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

87–538 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–874 

THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE FOR PROMOTING 

INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 27, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–68 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE MARTZ, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MATT JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ................... 4 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 6 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 8 

Franken, Hon. AL, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ........................ 10 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ................... 10 

Lee, Michael S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement ... 36 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 27 

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............ 2 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Donohue, Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce, Washington, DC ........................................................................... 12 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Dow, Roger J., President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Travel Association, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 15 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Gambler, Rebecca, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC ............................................... 17 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

QUESTIONS 

Questions from Senator Dianne Feinstein submitted to Thomas Donohue ........ 75 

Questions from Senator Dianne Feinstein submitted to Roger Dow ................... 76 

Questions from Senator Dianne Feinstein submitted to Rebecca Gambler ........ 77 

Questions from Senator Mike Lee submitted to Thomas Donohue ..................... 79 

Questions from Senator Mike Lee submitted to Roger Dow ................................ 80 

Questions from Senator Mike Lee submitted to Rebecca Gambler ..................... 81 

Questions from Senator Jeff Sessions submitted to Rebecca Gambler ............... 82 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

NOTE: At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain responses 

to the written questions, the Committee had not received any communication from Thomas Donohue or Roger Dow. ........................................................ 84 

Responses of Rebecca Gambler to questions submitted by Senators Sessions, 

Feinstein, and Lee ................................................................................................ 85 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Federation for American Immigration Reform, John Martin, statement ........... 95 

McCormick, Michael W., Executive Director and Chief Operating Office Global Business Travel Association, Alexandria, Virginia, statement .................... 100 

Letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski from Senator Mark Kirk, March 27, 

2012 ....................................................................................................................... 106

(1) 

THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE FOR PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TO THE 

UNITED STATES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND

BORDER SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

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

Room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. 

Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Franken, Klobuchar, and 

Sessions. 

Chairman SCHUMER. With the permission of the Members of the 

Committee, we will waive opening statements until after Senator 

Mikulski gives her remarks, if that is fine with everybody. Great. 

Senator MIKULSKI. It is fine with me. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Franken objects, Senator Mikulski. I 

want you to make a note. 

Senator Franken, having thought it over, withdraws his objection. 

OK, so let me then call on Senator Mikulski, who has worked 

hard with us on this bill and is one of the lead sponsors and is interested in some particular provisions in the bill, but has been supportive of the entire bill that we have. 

We are going to waive, if that is OK with you, Senator Sessions, 

our opening statements until after Senator Mikulski gives her 

opening remarks. 

Senator SESSIONS. We do not get to pontificate? 

Chairman SCHUMER. We do, but a little bit later. 

Senator SESSIONS. Later. OK. On our own time. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No. We can do opening statements. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So let me recognize Senator Mikulski, 

whom we were all joyous, I guess is the right word, about her 

record-setting stint in Congress that we all celebrated and spoke 

about last week. But as she has said, it is not how long you serve 

but how well you serve, and today is an example of how well she 

is serving. 

Without further ado, Senator Mikulski. 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer and 

Members of the Judiciary Committee. Again, I might be the longest 

serving, but I assure you I will not be the longest talking at this 

hearing. 

I am pleased to be here and joined also this morning by the 

Chamber of Commerce and by the hotel industry and so on. I want 

to talk about reforms that I am suggesting that are included in the 

JOLT Act, but I want to say, first of all, thank you to this Committee and, Senator Schumer, for your leadership in the bill itself, 

because I am a strong supporter of this bill. I think we need to do 

two things: We need to enhance and facilitate people being able to 

visit our country, come and do their business, get their health care, 

like many do when they visit Hopkins or Maryland, or be leisure 

tourists and then return home. 

We also, though, while we encourage visitors, need to stand 

steadfast and true to protect our borders. I, therefore, want to 

thank Senator Feinstein for her most welcomed advocacy in the 

area, particularly in the Visa Waiver Program. 

I want to talk today about the visa waiver provisions in the bill 

that I developed along with my esteemed colleague, Senator Kirk 

of Illinois. I have a letter from Senator Kirk I would like to share 

with the Committee at the end of my testimony. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am here because I think the Visa 

Waiver Program Enhanced Security and Reform Act, which I introduced and is now part of this bill, is an opportunity to revisit, refresh, and reform the Visa Waiver Program. It has three goals: protecting our borders, creating American jobs by increasing visits to 

the United States, and honoring and respecting our most treasured 

allies. I introduced this bill with Senator Kirk. All of you know 

Senator Kirk is a naval reserve officer, an intelligence officer who 

also served in Afghanistan. So when we developed our reforms, we 

were absolutely committed to protecting our borders. And as I said, 

Senator Feinstein has been an activist in this and has made many 

great recommendations. 

Reforms have not been made since 2007, and in those five years 

since we changed the Visa Waiver Program, threats have evolved, 

technology has changed, and it is a time to look at lessons learned. 

So why are my elements very good? Modest as I am in saying 

that, this bill would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

allow countries that meet national security requirements to participate in the Visa Waiver Program. But let me be clear. Even if a 

country meets those security requirements, it is not a guarantee of 

entry into the Visa Waiver Program. The Secretary must determine 

a country does not pose a security threat to the United States before it can come into the Visa Program. So Senators Kirk and Mikulski are committed to protecting our border and that the Visa 

Waiver Program not be a back door for a country to get in that 

does not want to respect our security protocols. 

Second, it also creates a probation system for countries not following the rules. It requires the Secretary to place a country on 

probation if it does not shape up in one year. In order to meet the 

requirements of the bill, meet the reforms they need to do in their 
3 

home country, the message is simple: Get it right or get out. So 

once you are in, it does not mean you stay in. You must, again, 

meet these security requirements. 

It also strengthens the ability of the United States to track lost 

passports. In the Visa Waiver Program, countries have to keep 

tight controls on passports and must report lost or stolen passports 

to Interpol. I visited Interpol and found that what they do on the 

lost and stolen passport is significant. It also gives the Secretary 

discretion to allow countries to join the Visa Waiver Program, and 

what we do is this: In the past, we counted the number of refusals 

by our consulate, and if you were above a certain percentage, you 

could not get in. But it did not count the most important thing, 

which was overstays, where people use the Visa Waiver Program, 

the good will invested in the Visa Waiver Program, and they just 

used it to come in and kind of disappear into our National ethers. 

That is unacceptable. So what we have done in our reform is focus 

on the overstay rate and tracking the overstay rate. 

The second thing is to look at real numbers. They were counting 

refusals, but somebody could come 12 times, and it would be counted as 12 separate applications rather than one person coming. 

There are older women in Warsaw and Krakow and Gdansk right 

this minute who want to visit grandchildren in Chicago and drop 

a thank-you note off at Senator Kirk’s office who might be coming 

to the visa office and the consulate office in Krakow 12 times, but 

it is still the same old Polish lady. Or it could be the scientist, or 

it could be the Polish students in Canada. So we reform that by 

looking at the number of people rather than the number of applications. 

We know the Visa Waiver Program works. Most recently, in 

granting South Korea their ability to come in, there was a 49-percent increase in South Korean tourists. This resulted in great visits, money spent in our country, and jobs in our tourism and leisure world. 

I am here—and I got very interested in the Visa Waiver Program 

because of Poland, and it is something that drew Senator Kirk and 

I together in addition to our work on national security. 

Chicago is the home base, if you will, of most of the Polish heritage organizations. Poland is really cranky that it is not in the Visa 

Waiver Program. In fact, when any foreign leaders visit, they are 

cranky to volcanic, and the reason that they feel that way is they 

feel that they are great allies, they have been steadfast and true, 

they feel that they have always counted on the United States of 

America, and they serve with us in many capacities. During the 

darkest days of communism, a Polish electrician named Lech 

Walesa jumped over a wall in the Gdansk shipyard. He took the 

whole world with him when he went. But when he landed on the 

other side, he had President Reagan on his side, and then working 

together and working with the free world, we were able to bring 

down that Iron Curtain. But that Iron Curtain is still a problem 

because Poland cannot come into the Visa Waiver Program. 

When they asked for the Coalition of the Willing, Poland was the 

first to step up. Their troops fight and die alongside of our troops 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. They do not understand why it is OK to 

go to Afghanistan with the United States of America but not be 
4 

able to visit the United States of America under the Visa Waiver 

Program. They are acting as our emmissary in Syria, looking out 

for American interests in Syria. So it is OK for them to protect us 

and act on our behalf, but that Polish lady, that Polish scientist 

from the Copernicus Institute, cannot visit without a visa. 

In reforming the Visa Waiver Program, I would hope that we 

have the kind of rules in the game that acknowledge where there 

is someone that is a treasured ally, a consistent and persistent ally, 

can be able to visit the United States if they work to defend the 

United States. So I hope you take a look at the legislation. I really 

want to help move the JOLT Act. And Senator Kirk has a letter 

that he wants into the record that will—he just says he is sorry 

he cannot be here, and we are sorry he cannot be here. He was just 

great to work with on this. We worked very well with all of you. 

He looks forward to returning to the Senate to move this to the 

floor. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your courtesy, and I hope 

the JOLT Act moves forward and that these Visa Waiver Programs 

are in it. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Mikulski appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you very much for your excellent testimony, and without objection, we will add Senator Kirk’s 

comments to the record. We know he is here in spirit, and we know 

he wants to help us move the act quickly. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

[The letter from Senator Kirk appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I know you have a busy schedule, and 

thank you for being here, Senator Mikulski. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Mikulski. That was very, 

as you always are, honest, direct, and to the point, and we get your 

message, and I think it has great value. We need to listen to it and 

see what we can do, and thank you for remembering Senator Kirk. 

We look forward to his return and participation actively on this 

issue. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. And congratulations on your fabulous service 

to our country. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Any questions of Senator Mikulski? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you for coming, Senator. We appreciate it. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. Now we will go to opening statements, 

and then we will call our next panel of witnesses. 

I want to thank everybody for coming. Today’s hearing is on the 

importance of promoting and facilitating international travel to the 

United States in order to create jobs. This is a jobs bill, no question 

about it. 
5 

International travel to the U.S. represents a significant component of our economy. To give some context, the average overseas 

visitor spends about $4,000 in America per visit. In total, foreign 

nationals spent more than $134 billion in travel to the U.S. last 

year. It supported 1.8 million American jobs, represented 8.7 percent of exports of goods and services. That is huge for our economy 

at a time when we are looking to grow, and it is one of the growing 

industries in America, one of those industries with a future, as the 

world becomes more affluent and more people can travel. 

