Prior to 2007, little or no documentation was required to enter the United States 

from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or the Caribbean. In December 2004, with the 9/ 

11 Commission recommending tighter borders to help prevent another terrorist atVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:41 May 04, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-18\55056.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
51 

tack, Congress passed the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which 

would eventually require passports for anyone entering the United States. 

After the January 2007 implementation of phase I of the new passport regulations 

(requiring passports when entering by air), the Department of State was deluged 

with passport applications. The time necessary to get a passport expanded form the 

typical four to six weeks to several months, ruining many Americans’ travel plans. 

On January 31, 2008, another change occurred. Government-issued proof of identity and citizenship documents are required to enter the United States from Canada, 

Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean, according to the Department of Homeland Security. People under the age of 18, however, will be required to present only proof 

of citizenship, such as a birth certificate. 

Phase II adds to the existing requirements that travelers have passports for all 

land and sea crossings, U.S. or Canadian children under the age of 16, however, will 

be allowed to present an original or copy of their birth certificate or other proof of 

citizenship. Groups of U.S. or Canadian children under the age of 19, when traveling in church or school groups, social groups, or sports teams, and when entering 

under adult supervision, also can present birth certificates or other proof of citizenship, rather than a passport. Phase II will be implemented on June 1, 2009. 

This hearing will examine how effective implementation has been. Again, I welcome the panelists today and I look forward to their insightful testimony. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Ms. O’Connell? 

Ms. O’CONNELL. Yes, ma’am. I think the one fix that what is 

needed in addressing your question is we need resources. We need 

the staff and the infrastructure. It is a huge challenge. 

Just to give you a picture, you have the port of entry. You have 

an officer that is sitting there and in 30 seconds or less has to 

make a decision— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. 

Ms. O’CONNELL. Move forward. And yet they only open maybe 70 

or 60 percent of the booths. I am giving you an example on the 

U.S.–Mexico side. They don’t have enough staff to open all the 

booths. They have to be trained to these new programs, so they 

need more staff resources. They can also—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And training. And I have been there, so I am 

very familiar with how that is. 

Ms. O’CONNELL. Yes, that is—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. O’CONNELL. The training, because that is very important 

and, well, there are stories about that. 

But then the infrastructure side. When you have two main 

bridge, and you have the Mexico, the SENTI program, but you 

don’t have more lanes that you cannot open more, because they are 

not resurfaced, then that is a challenge. 

And my biggest concern on that, Madam Representative, is the 

power from the Congress. You give speeches, and you provide us, 

and you want the economy to work. And here are some of the cash 

registers of the country, and yet you only give us $720 million out 

of $835 billion that are generated. I cannot emphasize that more 

enough. 

So if one thing to remember, I guess, from this is more resources 

that they can have—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Mr. Amador? 

Mr. AMADOR. I will just say that, by the way, Nora Rappaport 

is still a good friend of mine, and the staff on that committee, Judiciary and Immigration, is very competent. However, they don’t 

seem to work in a bipartisan fashion as well as this committee, and 

52 

I wish the Immigration staff committee in particular would be 

more bipartisan in looking for fixes. 

The number one suggestion I would have is really making the 

passport card affordable and make it really a true substitute for 

travel—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. 

Mr. AMADOR. —on the land borders. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you. And I know that all the 

fixes that you have indicated will be looked upon. And certainly, 

try the immigration subcommittee again. And sure they will work 

with you. 

I yield back. I thank the gentleman for his kindness. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

And witnesses, we thank you for appearing. There may be additional questions. The record will be open. We ask that members of 

additional questions will respond expeditiously, and that you respond to the questions expeditiously. 

Again, thank you. You are excused. And hopefully we are, too. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(53) 

For the Record 

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM

RESPONSES FROM DR. RICHARD BARTH

Question 1.: June 1 signaled the start of WHTI implementation at land and sea 

ports of entry. 

What data are you collecting from the field to monitor WHTI compliance, 

wait times, and enforcement actions? 