The global travel market is expected to double over the next dec- ade, reaching $2.1 trillion, making it an increasingly important 

contributor to GDP growth. In 2000, the U.S. had a 17 percent 

share of worldwide overseas travel, but over the last 10 years, our 

market share has decreased to less than 12 percent. That is a dramatic drop in just 10 years. The single greatest reason for this decrease in market share is our inefficient visa system. The visa process is highly uncertain, lengthy, and costly. In some countries, the 

wait time for U.S. visas can be as long as 100 days. The $140 visa 

application fee is non-refundable, must often be combined with 

other costs, such as to travel to distant consulates and lost work 

time, all of which makes travel to America less appealing. 

If we had kept pace with the growth in global overseas travel between 2000 and 2010, 78 million more travelers would have visited 

the U.S., adding a total of $606 billion extra to the economy and 

an additional 467,000 jobs per year. If we can recapture our historic share of worldwide overseas travel by 2015 and maintain that 

share through 2020, it will add $100 billion to the economy and 

700,000 jobs. 

People want to come to America. Wherever we go, they want to 

come, and they say, ‘‘Why do you make it so hard? ’’ And it does 

not make much sense. We can balance security and efficiency. 

And so today we will discuss S. 2233, the Jobs Originated 

Through Launching Travel Act. That is how we get JOLT. It is a 

bill that a bunch of us have introduced: myself, Senator Lee, Senator Mikulski, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Blunt, Senator Kirk, 

and Senator Rubio—four Democrats, four Republicans. It is a completely bipartisan bill in the spirit with trying to get things done 

in a bipartisan way, and I want to thank so many people who 

worked on this bill. I want to give particular thanks and a shoutout to Senator Klobuchar. She introduced the first travel bill with 

Senator Blunt. And because many of her ideas were so good and 

did not require legislation, the President already adopted a lot of 

her recommendations, and that is why she graciously folded the remainder of her bill into ours. Some of the things that were included 

in her bill were to add more agents to process visa in Brazil, India, 

and China. 

When we went on our codel to China last year, we visited one 

of these places, and the lines were enormous, and the people told 

us, those who we could speak to in English, they traveled two days, 

missed work, and then they were not sure they would get their 

visa—800 miles—because we only had a very limited number. 

Also, the administration has adopted measures including tracking to see how fast the visas are being process because no one had 

any idea. So let me go over the ways our bill creates jobs. 
6 

First, we encourage the State Department to issue Chinese visitor visas that last longer than the current one-year maximum. You 

go through an extensive background check. A year later, you 

should not have to go through it again to come back, particularly 

if you are a business person. This will encourage travel from China 

by making it faster for new travelers to get visas and by alleviating 

the burdens repeat travelers have to bear each year. 

Second, we require the State Department to develop premium 

processing to expedite issuance of tourist and business visas for 

those willing to pay a substantial fee, not costing us any money. 

I just happened to turn in that direction. With these funds, we will 

invest in adding more capacity so everyone’s visas can eventually 

be processed faster. 

We permit Canadian snowbirds to stay here for 60 more days a 

year. They want to stay here. They spend a lot of money. Why not 

let them stay? It does not do any harm to our security. 

We change the visa fee structure to spread demand for visas 

evenly across all four seasons and increase total visa numbers. We 

allow Customs and Border Protection to add important foreign dignitaries to the global entry program on a case-by-case basis. We set 

tough standards for visa processing times and, most importantly, 

we make much needed changes to the Visa Waiver Program to update eligibility requirements and make the program more secure— 

not less but more. And if enacted, Poland would be added to the 

Visa Waiver Program, which Senator Mikulski eloquently talked 

about. 

The legislation is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 

the U.S. Travel Association—they are both here today—as well as 

many other industry groups and labor union groups. I hope we can 

pass this bill as quickly as possible to create thousands of jobs. We 

are looking for ways that we can get jobs created in a bipartisan 

way. 

Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, and Minority Leader Pelosi have all said they seek job-creating measures that 

are bipartisan. Well, voila. The work of the eight of us and many 

others has made that happen, and I hope we can move quickly. 

Let me call on Senator Sessions first and then my other colleagues for opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. The JOLT Act, I thought, Chuck, that was 

your middle name, JOLT. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you have jolted this forward. This is 

something that we need to work on, we can improve. We can enhance job creation in America, and every single thing we do that 

rationally and reasonably and responsibly creates growth and jobs 

in America we should try to do. We even supported together the 

currency bill that I think would have helped create jobs here and 

create fairness in our trade system. 

So the Visa Waiver Program is a good program. It has to have 

integrity. It cannot be politicized. Every country seems to feel if 

they are not in it, they are somehow aggrieved. But those countries 
7 

still have the opportunity to emigrate, as most countries did just 

a few years ago with the same requirements. 

So the Visa Waiver Program is good. It should have certain 

standards. It should be reviewed, and nations should qualify for it. 

For reasons I am not quite sure, Poland has not qualified. They 

have worked really hard to get in, and there has been a lot of attention given to it, but they just have not met the standards the 

State Department has required. We can look at that, but we do not 

want to politicize the process. 

I do believe that countries not in the Visa Waiver Program can 

also benefit from streamlined, technologically advanced screening 

processes that will reduce the cost and delays in coming to America. We just had in rural Alabama, in Monroeville, a group of Chinese business people come, about 60. More would have come. The 

number exceeded the number that could have been accommodated, 

and a number did not make it because of visa problems. These 

were pretty significant people looking to invest in America. So we 

do need to make sure the countries that do not qualify for the Visa 

Waiver Program are able to proceed effectively. 

Now, I am so pleased—and Senator Mikulski and you mentioned 

integrity in the system, because one of the gaps, one of the problems is that we have no exit system that records exits. This should 

easily be able to be done. A decade ago, we were talking about this, 

Actually, the law, as I recall, required it to be in effect by 2004, 

if not earlier. President Bush promised he was going to do it. He 

never did it. President Obama is not. Now, I understand in a few 

months, maybe by May, we will have a report on how to create an 

exit system. But since probably 95-plus percent of our visitors exit 

at airports, that should not be hard to do. And if you have the right 

kind of card, it seems to me you could put that in a machine and 

it would read it like—remember that great speech Newt Gingrich 

used to give about being in Europe and putting his card in the machine and a bank in Atlanta within seconds delivers money into his 

hand in France? So we should be able to do this effectively, it 

seems to me, and I do believe one of the problems in not advancing 

further has been the failure to complete an exit system that would 

work. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will scrutinize this bill, but it looks 

pretty good, and I certainly can say that I would favor most of it 

for sure. I do believe the overstay problem is important, and I 

think if we address that, we might surprise ourselves how much 

progress we could make. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Sessions, thank you for your kind 

comments, and we look forward to working with you to try and 

move it forward, and we want to hear your suggestions. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sessions appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator Feinstein has been very active in the Visa Waiver Program and wants to make sure it is tight and secure, and I know 

she had discussions with Senator Mikulski about that. Let me call 

on her. 
8 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is right. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I have watched the Visa Program now for 20 years. I 

have held multiple hearings. I have said over and over again that 

it is the soft underbelly of our Nation’s immigration system because 

it offers the citizens of 36 nations to visit the United States for 

tourism or business for 90 days or less without a visa. We do not 

verify that that individual returns to their home when the visa 

runs out in 90 days. 

The program brings in more than 17 million foreign nationals. 

Some have estimated that as much as 40 percent of the undocumented population is visa overstays. So we have a whole immigration system to consider as we do this. 

I have asked and asked that there be an exit system. I just met 

with Mr. Heyman, I think last week, Assistant Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, who told me that by June 2012, the 

Department of Homeland Security will have a fully operative biographic exit system in place and will provide real-time information 

for those who exit U.S. airports. However, I have heard that before 

and before and before. 

The new exit system is expected to allow DHS to calculate 

overstays per country by April or May of this year. We will see. 

In September 2012, DHS will begin two pilots at Canadian land 

ports of entry that will allow DHS to receive traveler entry data 

directly from the Canadian Government. DHS will use this data to 

match it with that data that were received when the traveler enters the United States. The pilot will be expanded to all Canadian 

land ports next spring. DHS is working with the Mexican Government to establish a similar pilot program. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support doing this prior to the time 

there is an exit system that has been tested in place. We have to 

remember Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, came in on a Visa Waiver Program. Moussaoui came in on a Visa Waiver Program. And I 

can say, as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I know that 

visas are being scrutinized abroad as they have never been scrutinized before. I also know that there is a very good reason for this. 

I was the one that put the 10 percent and convinced Senator 

Lieberman to put it in the Department of Homeland Security bill. 

Now, since then, Poland, for example, has had a major program 

to educate people and has been able to drop their overstay rate to 

something like 3.2 percent. That is excellent. So what Senator Mikulski proposed here today I have no problem with. I am happy to 

support it. 

Now, you have got distinguished Americans before us who are 

saying, ‘‘We need this for travel and tourism.’’ I can tell you there 

is no dearth of Chinese efforts to buy companies in the United 

States. There is a lot of that going on. I am really concerned about 

extending this. China will not reciprocate. In other words, we cannot hold somebody in detention if they violate the visa entry. They 

then become part of the undocumented population of the United 

States. And China will. However, China will not make a reciprocal 

agreement, at least to this point. To do it one-sided to me makes 

no sense. But to do it before we have this exit system in place is 
9 

something that I believe is foolhardy. I cannot support it. If another terrorist came in on a visa entry program and without an 

exit and stayed in this country, as the Chairman of the Intelligence 

Committee, I could never forgive myself. You know, it is that clear 

in my mind because of what I know. 

No one should think that people are not plotting against us. No 

one should think that they are not trying to come after us. The FBI 

has made 20 arrests this past year alone, announced in public, of 

people who participated in, raised money for, or conspired to commit terrorist attacks in this country. So the exit system becomes integral to a program. 

Additionally, I understand there are some Eastern European 

countries that if you go into for 24 hours, you are then eligible to 

go to another country and come in on a Visa Waiver Program. So, 

you know, I know the chamber has good points, and I want to facilitate all of this. But I do not want to do it at great risk to our 

country. And—well, I was just sent a note. Maybe I misstated it. 

China will not take back visa overstayers in this country. So that 

is the problem, and this means that you can have tens of thousands of people coming here from China and overstaying their 

visas. 

So I think, you know, we should listen to this testimony carefully. Unfortunately, I have to leave at 11. I chair the International 

Caucus on Drug Control, and we have the Afghan Minister for 

counternarcotics at 11 o’clock. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That sounds important. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think it is. He is doing a good job, actually, 

by building food zones in those southern Afghan areas to replace 

the poppy and needs help in doing more of it. 