What are the results to date? 

Response: The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) Program Management Office (PMO) stood up the WHTI Operations Center (WOC) to act as the liaison and support center for the field. On June 1, 2009, the WOC held conference calls 

with the field every four hours and once daily from June 2 and beyond. The conference calls provided an opportunity for the field to report the impacts of the WHTI 

implementation, to include wait times and enforcement actions. The WHTI PMO 

also tracked WHTI compliance and reported out to the field on compliance levels 

observed. 

The WHTI PMO continues to monitor and report various metrics regarding the 

WHTI implementation, to include the following on a national scale and broken down 

by northern and southern borders: 

• Compliance Rates 

• Peak and Average Wait Times 

• Enforcement Actions 

As of June 22, 2009: 

• The national compliance rate was 94.6%; the average since 6/1/2009 was 

94.7%. 

• The northern border compliance rate was 97.8%; the average since 6/1/2009 

was 97.4%. 

• The southern border compliance rate was 92.2%; the average since 6/1/2009 

was 92.1%. 

• Field locations reported no discernable wait time impacts attributed to WHTI. 

• Field locations are reporting no significant change in the number of enforcement actions. 

Question 2.: Many members of American Indian tribes with territory along our 

nation’s borders have historically crossed the border using their tribal identification 

documents. However, a majority of these tribal cards are not WHTI-compliant. 

How many tribal identification cards meet WHTI requirements currently? 

Response: There are currently no tribal identification cards that have been enhanced to meet WHTI requirements. 

In spring 2007, CBP sent letters to all 562 federally recognized tribal entities soliciting comments for the WHTI land and sea rulemaking process and received 42 

comments, reflecting primarily those tribes within the northern and southern border 

regions. On March 3rd, 2009, CBP and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho signed the first 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the development of an Enhanced Tribal Card 

(ETC). Upon successful development, testing and issuance, this document will be 

available to members of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to establish their identity, tribal membership and United States or Canadian citizenship for the purposes of border 

crossing. Currently, CBP has two signed MOAs and is in various stages of negotiation with 10 tribes to produce a MOA for the ETC. The approval of additional MOAs 

is expected shortly. 

54 

The option of producing an ETC is available only to U.S. federally recognized 

tribes. Tribal identification for members of Canadian First Nations is done through 

a single Canadian Government entity, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 

INAC is currently working with DHS to have their new tribal identification card, 

the Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS), accepted as a stand-alone WHTI 

compliant document. 

How is DHS working with interested tribes to develop enhanced tribal 

identification cards that would comply with WHTI? 

Response: DHS has been consulting with the tribes on WHTI for the past two 

years. In 2007, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sent a letter to all the 

U.S. federally recognized tribal entities advising them of the opportunity to comment to the WHTI Land/Sea Final Rule. Based on comments received from the 

tribes, and in consideration of the unique relationship between the federal government and tribal entities, DHS included in the WHTI Land/Sea Final Rule an option 

whereby tribes may enhance their tribal identification cards in a manner that CBP 

concludes is sufficient to denote identity and citizenship under WHTI. Similar to the 

enhanced driver’s license initiatives with the states, CBP and the tribes work off 

a sample memorandum of agreement (MOA) that serves as a starting point for negotiations, CBP provides continuous operational and IT guidance to the tribes on the 

development of an ETC program. 

In April 2008, CBP sent a letter to all the U.S. federally recognized tribal entities 

inviting them to work with CBP to produce such an enhanced tribal identification 

card (ETC). Since that time, CBP, in consultation with the tribes, has developed a 

detailed presentation on the legal, business, and information technology aspects of 

the ETC initiative. Throughout 2008, CBP attended numerous tribal conferences 

across the United States to provide the ETC presentation to the tribes and tribal 

groups that indicated an interest in pursuing an ETC. 