So that is my view in a sort of straightforward way, and I appreciate the time to express it. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think, Senator Feinstein, you have a great 

deal of expertise and a major responsibility, and we want to work 

with you because we believe we can tighten the program up. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to work with you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I agree with you, the exit program is very 

important so we can keep track of who goes out when they come 

in. And they say they are going to have it ready by May. I do not 

know if that is true. They have said it before. You are right. My 

staff says that he thinks it is for real this time, but we shall see. 

But we want to work with you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You should get them in here and be sure, 

and one is Mr. Heyman, Assistant Secretary. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I know. But thank you for your work, and 

we look forward to working with you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And thank you for working with Senator 

Mikulski on her particular issue, which is very important. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. You have a historical knowledge that was so valuable. Thank you for sharing it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Franken. 
10 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. I want to thank you, Chairman Schumer, for 

holding this hearing and Senator Mikulski for her powerful testimony. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, for your concerns. And I 

would like to commend my Minnesota colleague, Senator 

Klobuchar, for her terrific work on this issue. This is an important 

issue for our Nation and for my State. Tourism and travel are a 

huge part of the Minnesota economy, generating $11.3 billion in 

sales and supporting over 200,000 jobs. Travel and tourism also 

generate $732 million in State sales tax, which is 17 percent of our 

total sales tax revenue. It is very important to us. And it is no wonder that travel is such a major part of the Minnesota economy. We 

are world renowned for our natural beauty, the beauty of our land 

and our lakes. It is the perfect setting for hunting and fishing and 

many other outdoor activities. And then there is the Mall of America where tourists represent about half of their annual sales. 

And the tourism industry has actually been growing in Minnesota. That means we are all the more poised to benefit from increases in international travel, the subject of today’s hearing. As 

our witnesses are making clear, the last 10 years have seen a significant increase in global international travel, but the United 

States has seen our share of that travel shrink. There have been 

several reasons for that, but we now have an opportunity to pass 

common-sense measures to spur more travel to the United States 

by business people and tourists without reducing our National security. 

The demand for travel to the United States from fast-growing 

countries like China, like Brazil, and like India is there. We need 

to be able to meet that demand, and that is what the JOLT bill 

does by lowering barriers to access that do not make a lot of sense 

and by increasing the capacity of the State Department to process 

visas more quickly without any loss in confidence in the process. 

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I thank the Chair for 

this hearing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, and thank you for your active 

participation today, Senator Franken, and on the proposal. 

Senator Klobuchar, I mentioned, is the—well, she is one of the 

originators of this idea. I was going to use another word, but I did 

not want to. I was going to say ‘‘Godfather’’ and then say ‘‘Godmother.’’ 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Then you got all tied up in gender politics. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Only because it has not been tried a lot. You 

should make ‘‘Godmother’’—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think I will leave that to you and Amy, 

if you wish. 

Anyway, Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer. 

Thank you, all of you, for being here. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, for your thoughtful comments. I think it is important that security is front and center. I know no one knows that better than 
11 

Senator Schumer after what happened with New York City. And 

so I think all of us have been aware of that from the beginning as 

we have approached this issue, and I am still very excited about 

this bill and the work that we have done with Homeland Security, 

that Senator Blunt and I have done with them, as well as the State 

Department, to move forward. Because when you look at the real 

facts here, we have lost, since 9/11, 16 percent of the international 

tourism market. And the way I look at it is not just the percentage 

points. Anyone can look at that. But every point we have lost is 

160,000 jobs in this country, and it is time to get back those jobs. 

Some of this is going to involve advertising our country internationally so we are finally on an even playing field, and a lot of 

it has to do with the rules and regulations that have to change. 

In my State, I was thinking of Senator Schumer with his Empire 

State building—I thought that would make you stop talking—with 

his Empire State building—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Hard to get anything that does. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I know, but it worked. And the Statute of 

Liberty. In Minnesota, Senator Franken gave you the stats, but I 

will give you some even better ones. How much do you think we 

spend on worms and bait every year in Minnesota? How much 

money do you think we spend, Senator Schumer? 

Chairman SCHUMER. A net load. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Fifty million dollars a year people spend in 

our State on worms and bait because fishing is so important to our 

economy. And my favorite stat, the Mall of America, more people 

visit the Mall of America every year than there are people living 

in the country of Canada. A true fact, more than 40 million people 

visit every single year. These international tourists spend an average of $4,000 to $5,000 a year, and that is why Senator Blunt and 

I put together our bill. As Senator Schumer pointed out, many of 

those recommendations were already adopted by the President in 

his Executive order. We continue to work with the State Department to figure out how to put incentives in place, business-type incentives, so that they put the consulate officers where the people 

are. Those consulate officers are profit centers for the Government, 

generating sometimes $1 million in fees a year. And so trying to 

get those consulate officers there doing their job, protecting the security that Senator Feinstein referenced, is going to be very important. 

This bill, I love the authors of this bill, with Senator Blunt and 

myself, I would have to mention Branson, Missouri, or I cannot go 

on since we do everything together, also a very important tourist 

spot, as well as Senators Mikulski, Kirk, Lee, Rubio, and Senator 

Schumer. I think it really tells great—I think the authors alone 

will tell you how important this is to our country as we move forward to business. It is the best way to pick up those export numbers. The jobs are here in America, so I am excited to move forward 

and work with you, Senator Schumer, to get this bill passed. 

Thank you, everyone. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. And we are looking to get a 

broad consensus, because while obviously we believe this bill would 

merit time on the floor, if we could get it done by UC, that would 

be great. 
12 

OK. I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and your being 

here shows how important this bill is. I would like to particularly 

welcome Tom Donohue, because he is my home boy from Brooklyn, 

New York. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. He is president and CEO of the Chamber 

of Commerce. He has held that position since 1997. That is pretty 

good, 15 years in a very tough job. It is the world’s largest business 

organization. It represents three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions. Members range from mom-and-pop shops and 

local chambers to leading industry associations, and he was educated at two of the greatest universities in the world: St. John’s 

University and Adelphi University, one in Queens and one in Nassau County. 

Roger Dow is president and chief executive officer of the U.S. 

Travel Association, a position he has held since 2005. I do not know 

where he is from originally, but I am sure it is a nice place. 

Mr. DOW. South Jersey. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Oh, Jersey, good. Almost as good as 

Donohue. The U.S. Travel Association is the national umbrella organization representing all segments of the $770 billion U.S. travel 

and tourism industry. It is headquartered in Washington but has 

an active presence in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Mr. Dow 

rose through the ranks at Marriott International in a career that 

began as a summer lifeguard at the sixth Marriott Hotel. Where 

was that? 

Mr. DOW. Saddlebrook, New Jersey. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Saddlebrook, oh, yes. I bet you got good tips 

there as a lifeguard in Saddlebrook. And he spanned 34 years to 

become senior vice president global and field sales, leading Marriott’s 10,000-person worldwide sales organization. 

Rebecca Gambler is Director of Homeland Security and Justice 

issues at the GAO, a valued public servant, and she joined GAO 

in 2002 and has worked on a wide range of issues related to homeland security and justice, including border security, immigration, 

and Department of Homeland Security management and transformation. Although she has three master’s degrees, I will mention 

her degree from Syracuse University, another one of the greatest 

universities in the world, and I watched—Senator Gillibrand and 

I had to give a speech in Albany, and we stayed at the airport and 

watched the game, sadly, but maybe next year Syracuse will make 

the Final Four. 

In any case, I thank all of the witnesses. Their entire statements 

will be read in the record, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Donohue, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DONOHUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you very much, Senator, and I appreciate 

the comments about New York. We have gone deeper in that in our 

occasions when we might disagree about something by suggesting 

who came from which neighborhood, but that is for another day. 
13 

We are very honored and pleased to be here, and I know, Senator 

Feinstein, that you have to leave at 11. I have one point and I will 

get to it before you have to go. But all Members of the Senate and 

to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for putting together this hearing 

and for pushing forward on this important issue. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is singularly focused on economic growth and job creation, and this is a jobs bill. Promoting 

business travel and tourism to spur growth, to create jobs, and 

boost exports is one of our top priorities. 

Now, let me be crystal clear about why these issues are so important to the business community. America’s trade relationships and 

economic prosperity depend on the ability of foreign customers to 

travel to the United States to visit our manufacturing operations, 

inspect products and services they are purchasing, and negotiate 

contracts. Many of our member companies are global in nature, 

and many of those are small companies. They need to bring key 

employees to America from overseas to attend meetings, to receive 

training, and to integrate project work and meet with U.S. business 

partners. Technology has been great for business communications, 

but there are no replacements for face-to-face business meetings. It 

is still an essential part of American companies’ ability to thrive 

and compete in the global economy. 

When travel is unnecessarily impeded, when visitors get frustrated with long visa delays, when they get hassled at an airport, 

America’s bottom line takes a beating. When it is necessary to protect our security, we fully support it, however, Senator. 

This applies not just to State travelers but to tourists as well. 

The travel and tourism industry currently employs 7.4 million 

Americans and generates more than $700 billion in revenue. And 

guess what? When foreign visitors spend their money here, it is 

counted here as an export. But we are leaving travel-related jobs 

and revenues on the table because we are not laying out the welcome mat as much as we should to travelers and tourists. 

Consider what is at stake. If we could restore the U.S. share of 

the global travel market to its 2000 level—granted, that was before 

the recession—we could create 1.3 million jobs, generate $860 billion in economic activity without costing the taxpayers a single 

dime. 

As to the JOLT Act, that is why the chamber is pleased to 

strongly support the Act. If passed, the legislation could dramatically increase international travel to the United States by reforming the visa process and removing impediments, hassles, and other 

deterrents that keep tourists and business people from visiting our 

country. It would do so in four fundamental ways. 

First, one of the most important ways the JOLT Act could 

strengthen our economic system and create jobs is through the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program. And, Senator Feinstein, one 

of the issues—and I am going to come and visit you about this, because I am very committed and deal in many of the same venues 

that you do, is the safety of our country. But my understanding is 

that this bill would not put China into the Visa Waiver Program. 

But your arguments about how long Chinese tourists who come in 

through other systems stay here is valid and should be addressed 

in the activities that we all hope get done before the summer. So 
14 

I am going to make an appointment to come and talk to you about 

that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you. 

Then, when we are talking about the Visa Waiver Program, travelers make up one of the largest sources of our inbound overseas 

travel to the United States, and according to the Department of 

Commerce—and we have got to get Commerce numbers, and we 

have got to go make sure we have numbers from Homeland Security as well because they do not always jibe-65 percent of all overseas visitors to our country travel under the program. I think we 

ought to ask the question that you raised: How many of them went 

home? Many of them go home and come back and go home and 

come back. But we need to figure out how to follow that. And while 

they are here, these visitors spend, as we said, a lot of money. 