Based on the enhanced driver’s license (EDL) initiatives with the states, CBP has 

drafted a template memorandum of agreement (MOA) between CBP and the tribes 

that will serve as a starting point for negotiations. CBP provides continuous legal, 

operational and IT guidance to the tribes on the pursuit and successful creation of 

an ETC. 

What type of documentation can tribal members use until a WHTI-compliant tribal identification card is developed? 

Response: On May 15, 2009, DHS informed the U.S. federally recognized tribal 

entities that they could continue to use their current tribal photo identification card 

for a reasonable transition period beyond June 1, 2009, to enter the United States 

at the land and sea ports of entry. The transition was for all travelers, not just 

tribes. 

Question 3: RFID readers are installed and operational at the 39 largest land 

ports of entry, which covers roughly 95 percent of cross border-traffic. The Committee is concerned about potential vulnerabilities and delays should this equipment 

break down. 

What type of contingency plans do you have in place to ensure that a broken RFID reader will not pose a vulnerability to security or impede traffic? 

Response: Each WHTI lane has two RFID readers, one in the lane (Pre-primary) 

and one at the booth (Primary). They are designed to work in conjunction with each 

other so that in the event that one breaks down, the other will capture RFID reads 

for presentation to the officer in the booth. There is redundancy in each lane. If a 

reader identifies a fault, it reports that problem to a monitoring system which is 

watched by a team of maintenance analysts. If it is determined that the reader is 

reporting faults at a level that can affect performance, troubleshooting steps are 

taken which can include actions up to dispatching a technician to the site. In addition, optical character read (OCR)/Machine readable zone (MRZ) readers are in place 

at all ports of entry that can read any WHTI-compliant document whether or not 

the travel document has RFID technology. In the unlikely event that both readers 

are down, officers can perform the appropriate MRZ (manual mode) reads at the 

booth, so there is no vulnerability 

The readers require minimal regular maintenance. On a quarterly basis the prime 

contractor (Unisys Federal Systems) will have the RFID readers and antennas 

checked for proper operation. 

There is a Service Level Agreement in place with Unisys that requires rapid response to perform appropriate maintenance and repair to hardware. The responding 

Regional support teams are located throughout the country. 

What type of maintenance do these new RFID readers require and who 

will be responsible for the maintenance? 

55 

Response: The maintenance of the WHTI RFID and LPR system is a vendor designed maintenance process and the responsibility of the prime contractor, Unisys 

Federal Systems, and its subcontractors (‘‘Team Unisys’’). Team Unisys provides all 

necessary management, supervision, labor, and materials to perform remedial, preventive, and accidental maintenance (maintenance service outside the scope of remedial maintenance) of the WHTI LPR & RFID units, in accordance with the requirements contained in the WHTI Statement of Work and the program’s Maintenance 

Support Plan approved by Unisys and CBP. All maintenance and sustainability support for the WHTI contract is covered under a fixed price contract. Team Unisys will 

perform problem diagnosis and defect isolation, and provide qualified technical personnel, materials, travel and materials shipping to provide the required warranty 

and maintenance support in order to maintain the WHTI LPR & RFID units. 

RESPONSES FROM JOHN BRENNAN

Question 1.: There has been some concern about the State Department’s ability to 

issue passports and passport cards in a timely manner. Please describe how the 

Department of State is responding to this concern. What kind of expedited 

options exist? 

Answer: In Fiscal Year 2007, the State Department experienced a major increase 

in demand and issued 18.4 million passports, which remains the historic high for 

passport issuances in a single year. During this surge in demand, the State Department had difficulty issuing passports in a timely manner. 

To address underlying concerns with passport production capacity, the Department has since increased resources for passport production by 95 percent. We have 

added both staff and facilities, including opening two large passport book production 

centers in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Tucson, Arizona, and new passport agencies 

in Detroit and Minneapolis. A third agency will open in Dallas in July. Later this 

summer, we will also open a new ‘‘omega-adjudication center’’ in Tucson. This center 

will become one of four such facilities across the country, notable because they are 

larger and have greater production capabilities than a traditional passport agency. 

We expanded existing facilities along the southern and northern borders, such as 

the Miami Passport Agency and the National Passport Center, in Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire. In addition, during demand surges, the Department now has the technical capability to allow passport applications to be adjudicated by qualified consular staff remotely at posts abroad and at passport facilities anywhere in the country. 

Throughout 2008 and thus far in 2009, we have maintained our standard service 

level of four to six weeks for routine service and two to three weeks for expedited 

service. Expedited service is available to all applicants for an additional fee of $60. 

If a customer requests delivery of the passport by overnight service, an additional 

service fee of $14.85 per application is assessed. Customers who have urgent or 

emergency travel needs may schedule a walk-in appointment at one of our 17 public 

agencies through an automated appointment hotline provided by our customer call 

center, the National Passport Information Center. 

Question 2.: What efforts has the State Department undertaken to facilitate 

applications for passports? Are there any plans to accept applications at or 

near ports of entry or in communities where there is high demand for 

WHTI-compliant documents? 

Answer: There are more than 9,400 acceptance facilities across the country, such 

as post offices and courthouses, where Americans can apply for a U.S. passport. 

There are 301 acceptance facilities located within 25 miles of the U.S.-Canada border and 128 acceptance facilities located within 25 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. 

We opened new passport agencies in Detroit in March and Minneapolis in May 

of this year. Both are designed to serve important population centers near the 

northern border. In the next 12 to 18 months, we plan to open additional agencies 

in Dallas, El Paso, San Diego, Buffalo, and Vermont, and offer services to the public 

at the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and at the Arkansas Passport Center in Hot Springs, Arkansas. We have looked specifically at locations near communities with high demand for WHTI-compliant documents. These locations are also near major ports-of-entry. 

RESPONSES FROM MARIA LUISA O’CONNELL

Questions: 1. Your organizations provide a forum for a variety of stakeholders 

from business and industry, community groups, trade organizations, port employees, 

56 

and individuals who use the ports every day to share their thoughts on border matters. 

What have you heard from your membership about the recent implementation of WHTI at land ports? 

On the first day of implementation, Border Trade Alliance (BTA) launched 

TWHTI, an interactive campaign to encourage travelers to share their experiences 

crossing the border. By logging onto their Twitter.com accounts, users could search 

#WHTI to share information and read about the current status of implementation 

efforts. The majority of stakeholders reported a smooth transition, with port directors on both borders reporting a compliance rate of over 95%. 

Do you have any additional recommendations for DHS or State regarding 

successful implementation? Are there any elements that are currently 

being overlooked? 

What may be overlooked is the number of travelers who are choosing to not cross 

the borders because they have not yet obtained the required documents due to cost, 

inconvenience or difficulty in obtaining the necessary documents required for a passport. It may be beneficial to note the decrease in pedestrian and vehicular traffic 

over the past two years. As mentioned before, border residents, the trade and business communities and the travel industry had already felt the impact of WHTI before the implementation of its final phase on June, 1, 2009. 

It has also been reported to the BTA that smaller communities are having difficulty processing passport applications because the local post offices are overwhelmed with applicants. These communities have identified the need to have more 

offices that are authorized to handle passport applications. Some communities have 

taken the initiative to look into alternate locations within the city, but were informed that certain city departments do not qualify because the same offices that 

issue birth certificates or government identifications cannot issue passports. Recommendations for this specific issue are listed under a different question under the 

passport drives or mobile offices. An alternative solution may be have DOS inform 

these communities of the availability of appropriate alternative locations that can 

be used to facilitate passport applications. 

Question 2.: As you know, the goal of WHTI is to strengthen border security and 

facilitate entry for legitimate travelers. However, a large portion of our pots of entry 

facilities date back 50 years or more in some cases. In addition, staffing at ports 

of entry have not kept pace with the need for personnel in recent years. 

What needs to be done to improve port of entry infrastructure at our borders? 