In addition to the obvious economic benefits, expansion of this 

program would actually make our Nation more secure if we did 

some of the things the Senator was suggesting. 

Before getting accepted into the program, countries must agree 

to adopt strict security measures, strong travel document standards, and enhance information sharing. Maybe that is why China 

would not be included in this particular deal. Together, the economic and national security benefits of the Visa Waiver Program 

amount to a huge win for the U.S. 

Our second reason for supporting the Senator’s bill, the legislation would give travelers an option to expedite their visa for a fee. 

Expedited visa processing is especially useful for companies because it allows them to effectively move their personnel and clients 

to the United States to conduct business. And we all know that in 

a global economy, speed and flexibility are vital to success. 

The third reason we support it, the Act would allow the State 

Department to offer lower visa application fees for business visitors 

and leisure travelers during typical off-peak seasons of low demand. It is like a sale at the Mall of America. It is a good thing 

to do. This would incentive those travelers with greater flexibility 

to plan ahead. 

And, finally, the JOLT Act would bring some needed predictability to the U.S. visa application process by requiring the State 

Department to process and interview visa applicants within a twoweek window. This requirement would encourage the State Department to hire enough consular officers to consistently meet the twoweek timeframe. And while the Department has reduced delays, we 

still have a long way to go. But, again, coming back to Senator 

Feinstein’s suggestion, people could be taken out of line that need 

a longer period of review so that the great majority of visitors to 

the United States could be processed in a hurry. 

So let me conclude. All told, the chamber believes that the JOLT 

Act would allow the United States to recapture a good portion of 

its share of the global travel market and help Americans get back 

to work. Put in a simple sentence. Canadians now go and visit Europe more often than they ever did because they cannot get into 

the United States in a reasonable timeframe. That is not smart. 

The chamber is collaborating with Roger Dow and our friends at 

the Travel Association and other partners to unleash the economic 
15 

power of the U.S. travel and tourism industry. To do so, we need 

to reduce the hassle factor for visitors; we need to provide adequate 

resources to our consular posts to do an efficient, time-effective job; 

we need to bring more countries, after careful scrutiny, into the 

Visa Waiver Program. And with a struggling economy, we cannot 

afford to forgo this business. We need to ensure that when tourists 

are ready to travel and business people are ready to make deals, 

they come to the greatest destination of them all—the United 

States of America. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, 

and thank you, Senator, for staying while we made those comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donohue appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Donohue. We look forward 

to your visit with Senator Feinstein, and we want to make sure all 

those Canadians go fishing in Minnesota, not Scotland. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, I bet you a lot of them go to Minnesota, and 

some of them come across the border legally. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Of course they do because, as you now, Senator Schumer, we can see Canada from our porch. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. It is a bipartisan event. 

Mr. DONOHUE. No, that was fine. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Dow. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER J. DOW, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED STATES TRAVEL ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. DOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators, for this very 

important session. Increasing inbound travel is a huge economic 

benefit. You very articulately went through the numbers, as did my 

colleague, Tom Donohue, so I will spare you that. But when you 

look at it, three percent of our GDP is travel and tourism, 4.5 percent of our jobs, a very labor-intensive business, and that does not 

even count the people who come and buy Caterpillar tractors, et 

cetera. 

As Mr. Donohue said, it does not cost the taxpayers a dime, and 

I think that is so important. They come here, they spend their 

money, they go home. We do not have to give them health care. We 

do not have to fix their potholes. We do not have to feed their 

homeless. It is a beautiful thing. 

When you talk about the revenues, they are breathtaking, as you 

have said—$130-some billion—they are huge. America’s largest 

service export. Chinese travelers spend upwards to $6,000 per visit, 

and many want to come and do the Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail, 

so it will be huge in your area and spend that money in Mall of 

America. 

But business travelers, I think, are so important because when 

they do not come here, as Mr. Donohue said, they do not sign the 

contracts, they do not buy the Caterpillar tractors, they do not buy 

our electronic goods. 
16 

As you have all stated, we have not remained competitive. We 

have lost share. And that lost decade has cost us a tremendous 

amount, as you said, Mr. Chairman. 

We applaud recent progress. The State Department has made 

great progress. Mr. Tom Nides and his group have been tremendous in pulling down the wait times, as you said, that used to be 

over 100 days. President Obama’s Executive order is going to make 

a huge difference in having a strategy for travel and tourism and 

really greatly increase it. And Congress is paying close attention. 

This JOLT Act is absolutely the right name. It will jolt the economy. The infrastructure is built here. You do not have to build another Mall of America. You do not have to build hotels or airports. 

It is there. It is just turning on the faucet a little bit. 

When you look at—two things I am going to focus on, and Mr. 

Donohue did so articulately, so I will go quickly through them, is 

the codification of the two-week visa processing standard. We are 

getting there. We got it now. Let us codify it, let us make sure it 

stays. 

Next is the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program. We have spoken articulately about that. And the problem is the press has had 

a field day with our policies and what happens and the perception 

around the world hurts us so much not only in people coming here, 

but in the perception of America. 

The challenges we have talked about are large. When you really 

look at the Executive order, it has huge opportunities. But with the 

JOLT Act, I think you really look at the Visa Waiver Program, as 

Senator Feinstein talked so much about security, it really is a national security program when you look at the Visa Waiver Program. When you had in 2007, when Congress really added all those 

criteria to the Visa Waiver Program, they really phenomenally enhanced since the shoe bomber and people like that tried to get 

here, all that data and the data sharing is so important. 

Requiring overstays to be less than three percent is a qualification. In fact, John Cohen, who is a homeland security terrorism expert, says visa waiver countries have less than one percent 

overstays. So I think the recommendation of allowing the Secretary 

of Homeland Security to designate countries to go into the program 

would be a great opportunity. 

So, in closing, I would like to say the same thing. Global travel 

is booming. We are not getting our fair share. People have choices 

to go anywhere in the world, and the world is promoting them to 

come there. Interest in coming to the U.S. is huge. Everybody 

wants to come here. But potential visitors are discouraged by the 

real and perceived hassles, and this program would eliminate that, 

and we can do it at no cost to the taxpayers and no cost to security. 

We need to recapture that share, and we appreciate everyone’s 

continued interest in this. It will make a difference in jobs and how 

we stand and to our economy, and we would like to work side by 

side with you, and this is a great bill. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dow appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

And now Ms. Gambler. 
17 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA GAMBLER, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. GAMBLER. Good morning, Chairman Schumer and Members 

of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing to discuss GAO’s work on the Visa Waiver Program 

as well as overstay enforcement. In both areas, I would like to 

cover progress made by the Department of Homeland Security as 

well as challenges that need to be addressed. 

First, under the Visa Waiver Program, from fiscal year 2005 

through 2010, over 98 million visitors were admitted to the United 

States. Since 2001, we have issued five reports that have highlighted progress made by DHS in managing the program. For example, the Department has implemented the Electronic System for 

Travel Authorization, or ESTA, as required by the 9/11 Commission Act, and took steps to minimize the burden associated with 

this requirement. Airlines are now complying with ESTA requirements about 99 percent of the time. 

Further, about half the countries in the Visa Waiver Program 

have signed required information-sharing agreements with the U.S. 

for such things as lost and stolen passports and watchlists. While 

these are positive developments, we have also identified challenges 

in DHS’ management and oversight of the program. 

For example, in 2010, about 360,000 travelers boarded planes for 

the U.S. without verified ESTA approval. DHS is now taking actions to review a sample of noncompliant travelers to identify potential risks posed by these travelers. 

In addition, while a number of Visa Waiver Program countries 

have signed information-sharing agreements with the United 

States, we have reported that many of the agreements have not yet 

been implemented. DHS had established a schedule to finalize the 

agreements by June 2012; however, at this point it is unclear 

whether DHS will meet this target timeframe. 

Now turning to the issue of overstays, in 2006 the Pew Hispanic 

Center estimated that there were between four million and 5.5 million overstays in the U.S. out of an estimated total unauthorized 

alien population of about 11.5 million to 12 million. DHS has made 

progress in addressing overstays. For example, DHS’ Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, uses a risk-based approach for 

allocating its limited resources to address overstays. It focuses 

those resources on potential overstays who are more likely to pose 

homeland security or public safety threats. ICE has also considered 

plans for expanding resources it dedicates to overstay investigations. 

However, as we reported, DHS has taken action to address a 

small portion of the estimated overstay population. For example, 

from fiscal year 2004 through 2010, ICE’s unit primarily responsible for overstay investigations made about 8,100 overstay arrests, 

and ICE devoted about three percent of its investigative resources 

to overstays. 

In addition, DHS has some data reliability issues that hinder the 

Department’s efforts to identify overstays. For example, DHS has 

implemented an entry capability under the US-VISIT program 

through which the Department collects biographic and biometric 
18 

data on foreign nationals. However, and as we have discussed, 

DHS has not yet implemented a biometric exit system, and there 

is inconsistent collection of departure records at land ports of entry. 

DHS’ current process to identify overstays involves matching primarily biographic entry and exit information. As a result of these 

challenges and others, DHS cannot yet reliably identify overstays 

in the U.S. 

In closing, the Visa Waiver Program was designed to facilitate 

international travel and focus limited resources on higher-risk visa 

applicants. Much progress has been made to address issues we previously identified, and the Federal Government is better positioned 

today to identify and prevent potentially dangerous travelers from 

boarding U.S.-bound flights under the program. 

That said, we have reported that the program continues to face 

challenges and that DHS has a ways to go to address overstay 

issues. We have made a number of recommendations to DHS in 

these areas to help strengthen implementation efforts, and the Department has generally concurred with these recommendations. 

This concludes my oral statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gambler appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you for your excellent testimony. 

GAO does a great job because of people like you who have been 

there for a long time working hard. 

I will save my questioning for the end so my colleagues can move 

along, and I am going to start with Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gambler, how do you keep track of someone who comes in 

on a visa? Do we find out where they are staying? Do they have 

to say where they are staying? And what happens if they do not 

exit in time? Do we know that if they do not exit when they say 

they were going to? 

MS. GAMBLER. When foreign nationals enter the U.S., they are 

required to provide an address of where they will be staying for the 

time that they are in the country. If they do not abide by their authorized periods of admission and do not leave the country by that 

time, the Department of Homeland Security generates basically a 

list of those individuals who they have entry records but for whom 

they do not have a corresponding departure record for and their departure time has passed. And that is the starting place for DHS 

to try to identify overstays. 

There are some difficulties in having complete departure records. 