More resources need to be allocated towards maintenance and upgrades at the 

land ports of entry. It is also necessary to allocate more resources to DHS Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) that will be directed towards recruitment and staffing 

needs. Increasing the number of lanes and inspection booths at the ports of entry 

is only beneficial when there is adequate staffing to operate the booths. 

In addition, the need for new ports of entry and their associated infrastructure, 

e.g. bridges, lanes, inspection booths, etc., adjacent to existing border crossings 

should be thoroughly reviewed by CBP, the General Services Administration, the 

Department of Transportation, state and local government, Congress and local 

stakeholders. While upgrades of existing land ports of entry are necessary to maintain current crossing volumes, consideration of the development of new land ports 

of entry is warranted considering the historic trend of increased trade and commercial activity at our shared borders with Canada and Mexico. There exists a strong 

need for a collaborative federal, state, local and private plan for accommodation of 

future infra-structural needs at our borders to facilitate the expected growth in 

trade and cross-border commercial activity, which is an integral component of our 

national economic viability. 

The BTA supports legislative efforts, such as H.R. 1655, the Ports Act and others, 

that increases resources and staffing needs, as well as those that commission studies to measure wait times (H.R. 1965). The BTA also supports the inclusion of language into annual appropriations bills that direct agencies such as GSA to consult 

with communities and stakeholders in expansion plans and project selection and incorporates the interests of community residents as well as the business community. 

What staffing levels are necessary to enhance security and facilitate travel? 

The BTA supports increased staffing levels at U.S. land ports for at least enough 

to fully staff existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic lanes. More funding for overtime pay is likely necessary until adequate staffing levels are reached so that the 

57 

lanes do not have to be closed during port operating hours. H.R. 1655, authorizes 

funding for increased CBP personnel to fully staff all U.S. land ports of entry. 

Question 3.: Your organizations have advocated for the acceptance of the lowcost, wallet-sized passport alternative, referred to as the passport card, as well as 

other current secure traveler documents such as NEXUS and SENTRI cards and the 

new Enhanced Drivers’ Licenses (EDL) to be accepted at land border crossings as 

alternatives to a passport. 

What more can be done to promote the use of these kinds of documents 

among the traveling public? 

Increasing the interoperability of WHTI compliant documents would promote 

greater use. Currently, PASS Cards are secure documents that satisfy WHTI requirements to cross the U.S. international land borders. Despite being more secure 

than a driver’s license, PASS Cards cannot be used as identification for air travel 

within the United States. Allowing PASS Cards to be used for air travel to Canada, 

Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda may also encourage travelers to obtain the 

PASS Card, since it is the lower cost alternative to the passport. 

DOS could consider passport application drives in border communities and consider expediting the passport applications as an incentive for increased participation. 

DOS should perform an ongoing assessment and evaluation of what geographic 

areas or regions are handling the greatest volume of passport or PASS Card applications and determining whether those areas fully able to handle this volume of applications. Using this information DOS can then quickly dispatch the necessary resources to process passport and PASS card applications in areas of greatest need. 

DOS should consider utilizing mobile passport offices, especially in rural communities along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico and in communities where 

DOS has experienced high application volumes would greater enhance the ability 

of U.S. citizens to readily obtain the necessary documentation in a timely manner. 

Several BTA members have reported that it is now necessary to travel well into the 

interior to places such as San Antonio, Texas or Phoenix, Arizona to be able to obtain an appointment to apply for a U.S. Passport or PASS Card as facilities at the 

border, primarily U.S. Post Offices, are unable to handle the high application volumes. 

DHS and State should also consider expanding the acceptance of the PASS Card 

under WHTI for air travel within North American and the Caribbean to provide increased incentive for U.S. citizens to apply for these documents. 

What other ‘‘outside the box’’ alternatives could enhance both security 

and facilitation at our ports of entry? 

DHS should consider having SENTRI cards apply to persons and not just vehicles. 

Currently SENTRI has to apply to the person and their specific vehicle, and if 

you’re not in the SENTRI-approved vehicle you are not allowed to cross via a dedicated SENTRI lane. Altering the SENTRI program in this manner would also allow 

for the development and use of low-risk pedestrian lanes at U.S. land ports. 

DHS could also consider opening SENTRI to bus operators, who could have their 

buses and drivers approved as SENTRI card holders and then transmit in advance 

of their arrival at the border, a manifest of their passengers to CBP to expedite the 

transit of these high-occupancy vehicles. 

With dedicated federal funding through Congress, DHS could expand its initial 

pilot and consider 24-hour ports of entry at ports with high crossing volumes. 

DHS, and perhaps this committee in its oversight role, needs to undertake a comprehensive review of the multiple layers of security programs and procedures in 

place for both people and cargo crossing the border. Best-practices between programs should be shared to promote a more effective and efficient, secure crossing 

experience. Duplicative or repetitive programs could be merged or eliminated and 

cost-saving efficiencies could be identified within the ongoing management of federal 

security programs. 

RESPONSES FROM THOMAS WINKOWSKI

Question 1.: In your testimony, you described a conference to train Customs and 

Border Protection officers about procedures for implementing WHTI at ports of 

entry. What other steps have you taken to provide appropriate WHTI training to every Customs and Border Protection officer at land ports of entry? 

Response: CBP HQ has been in communication with its field offices about WHTI 

since publication of the final rule in April 2008. Most recently, in addition to a conference to train Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers about procedures for 

58 

implementing WHTI at ports of entry, implementation guidance was disseminated 

to all CBP officers on May 14, 2009, that outlined the document requirements, operational procedures, and contingency plans in the event travelers fail to present 

WHTI-compliant documents. Included in the guidance to officers in the field was a 

script to use when giving a verbal advisory to travelers not in compliance with the 

WHTI land/sea documentary requirements. In addition, on May 15, 2009, mandatory training was distributed to all officers including supervisors, managers, port directors, public affairs officers, and trainers working at land and sea ports of entry. 

The presentation outlined the document requirements, operational procedures, and 

certain exceptions regarding the June 1 implementation of WHTI for land and sea 

travel. As of June 2, approximately 10,967 CBP officers had completed the mandatory training. (The term CBP officers encompasses managers, port directors, agriculture specialists, and CBP officers who work in cargo and passenger operations.) 

Officers not at their port between May 15 and June 1 due to travel, training, leave 

or details away from the port, are required to complete the training in order to resume working at the port. As these officers return and complete the training, the 

number continues to increase. 

Question 2.: Have you made any staffing changes in light of WHTI implementation, particularly for the first few months of implementation when 

both CBP officers and the traveling public will be getting used to the new 

requirements and procedures? If so, please describe these changes. 

Response: Yes. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) brought 205 

new positions to the field during fiscal year 2008, and CBP is in the process of augmenting the field with an additional 89 positions this fiscal year (82 already filled). 

Field managers ensured senior leadership and officers were properly placed in appropriate numbers to anticipate any impact from WHTI, to include traveler impacts, 

media inquiries, and Congressional interest (and redeployed staff as needed.) 

At CBP Headquarters, the WHTI Program Management Office (PMO) brought in 

the Port Director from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan to stand up the WHTI Operations 

Center (WOC). The WOC was operational on May 29, 2009, and was staffed by CBP 

HQ personnel redeployed from the WHTI PMO and other HQ program offices. These 

staffing changes included moving employees from their core hours to cover a 24/7 

operation until the closure of the WOC on June 7, 2009. 

The result of the above staffing changes was a successful implementation, with 

no discernable impact to wait times. The field is seeing high compliance by those 

U.S. and Canadian citizens queried at the land borders. Media reporting was neutral to positive. 