As we mentioned, there is no biometric exit system, and at land 

ports of entry, as people depart the U.S., they are voluntarily turning in their entry-exit forms. There is no consistent collection of 

those forms as they leave the country. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Dow, in your testimony you focus—first of all, I would like 

to thank you for mentioning the Mall of America. 

Mr. DOW. Great place. 

Senator FRANKEN. And Mr. Donohue as well. You know, it is 

very convenient to the airport, actually. 

Mr. DOW. Yes, it is. 
19 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Dow, in your testimony you focus on the 

codification of a two-week or 10-day visa processing standard. If a 

tourist wants to come to the U.S., they should not have to wait 

endlessly for a visa appointment. The administration has made 

major improvements in key countries like China and Brazil, and 

the JOLT Act builds on that progress. It requires that the State 

Department submit a strategic plan for bringing down wait times 

along with an account of the resources required to do that. 

Can you tell us what happens to the funds that consular posts 

collect in visa application fees? The reason I ask this is because I 

am wondering whether speeding up the process would involve significant new costs or would instead produce a virtuous cycle. More 

visas processed means more visa fees, which could in turn support 

the increased capacity at the State Department to meet the demands for the visas. 

Mr. DOW. Senator Franken, first, on the funds, as Senator 

Klobuchar said, each of the officers, consular officers, brings in— 

they interview 12,000 people a year, so they bring in about $1.5 to 

$2 million each, and fully loaded, maybe there are 300,000 with 

training, travel, et cetera. So they are a profit center of $1.2 million. But it does not even count the $65 million that the people 

they interview bring to this country, so it is a huge opportunity. 

As far as allocation of the funds, the funds go back to the State 

Department to that area. However, also the Secretary of State has 

the ability to allocate funds in different places. But if you were running this as a business, you would add those people as quickly as 

possible. I call it very much like having one cashier at Costco during the holidays. It makes no sense. You could make a lot of 

money. You can get the people through, and you can focus the resources on finding the bad guys versus the good guys. So it is a 

huge opportunity and no cost to the U.S. Government. 

Senator FRANKEN. Now, you talk also about the barriers that 

particularly stifle travel from high-growth countries such as Brazil, 

China, and India. That pretty much tracks what I have heard in 

Minnesota. 

Obviously a lot of our international tourists come from Canada, 

but to take one example, folks at the Mall of America—have we 

mentioned that? Oh, yes, we have. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. They have identified those same countries as 

emerging markets for visitors to the Mall. And as I said, shopping 

is a huge part of the tourism industry in Minnesota, along with 

recreation. You referred to those visitors as ‘‘high spend.’’ Can you 

talk a little bit more about the patterns of spending among tourists 

from those relatively new markets? 

Mr. DOW. Those new markets, basically all you have to do is 

stand at the airport and watch the folks return to China, India, 

Brazil, et cetera. They have no problem paying the excess baggage 

fees. They pay a lot because those bags are full of American products. The Brazilian traveler spends up to $5,000 per person. The 

average is $4,000 internationally. The Chinese spend up to $6,000, 

so they are among our largest spending. 

We had the head of China tourism here and the 31 provincial 

ministers to a meeting in Orlando. We meet every year with them. 
20 

The one thing they want to do is go to an outlet mall. These are 

people that have very high level, and they said, ‘‘We need more 

time at the malls.’’ So when people go somewhere, the question 

they ask is: What do you do? Where can you shop? At least my wife 

does. And where is a good place to eat? 

So the amount of money that these people spend, discretionary 

income, is huge, and a lot of it, a huge portion, goes to the retail 

community. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you, and I just want to say what 

a culinary renaissance we have had in the Twin Cities of late. 

Mr. DOW. Absolutely. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Including fish, I presume. 

Senator FRANKEN. Oh, the walleye in Minnesota, always available and always fresh. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. But no worms, I hope. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Franken, before you leave, just one 

thing I would like to clarify because it relates to your question and 

the GAO witness. But the fact is they declare where they are going, 

but in overall statistical terms, nobody is tracked, nobody has to go 

where they say they are going to go, nobody is out looking for people who overstay, and there is no mechanism whatsoever as a practical matter. Is there, Ms. Gambler? 

MS. GAMBLER. Well, two points, Senator. One, we have said ICE 

devotes about three percent of its investigative resources to overstay enforcement, and that is relative to the overall resources that 

they have. And so if you do overstay your authorized periods of admission, unless you act out in some way or are prioritized by ICE 

as being a threat to national security or public safety, you may go 

undetected. 

Senator SESSIONS. Wait a minute. I will answer the question. Nobody looks, nobody checks, because we do not have the money, resources, or a mechanism. And, in fact, when a person is apprehended by a police officer for a DUI and they are illegally here, if 

they determine that, nothing is done about that, whether they 

came in across the land border or flew in and overstayed, because 

they release them. That is the policy throughout America because 

ICE and Border Patrol will not come and get them. 

So, anyway, the numbers are so large that I just wanted to highlight the fact that we are pretty much on a volunteer honor system. 

And the best way to tighten it up would be a good biometric system. 

Ms. Gambler, Senator Feinstein mentioned biographic and you 

mentioned biographic and biometric, I believe. Would you describe 

the difference between a biographic and biometric identifier for 

people who enter the country? 

MS. GAMBLER. Sure. Biographic information is basically name, 

passport number, country of origin, that kind of information. A biometric indicator for the purposes of an entry-exit system is currently a photograph and fingerprints, and those fingerprints are 

taken when a person applies for admission at a port of entry. 
21 

Senator SESSIONS. One of the requirements of the Visa Waiver 

Program is that the country have a biometric passport with a biometric identifier; is that correct? 

MS. GAMBLER. I believe the requirement for the Visa Waiver Program is that it be a machine-readable passport and that it have 

electronic information embedded in the passport, an e-passport. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, this has been discussed in years past 

when we have dealt with this, and nobody wants to confront it, but 

it is rather simple, it seems to me. If you move, Mr. Donohue and 

Mr. Dow, to a prompt entry-exit system, the one I would like to see 

is here you have something like a driver’s license; a businessman 

would not mind paying for this, especially if he is going to come 

maybe many times to the United States. He puts it in a machine 

that reads it and goes on through. 

Well, the problem is, the obvious problem is anybody could take 

anybody else’s card and put it in the machine. So the way to deal 

with that is to have a biometric, not a biographic data but a biometric system. 

Now, Mr. Ridge, he and I had many conversations on this, and 

the last thing he said when he left Homeland Security was, ‘‘You 

should use the fingerprint biometric.’’ That is so because our entire 

criminal justice system, every fugitive is already fingerprinted, we 

are looking for them, that kind of thing. 

So what should happen is a biometric should be in this card, and 

then if it is a fingerprint and it is your thumbprint, you put your 

card in the machine and you put your thumb on the machine. It 

compares the card to your thumb, and if you are the person on the 

card, you go right on through and it takes just a few seconds. And, 

indeed, right now police officers in America have in their cars machines that read people’s fingerprints. So if they arrest somebody 

on the highway, they print them, and the computer while he is 

talking to him finds out they are wanted for murder in South Jersey. And it can be done with immigrants, too, but it is not being 

done. 

Chairman SCHUMER. It is not being done if you pick up somebody 

DWI? Do they check their immigration status? 

MS. GAMBLER. They do if the jurisdiction or the State is enrolled 

in the Secure Communities program. 

Chairman SCHUMER. It is up to the State. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is not exactly correct. Ms. Gambler is 

technically correct, but what happens is that there are two different systems. They are not merged. So you have to run—the police officer has got to run both the immigration system and this 

one. He does not have the automatic immigration system. He has 

got to call some ICE person that he does not know. And the fact 

is they do not do it, because I talked to them. I asked, ‘‘What happens if you arrest somebody in your community illegally in the 

country? ’’ And they say, ‘‘Nothing. We let them go.’’ That is the policy throughout America because nobody will come and get them if 

they detain them. 

All right. So has any study been done of a biometric system like 

this that could expedite and enhance the security of the system? 

MS. GAMBLER. Senator, the Department of Homeland Security 

has tested over the years various pilot programs for trying to cap-
22 

ture biometric information from foreign travelers as they leave the 

U.S., specifically at airports and seaports. Our understanding is 

that they are studying the results of those pilots and that they are 

planning to issue a plan, as we discussed earlier, sometime in the 

coming months. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, is that going to be biometric, as you understand it? 

MS. GAMBLER. That is our understanding. We have not seen the 

plan. We have not evaluated it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that would be a key thing, that it be a 

biometric and not, as Senator Feinstein expressed concern, biographic because a biographic just—it is probably not worth the effort. It will not be much better than we are today. 

With regard to our visa waiver countries, we should insist that 

they meet the minimum standards that it requires. You said only 

about half of the countries are in compliance with the information 

sharing on such things as lost or forged passports and things of 

that nature. Is that accurate? 

MS. GAMBLER. That is right. About half of the countries in the 

Visa Waiver Program have currently signed the required information-sharing agreements. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, Mr. Donohue, if someone—European, 

Chinese, Brazilian—business people who travel a lot, don’t you 

think they would be perfectly willing to pay several hundred dollars, if need be, to get a card that will allow them to prompt entry 

and exit and have a biometric in it so it would expedite their ability to travel? And couldn’t this be a breakthrough that really would 

accelerate their ability to enter and exit the United States? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Conceptually, I think that is absolutely true. I 

think with lots and lots of smaller companies coming back and 

forth, that might be a question. But the only thing that we would 

all recognize is to get—the idea we are trying to shorten the time 

frame, we would have to make sure wherever these cards were 

being produced, that the time frame would not be impeded by a 

long period to produce the card. And then, of course, we do have 

a lot of challenges in the United States. Our own citizens are very 

reticent to have certain biometric identifiers, and you and I have 

been on both sides of that issue before. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, give me a break. Do you want to come 

to the United States? Do you want to come quickly without a hassle? You go down to the embassy a week or two early, get your 

card, and then for maybe a decade or more, you are able to enter 

and exit—— 

MS. GAMBLER. If that was the deal, they would do that. They 

would do that. You are asking me would this be as smooth as the 

ice in Minnesota? No. But it would be worth pursuing. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think the problem with biometric is not 

any objection, just the cost, the cost of implementing it. In fact, as 

it is known, I proposed a biometric on the Social Security card to 

deal with illegal immigration, as Jeff and I have talked about. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would just say—do I still have time or am 

I over? 
23 

Mr. DONOHUE. We might even get them on a voter registration 

card. That would be interesting. 

Chairman SCHUMER. They gave you two five minutes because 

they respect you so much. 

Senator SESSIONS. Oh, gosh. I wondered why I still had time. 

Well, with regard to a country that is not a visa waiver country but 

has many decent visitors who want to come to America, I think 

this could help them expedite their entry and exit and reduce the 

burden on the embassy people they have to repeatedly interview 

people. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Listen, there are a lot of advantages to technology. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is in our bill. That is section eight of 

our bill. 

Just one other point, as I understand it, and then I will go right 

to Senator Klobuchar. As I understand it, if a police officer picks 

you up, say, for DUI, DWI, your prints are sent to the FBI. The 

FBI sends them to two places. They send to the NIC system, which 

looks at your criminal record. They also send them to the immigration system, and you get two reports—and the local police officer 

gets two reports back, one on criminal status and one on immigration status. I believe that is the case, but we will check that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am not sure that is the case as a practical 

matter. But even so, the practical result is that nothing is done 

about the person who is here illegally because they are not—it is 

the policy not to do anything. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is a different issue, but I think we— 

am I right about that, Ms. Gambler? 

MS. GAMBLER. I believe that is how the process works. We actually have ongoing work right now reviewing the Secure Communities program. We would be happy to come up and brief you and 

your staff on it at any time. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Great. OK. Maybe you can do that for Senator Sessions and me, and anyone else who wants to come. 

MS. GAMBLER. We will be happy to get in touch with the staff. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer. 

All the times you mentioned Mall of America reminded me of—I 

wrote a book on the building of our domed stadium when I was in 

college, and Harvey McKay, who is a rather well-known businessman, had actually commissioned a survey to see how many times 

they used the word ‘‘Minnesota’’ when we were in the Super Bowl 

to bolster his argument for the stadium, and that is what this reminds me of, so thank you. 

The survey conducted by the Discover America Partnership, Mr. 

Dow, found that over 50 percent of respondents would not visit the 

U.S. if the visa process took longer than two weeks. This number 

jumps to 73 percent when the process takes two to three months. 

And so what I would like to know is: Do you think this is true? 

It is a survey. But, also, what have you seen in terms of progress 

that has been made since Mr. Nides came to the State Department—also a Minnesotan—and we started our work with Senator 

Blunt to try to push this issue? 
24 

Mr. DOW. Well, yes, I do believe those numbers, and the important thing, especially when you talk about the economics, is not to 

confuse a long line with security. The security is the same when 

they get there. So I think if we improved those lines, as has happened with Tom Nides, who has done a tremendous job putting 

focus on that, there is a great opportunity. As Mr. Schumer says, 

you have traveled the world. When you go to Brazil and watch 

those people stand out in the sun and the rain, and all their relatives, for three hours just to come here, jump through the hoops 

of waiting 100 days, can you imagine if it was two weeks, if it was 

a very welcoming process, what we could get? And we are talking 

about adding a phenomenal amount of income to the United States. 

So, yes, I do believe those, and it can be easily improved. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Now, I understand there has been some improvement in China. Hubert Joly from Carlson Companies has 

been tracking it. The number is improving, say, us versus England, 

in terms of the time it takes to get the visas. Do you have any of 

those numbers or are they verified? 

Mr. DOW. Yes, I do. There are five consulates in China. All of the 

five are under 15 days. They used to be up to 100 days. Now the 

question is: Is this sustainable? That is why this JOLT bill is so 

important to codify the two weeks, because you can make everything good for a while by refusing people, et cetera. But to keep 

those numbers, as the brand USA begins promoting, it is easier to 

come to the United States as far as time in line, more people want 

to come. So it is very important to codify and keep that two weeks. 

They have done a great job, but we need sustainability. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Donohue, did you want to add anything? 

Mr. DONOHUE. I think this is a very, very good discussion because it had two parts to it. One is how do we bring more people 

here for tourism and business and for our value, and the value is 

money, but it is something else, too, and that is, when you bring 

people to the United States, which we have demonstrated over a 

long period of time, it builds better relationships with folks all 

around the world. 

The second part of this discussion today, which I think the 

Chairman sees as an important characteristic of what has to be 

dealt with here, is the security issue, and I think notwithstanding 

what is in the bill and what is not in the bill, both Senator Sessions and Senator Feinstein raised a number of issues that we 

should collectively look at. You never get a benefit without a risk, 

and we have to marginalize—keep the risk at a marginal level and 

try and drive the benefit as high as we can. The use of technology 

and the use of very sound intelligence will help us, and I think we 

put everybody in the same place and get two benefits for one bill. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One of the things that is not in the bill that 

I would still like to continue to explore—I know that you would, 

Mr. Dow—is the idea of the videoconferencing for some of these 

visa interviews, this idea that you could do teleconference when 

you have situations in some countries where people are hours away 

from the nearest office where they could even get a visa. And I 

hope that is something that we pursue in the future because I have 

even heard the argument made that there could be some advan-
25 

tages from a security standpoint because they will have it on video 

so other people can look at the videos if they want to get a sense 

of how someone reacts and watch their eye movement or do whatever they want in these interviews. So I hope it is something that 

we explore going forward. 

I just wanted to end by emphasizing that we have been talking 

a lot about statistics and money, but it is really important to remember that this is about the owner of a small flower shop in 

Knoxville, or it is the hotel worker who has their first job out of 

college in Minneapolis and wants to move up at the hotel, or the 

waitress in New York City who is going to finally get some more 

tips in because people are coming into the restaurant that would 

not come in before, and that these are American jobs, and that is 

why this JOLT Act is so important. 

So thank you to all of you. 

Mr. DOW. I am in. 

Mr. DONOHUE. And they are non-exportable jobs. You cannot 

outsource these jobs, which is a huge benefit. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you for all you do. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, home of the Mall of Americas. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That sounds like—it is Mall of America, 

and when you visit, you will see that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Oh, I see. Mall of America. We had hoped 

to build in Syracuse a mall even larger than the Mall of America 

with green bonds, but it has not happened yet. 

I have some questions, but I am going to submit them for the 

record since we said we would end this hearing in a timely way. 

And Senator Feinstein has three more questions, and she will submit them for the record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Sessions, do you have any other 

questions? 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not. And I would submit my statement 

for the record and a statement from Mr. John Martin of Federation 

for American Immigration Reform regarding biometric entry-exit. 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sessions appears as a submission for the record.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. It has been a very good hearing. 

Thank you all. 

Chairman SCHUMER. It really has. We are trying to move this 

bill, and the only way we will be able to move it is if it will not 

be a two-week contentious debate. And I think this hearing has 

narrowed down those parameters, you know, for people who want 

to help get this bill done, like Senator Feinstein and Senator Sessions, but who might have a few objections. 

Senator SESSIONS. The only thing I would say to our witnesses, 

Mr. Dow and Mr. Donohue, we should not be here today. You probably know the history. Senator Feinstein does. Since I came here 

15 years ago, we have been talking about a biometric entry-exit 
26 

system that works. That could have been done years ago. It is still 

not done, and it is one of the big irritants and has slowed down 

some of the things you would like to see accomplished. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I would agree with you, but I would say we 

have got to pay for it. It is expensive. It works, but it is expensive. 

We will get the money back in terms of tourism and everything 

else. 

Mr. DONOHUE. It will bring a lot more travelers. They will leave 

a lot more money. They will pay a lot more taxes, and then we can 

afford the system. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I believe in a biometric system strongly. It 

is just you cannot ask for one and then not pay for it. That is why 

we are here for 15 years. And we get the money back, but, you 

know, the way our budgeting system works, unfortunately, all the 

increase in income tax, sales tax, and all those other taxes, which 

would accrue to the Federal Government and to the States, is 

never calculated when we do things like this. And it is one of the 

reasons we, unfortunately, look at things too short term. 

Having said that, this hearing was a really good hearing. I agree 

with Senator Sessions and Senator Klobuchar. It has helped us 

narrow our differences. And it is my hope that we could move our 

bill rather quickly, maybe in time for the summer tourism season. 

I need not tell you how much New York benefits from tourism, and 

we are booming even with these problems because many of the visa 

waiver people visit New York, being European. Our tourism industry is booming. We have had a record number of tourists this year. 

The foreign tourists spend more money than the Americans, you 

know, the people from other States, and it is really important to 

our economy. 

One other point I would make: It creates jobs particularly at the 

lower levels. It is the ladders up when people work in hotels or 

drive the cabs or anything else that gives people the kind of jobs 

we are really looking for where we have had the highest unemployment. So moving this is really, I think, a national imperative, and 

I will do everything I can to do it. 

I thank Senator Sessions, I thank Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota and the Mall of America, and I thank our witnesses. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you very much. 

MS. GAMBLER. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
28 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS

Senator Jeff Sessions 

Opening Statement 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security 

"The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the 

United States" 

March 27, 2012 

Senator Schumer, thank you for chairing this hearing 

on an issue that is significant to both the economic health 

and national security of our country. I would like to 

welcome all of our witnesses. Senator Mikulski, thank you 

for taking the time this morning to share your testimony 

with the Subcommittee. I know this issue is as important 

to you as it is to me and I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

For over 25 years, the Visa Waiver Program has 

facilitated the admission of business and tourist visitors to 

our country. The Department of Commerce recently 

reported that more foreign tourists than ever came to the 

United States last year. These visitors spend money while 
29 

they are here, contributing to our economy and creating 

jobs for the American people. Understandably, that is why 

the Program enjoys support from both the Chamber of 

Commerce and the Travel Association. 

This program is important and, in general, achieves 

desirable results. However, those results must not come 

at the expense of the rule of law or our national security. 

We can make the Program more expeditious and more 

effective. It is not working well; and, it can and must be 

improved. 

Citizens of countries participating in the Visa Waiver 

program enjoy the privilege of easy entry into the United 

States. If those countries want to continue to enjoy that 

privilege, their citizens must comply with our law, which 

requires them to exit the United States at a designated 

time. That privilege does not allow someone from a Visa 

2 
30 

Waiver country to stay here past 90 days, while others 

comply with the law and return home. Our system ought 

to be well run and simple and admit those who intend to 

abide by our laws; it should also identify those who 

disobey our laws by staying past their authorized period of 

admission and remove them from the country. 

Additionally, no result is desirable if it comes at a cost 

to our national security. The safety of the American 

people comes first. Because participants in the Program 

are not required to apply for a visa, terrorists and criminals 

believe that utilizing the Program will allow them to avoid 

scrutiny and enter the country unnoticed. It is well-known 

that terrorists have entered the country through the Visa 

Wavier Program, including Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the 

conspirators behind the 9/11 attacks, Richard Reid, the 

'shoe bomber' who attempted to light explosives during a 

3 
31 

flight from France to the U.S., and Ahmed Ajaj, an 

organizer of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. 