Question 3.: Please update the Committee on the projects started with the approximately $700 million dedicated to improving port of entry infrastructure in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Response: Of the $720 million of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) funds dedicated to improving land ports of entry (LPOE), $420 million was 

appropriated to CBP to address modernization needs within the CBP-owned LPOE 

inventory; the remaining $300M was appropriated to the General Services Administration (GSA) to address modernization needs at GSA-owned LPOEs. CBP established a jointly staffed Program Management Office (PMO) made up of operational, 

financial and technical experts from CBP and partner agencies such as the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and GSA, to manage and track the progress of 

the LPOE modernization efforts. The LPOE PMO has made significant accomplishments against a fast-track schedule and remains on target to award design/build 

contracts under the ARRA consistent with August 2009 program goals. 

In preparation for contract award, the PMO has achieved the following: 

• Secured head-of-contracting approval for the program-wide acquisition plan 

• Prepared a compressed schedule, acquisition strategy, and spend plan 

• Drafted Interagency Agreements (IAA) with GSA and finalized IAA with 

USACE 

• Developed prototype layouts and universal technical specifications for the 

micro and small port design templates 

• Identified the 23 CBP-owned LPOEs targeted for modernization under ARRA 

• Initiated environmental, vendor and cultural site visits and began to publish 

draft environmental assessments for public review. 

• Prepared Request for Proposal (RFP) packages for distribution. 

• Coordinated with the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), and 

the affected state departments of transportation. 

• For the CBP-owned LPOEs not targeted for major construction, the PMO has 

initiated engineering surveys and developed a Repairs and Alterations (R&A) 

59 

strategy to implement programmatic work packages focused on: security and 

port hardening, site utilities and infrastructure, emergency repairs, and mission 

enhancements. The schedule for R&A projects has been finalized and the PMO 

is on schedule to finalize the R&A technical packages by early July. 

• Made significant efforts to communicate LPOE modernization opportunities to 

small businesses through ARRA reporting, and Small Business Outreach Sessions. 

In coming weeks, the PMO will finalize its IAA with GSA. For the design/build 

projects, the program will release RFPs, complete outstanding cultural site visits, 

and finalize technical requirement packages for all projects. Additionally, draft environmental assessments and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be 

issued. For R&A projects, the PMO will initiate the procurement process for the 

technology upgrades and finalize the technical requirement packages. 

As previously stated, of the $720 million in ARRA funding, $300 million was appropriated to GSA to address the modernization needs of the GSA-owned LPOEs. 

Specifically, seven projects received funds for site acquisition, design, and/or construction. Unlike the CBP-owned inventory, these funds target projects already 

under development for purposes of accelerating their delivery timelines and securing 

additional resources to meet CBP’s operational needs. CBP is coordinating closely 

with GSA on the following projects to ensure they move forward expeditiously in the 

spirit of the ARRA: 

• Nogales West, AZ: Full construction funds were allocated for GSA to accelerate project timelines with construction currently slated to begin in early FY 

2010. 

• Otay Mesa, CA: With site/design funds allocated, GSA is now pursuing site 

acquisition to expand the port along with initiating the program development 

study for CBP to evaluate design concepts 

• Van Buren, ME: With design and construction funds allocated, GSA and CBP 

have accelerated the planning phase targeting a design/build contract award in 

mid-FY 2010. 

• Madawaska, ME: Additional funds were provided for GSA to supplement ongoing design in preparation for construction start in late-FY 2010, pending passage of the President’s Budget. 

• Blaine-Peace Arch, WA: Construction escalation funds were provided to better 

target full project completion by November 2010. 

• Calais-St. Stephen, ME: Construction escalation funds were provided to better 

target full project completion by November 2009. 

• Columbus, NM: Additional design funds were provided for CBP and GSA to 

re-initiate the previously stalled design phase in preparation for FY 2011 construction, pending availability of funds. 

Ultimately, the $720M in ARRA funds appropriated for CBP-owned and GSAowned LPOEs will contribute significantly to CBP’s broader mission to modernize 

the entire LPOE inventory. The ultimate goal of the LPOE Modernization Program 

is to improve these critical assets to better meet CBP’s mission to secure the nation’s border while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. 

Æ