So, if we are going to operate this program safely 

there must be protections in place to ensure that the 

individuals using the Program do not pose a threat to our 

national security, and that they will exit the country when 

their authorized period of stay is over. 

Our first line of defense, at the front end, is the criteria 

for designation of program countries. These requirements 

are designed to ensure the integrity of the program, and 

should not be altered without serious consideration. 

Designated countries must, among other things, have a 

low visa refusal rate, include biometric identifiers on their 

passports, accept the repatriation of their citizens that are 

deported from the U.S., and enter into a number of 

4 
32 

agreements with the U.S., including an agreement to 

share information about theft and loss of passports. 

Each of these requirements addresses specific 

threats that must be avoided when designating a program 

country. For example, the requirement that countries 

agree to share information concerning passport theft and 

loss is designed to address the incentives for fraud 

involving passports from visa waiver countries. In 2006, 

the GAO noted that passports from designated countries 

are prized travel documents among those attempting to 

illegally enter the country, and that theft of such passports 

compromises national security. 

Yet, in December, an official from the GAO testified 

before the House that only half of the 36 deSignated 

countries have fully complied with the information sharing 

requirements of the law. This is totally unacceptable, and 

5 
33 

I would like to see it addressed before we consider 

expanding the program. 

The criteria that each program country must meet are 

not arbitrary or unnecessary. Each is important. Aliens 

that use the Visa Waiver Program are not inspected by 

any government official until they are already present at a 

U.S. port of entry. They have relaxed documentary 

requirements and are not subject to an in-person interview 

by a consular official, as are most visitors. For this 

reason, we must have high standards for designating 

program countries; and, those standards must be met in 

every instance. 

There is a second, equally important security issue 

that is involved here, and that is the indisputable need for 

a fully operational biometric entry and exit system, which 

will facilitate the identification and apprehension of aliens 

6 
34 

who overstay their period of admission. Certainly some 

pose a substantial threat to national security. Over 36 

individuals who overstayed their visas have been 

convicted of terrorism-related charges since 2001. Amine 

el-Khalifi, the individual who attempted to bomb the U.S. 

Capitol in February, was present in the country on an 

expired visa. 

I have heard many excuses concerning the failure to 

implement a biometric exit system. Today, we have an 

entry system at over 300 ports, but the entry system does 

not do us much good if we cannot determine whether 

individuals entering the country actually leave. Recently, 

the Department of Homeland Security announced that it 

would be presenting a plan to get this system to 100% 

completion. I look forward to the details of that plan. Until 

then, I have serious doubts about expanding this Program, 

7 
35 

With that in mind, I hope Chairman Schumer and my 

colleagues in the Senate will ensure that the Visa Waiver 

Program is operated in a way that will promote economic 

growth, avoid jeopardizing the safety of American citizens, 

and work smoothly without delays. I would like to thank all 

of the witnesses again for being here today, and I look 

forward to hearing your testimony. 

8 
36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE

Statement for the Record 

Senator Mike Lee 

The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States 

March 27, 2012 

As our nation's economy continues to take slow steps towards a full recovery, we must explore 

every option for new revenue streams. With a few simple changes to our visa policies, 

international tourism can become an attractive source of increased revenue, which will aid in a 

speedy economic recovery and result in the creation of millions of jobs. 

As this hearing will surely demonstrate, the need for changes to our visa policies is clear. Every 

day that we continue to exclude tourists from our local sites and businesses, we miss out on 

millions of dollars of potential revenue. Citizens of foreign countries have the financial ability 

and the desire to vacation in the U.S., but our policies prevent these people from investing in our 

economy. 

The Jobs Originated through Launching Travel (JOLT) Act attempts to ease the process by 

which visas may be obtained. The validity period of certain visas is increased, allowing a greater 

number of visits to the U.S. by those who have been screened and approved, avoiding the hassle 

of the complicated process of frequent visa renewal. The Act also permits the State Department 

to charge a fee for processing visas on an expedited basis, much like U.S. citizens can pay to 

have passports approved more quickly. 

In addition to expediting visa processing, the Act also encourages visitors to come during certain 

times of year and during a certain time of life. The Act authorizes the State Department to lower 

visa application fees for selected countries during off-peak seasons, creating an incentive for 

travel all-year round. Also, retiring Canadians are encouraged to spend their time and money 

here by purchasing a home in the U.S. 

Utah has been the destination chosen by millions in search of picturesque landscapes or faithrelated tours. The importance of international tourism to the economy of our great state carmot 

be overemphasized. By easing the process by which visas can be obtained and by creating 

incentives to come to the U.S., the JOLT Act aims to increase revenues and create jobs in Utah 

and throughout the United States. 
37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES

Hearing before the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security 

"The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States" 

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 

Testimony of Senator Barbara A. Miknlski 

I would like to thank Chainnan Schumer and Ranking Member Cornyn for holding this important hearing. 

Tourism creates American jobs and the Senate needs to look at how to allow more tourists to visit the United 

States while continuing to protect our borders. 

I'm here today to discuss section Six of the JOLT Act, which contains language ofa bill I introduced with 

Senator Kirk earlier this year named the Visa Waiver Program Enhanced Security and Refonn Act (S. 2046.) 

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) was created in 1986 and the last significant refonn of the program was in 

2007. The program has promoted tourism but it is first and foremost a national security tool and the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of2007 (P.L. 110-53) made the Visa Waiver 

Program dramatically more secure. However, it has been more than four years since Congress considered that 

legislation and it is time to revisit, refresh and refonn the Visa Waiver Program 

The Visa Waiver Program Enhanced Security and Refonn Act refonns the Visa Waiver Program in three major 

ways: 

First, it makes overstay rates a requirement for eligibility in the Visa Waiver Program. If more than three 

percent of visitors from a country overstay their visas, that country isn't eligible. No exceptions. 

In the past, DHS has been unable to provide overstay numbers to Congress. If this bill is passed, that will be 

forced to change as the Secretary of Homeland Security will have to be able to verify the overstay rate before 

expanding the VWP program. 

Second, we create a probation system that sends the message: Oet it right or get out. PL. 110-53 required VWP 

countries to share information from three types of databases, including information on serious criminals, 

terrorism suspects and lost and stolen passports. 

This legislation would require the Secretary to place a country on probation if she found a country was not in 

compliance with these agreements. A country on probation would have a year to fix the problems or face 

expUlsion from the program. 

We want to expand tourism to America, but we have a responsibility to keep thugs and terrorists out. This bill 

does both. 
38 

2 

Third, the legislation changes the way the visa rejection rate is calculated. Currently, a country's rejection rate is 

based on the number of applications that are rejected. Instead, this bill would calculate the rate by the number of 

people rejected. 

The rejection rate is a metric to broadly determine if individuals from a certain country represent a significant 

security or overstay risk to the United States. To get a clearer picture of the risk represented by a specific 

country, we should look at the number of its citizens rejected for visas, not the number oftimes risky 

individuals repeatedly submitted an application. 

Having made these security improvements to the program, the Visa Waiver Program Enhanced Security and 

Reform act returns the authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive in countries that meet the 

previously stated requirements and have less than a ten percent visa rejection rate. 

It is important to note that meeting these metrics only makes a country eligible for the program, it does not 

guarantee entrance into the Visa Waiver Program. The Secretary of Homeland Security must determine that 

security risk mitigation measures are sufficient to not compromise the security interests of the U.S. before any 

country can be added to the Visa Waiver Program. 

Senator Feinstein, my friend and a member ofthis subcommittee has fought tenaciously to make the visa waiver 

program mOre secure and much of the improvement in the last decade is the direct result of her determined 

focus. 

Through the Electronic System for Travel Authority (EST A), we now screen visitors from visa waiver countries 

before they show up at our border. This legislation requires DHS to study the security risks presented by the 

small group of travelers who fail to fill out an EST A before traveling to the United States. I want to thank 

Senator Feinstein for her work to strengthen this program and my bill and to say I greatly appreciate her support 

of the Visa Waiver Program Enhanced Security and Reform Act. 

While we must use VWP to protect our borders and our country, we should not punish close allies. 

Unfortunately, that is the reality with our close friend Poland. 

Poland has long been a friend to the United States- sending two of its finest heroes, Kosciusko and Pulaski, to 

fight in the Revolutionary war. Now, Polish citizens fight and die alongside Americans in Afghanistan but 

cannot visit the U.S. without a visa. 

I'm so proud of modern nation Poland has become: A strong nation that stands with the U.S. in the world. A 

confident nation charting its own economic path. A secure nation and a vital member of the NATO alliance 

It's time we allowed them to become a member of the visa waiver program. This legislation fulfills the promise 

of both the Bush and Obama administrations by making Poland eligible for the visa waiver program. I am 

committed to getting legislation to the President's desk before the NATO summit in Chicago. 

While I have talked mostly about national security and foreign policy, the VWP Enhanced Security and Reform 

Act is also a jobs bill. 

More than 16 million tourists visit from program countries each year, spending $51 billion in the United States 

and supporting more than half a million jobs. 

When we can securely expand the VWP, it provides a boost to our economy. The last time the VWP expanded, 

South Koreans gained the ability to travel to America without a visa. In the year following their inclusion, there 
39 

was a 49 percent increase in South Korean visitors to the U.S., which resulted in $789 million in new spending 

and supported 4,800 new jobs. 

JfPoland gained entry to VWP and saw a similar increase, the additional visitors to the United States would 

create $181 million in new spending and support 1,500 new jobs. 

Expanding the visa waiver program is good for American business and good for the economy. 

J have worked closely with Senator Kirk on this legislation. Senator Kirk is a naval intelligence officer and has 

served in Afghanistan. He understands the threats we face and is committed to protecting America. This 

legislation remains true to that commitment by strengthening our borders while boosting our economy. 

Though he cannot be here today, J look forward to his return. 

I thank the committee for its time and for its consideration of this important legislation. 

3 
40 

100 Years Standing Up for American Enterprise 

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Statement 

of the 

U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce 

ON: The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to 

the United States 

TO: Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

From: Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO 

DATE: March 27, 2012 
41 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing 

the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state 

and local chambers and industry associations. 

More than 96 percent of the Chamber's members are small businesses with 100 or fewer 

employees, 70 percent of which have 10 or fewer employees. Yet, virtually all of the nation's 

largest companies are also active members. We are particularly cognizant of the problems of 

smaller businesses, as well as issues facing the business community at large. 

Besides representing a cross-section of the American business community in terms of 

number of employees, the Chamber represents a wide management spectrum by type of business 

and location. Each major classification of American business -- manufacturing, retailing, 

services, construction, wholesaling, and finance is represented. Also, the Chamber has 

substantial membership in all 50 states. 

The Chamber's international reach is substantial as well. It believes that global 

interdependence provides an opportunity, not a threat. In addition to the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 115 American Chambers of Commerce abroad, an increasing 

number of members are engaged in the export and import of both goods and services and have 

ongoing investment activities. The Chamber favors strengthened international competitiveness 

and opposes artificial U.S. and foreign barriers to international business. 

Positions on national issues are developed by a cross-section of Chamber members 

serving on committees, subcommittees, and task forces. More than 1,000 business people 

participate in this process. 

2 
42 

The Economic Imperative for Promoting International 

Travel to the United States 

Testimony of 

Thomas J. Donohue 

President and CEO 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

before the 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

March 27, 2012 

Introduction 

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security: thank you for the 

opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical need for reforms that could 

increase the number of international business and leisure travelers who visit our 

countty each year and create new American jobs. 

With more than 20 million Americans unemployed, underemployed, or having 

given up looking for jobs, the Chamber's top priority is clearing government 

impediments and helping the private sector grow the economy and create millions of 

new jobs without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. The travel and tourism sector 

is a clear example where relatively easy fixes can bring forth real results. 

Over the last year, the Chamber, in collaboration with our colleagues at the 

U.S. Travel Association and other partners representing the travel industry and the 

broader business community, has been working to restore the U.S. share of the global 

overseas travel market to its 2000 level of 17 percent.1 This could result in the 

creation of 1.3 million new jobs.2 

1 U.s. Travel Association, Ready For Takeoff: A Plan to Create 1.3 Million US Jobs by 

Welcoming Millions of International Travelers Executive Summary (May 12, 20 II), available at 

http://www.smartervisapolicy.orgisite/documents/visaReport.pdf. 

2 Ibid. 

3 
43 

The travel and tourism industry is a small business-centered sector that 

employs 7.4 million Americans and generates more than $700 billion3 in revenue but it 

has been held back by self-imposed, bureaucratic barriers that deter additional 

international travelers. 

The Chamber believes that securing the nation is a top priority and has 

advocated that Congress and the Administration take actions and set policies that 

make our borders more secure. We are confident the U.S. government can achieve 

enhanced security goals while at the same time facilitating legitimate international 

travel to the United States. 

Improving the Visa Process 

In 2000, the U.S. captured 17 percent of the global overseas travel market but 

over the last decade, we have seen a significant drop and in 2010, we only captured 

12.4 percent of that same market.4 

The tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 forced the U.S. government 

to implement some fundamental changes in the way that it screens potential visitors. 

While there is no question that appropriate safeguards are critical to ensuring our 

nation's security, the Chamber believes that considerations to protect the flow of 

trade and travel are also essential to ensuring our nation's economic security.s 

Since September 11, 2001, we have seen clear examples where our visa 

application system has not been able to meet the demand of potential visitors. An 

example of this can be seen when looking at the wait times for in-person interviews at 

U.S. consulates in Brazil and China in 2011. In August of 2011 delays in Brazil 

averaged 113 days, while in June of 2011 delays in China averaged 48 days. It is not 

hard to see how a two to three month wait for an appointment can serve as a 

deterrent to potential travelers. 

The Chamber would like to acknowledge the significant efforts that the State 

Department and the Administration have undertaken in the last few months to help 

address these wait times. By adding 100 visa adjudicators and extending hours at 

some posts to process more visa applications in Brazil and China, wait times have 

been dramatically reduced and now average 5 days in China and 18 days in Brazil. We 

3 U.S. Travel, Power of Travel Fact Sheet, available htlp://www.poweroftravel.org!. 

4 U.S. Travel Association Supra note 1, at Executive Summary. 

5 "The primary mission of the Depattment is to-{F) ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is 

not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland." Title 1, Section 101 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (November 25, 2002), available at 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_cnr.pdf 

4 
44 

are also encouraged by the initiatives provided in Executive Order 13597, which 

would increase non-immigrant visa processing capacity in China and Brazil by 40% in 

2012, ensure that 80% of non-immigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three 

weeks of receipt of application, increase efforts to expand the Visa Waiver Program, 

and expand reciprocal trusted travel programs for expedited travel (such as the Global 

Entry program). We hope these actions will serve as a catalyst for greater 

improvements in facilitating travel to the United States. 

Further, visa applicants often spend a great amount of money and time 

traveling to consulates in large countries like Brazil and China. Currently, these 

countries have between four and five consular posts dedicated to processing visas. As 

a result, potential visitors living outside of the cities where consulates are located often 

have to travel hundreds of miles to obtain an interview. The Chamber urges the State 

Department to explore mobile interview processing units and visa videoconferencing 

interviews to provide greater access to visas in China and Brazil. 

While we support efforts undertaken so far, it is necessary to emphasize that 

outbound travel from Brazil and China is expected to increase by 38 percent and 151 

percent respectively by 2020.6 Now is the time to make the necessary changes to 

ensure that we are not having this same conversation in 18 months. The Jobs 

Originated through Launching Travel Act (JOLT Act) is a critical step in this process. 

Impact on Business Beyond Tourism 

Before I discuss the specifics of the JOLT Act, I want to take a moment to 

emphasize the impact that these issues have on the needs of the B-1 business traveler. 

Often when we discuss these barriers to international travel many assume that we are 

only discussing problems in visa processing for the B-2 leisure traveler, however these 

issues have a great impact on the B-1 business visitor and American companies. 

America's trade relationships and economic goals depend a great deal on the ability of 

foreign customers (and potential ones) to travel to the United States to visit our 

manufacturing operations, inspect products and services they are considering 

purchasing, negotiate contracts, and attend trade shows. Additionally, many of our 

member companies are global in nature and depend on the ability to bring key 

personnel to the U.S. from their overseas locations to attend meetings, receive 

training, integrate project work, and interface with U.S. business partners. 

Technology has been an incredible tool for global commerce, but face-to-face 

business interactions in the United States are an essential part of American companies' 

ability to function and compete in a global economy. 

6 U.S. Travel Association, supra note 1, at 17. 

5 
45 

The President's Export Council highlighted this very issue in a letter to 

President Obama on March 11,2011, which states: 

"Efficiently transporting and relocating talent around the world are critical to 

the survival of U.S. businesses in a world characterized by just-in-time global 

supply chains and immediate customer and supplier demands. Many American 

companies utilize business-related visas to facilitate the entry of suppliers, 

customers, foreign employees, business partners, prospective investors, and 

conference and trade show participants. 

A series of changes in the visa process following 9/11 have added time and 

uncertainty to the application process and made it more difficult for global 

companies to grow their business. These policies include increased security 

checks of certain visa applicants, the collection of biometric data to secure a 

visa, and the institution of mandatory in-person interviews for most visa 

applicants. A survey released in 2004 calculated direct and indirect losses to 

business of over $30 billion due to visa restrictions. We believe those losses 

have continued in the intervening period. These policies are costing U.S. jobs 

by encouraging trade shows to locate meetings abroad and for centers of global 

research and collaboration to be built offshore. 7

" 

For a company that manufactures large machinery, their ability to bring 

customers to the U.S. is critical. A customer wants to tour the factory, examine the 

product inside and out, and meet the team that is responsible for production. 

We also need to make sure that we can provide servjce after the sale. Many 

companies encourage their clients to travel to the U.S. to participate in training 

programs on their products, but if they cannot get these travelers here in a timely 

manner, they will have no choice but to relocate their training facilities to other 

countries. 

It is also important to remember that while many of our companies are 

headquartered in the U.S., most of them are global in nature and have personnel all 

over the world. Delays in visa processing impact our companies' business objectives 

by causing managers and professional employees to miss critical meetings and training 

sessions scheduled in the U.S. 

'Letter to the President from the President's Export Council (March 11,2011), available at 

http://trade.gov/pec/docsIPEC_Business_Visas_031111.pdf. 

6 
46 

When companies decide that they need to meet with their clients, business 

partners, or foreign staff, they certainly do not have the luxury of planning their trips 

months in advance to accommodate our visa process. For our companies to stay 

competitive, we need to make sure that our government is not standing in the way. 

Further, delays in visa processing have dire economic consequences upon the 

trade show industry according to Stephen Hacker, President of the International 

Association of Exhibitors and Events. 8 In late 2010 the International Association of 

Exhibitors and Events commissioned the research ftrm Oxford Economics and found 

that visa issues prevented 116,000 international visitors from attending U.S. 

exhibitions. This included 78,400 buyers and 37,900 international exhibitors.9 These 

buyers want to come to the United States to purchase farm and construction heavy 

machinery costing thousands, and in many cases, millions of dollars apiece; they need 

aerospace components, automobile patts, technology and U.S. service industry knowhow. However, today they are buying what they need in other nations as a result of 

our visa policies and processing delays. 

Access to Visas: The JOLT Act 

Since September 11, 2001, the Chamber has offered up a number of 

suggestions and process improvements we feel could support our objectives without 

compromising security initiatives and also facilitate business and leisure travel to the 

United States in support of international commerce. 

Even as we welcome the progress of the Administration, the Chamber shares 

the view along with others in the travel industry, that there remain a number of 

aspects ofB-l/B-2 (business and leisure) visa policy that require further 

improvements to ensure that the visa application, interview, and review processes are 

not burdensome to American business and our economy going forward. 

The Chamber feels that the JOLT Act would encourage these improvements at the 

consular level and, as a result, increase international travel to the U.S. The JOLT Act 

would improve visa processing and expand international travel by: 

8 Testimony of Stephen Hacker, President of the International Association of Exhibitors and Events before the 

Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Hearing on Challenges for U.S. Air 

Travel P3 (March 21, 2012), available at http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-homelandsecurity.cfm?method=hearings.view&id=5dla6fad-d4f6-4cc9-8b77-5a5826baa298 

9 Ibid. 

7 
47 

• Modifying agreements with certain countries on a nonreciprocal basis to allow 

for extended visa validity periods which would reduce the number of times that 

visitors must renew their visas. 

• Providing an option to expedite the processing of B-1 and B-2 business and 

visitor visas at premium cost. Just as the State Department charges an extra fee 

to expedite the processing of a U.S. passport, this bill would encourage the 

State Department to create a pilot program that charges an extra fee to expedite 

the processing ofB-l/B-2 visas. This provision would ensure that applicants 

requesting premium processing for such visas are interviewed and their visa 

applications are adjudicated not later than 3 business days after the date of the 

applicant's request for a visa appointment, absent compelling security concerns. 

Expedited processing would enable companies to more efficiendy move their 

personnel and clients into the United States to meet business demands. 

• Enabling the State Department to create a pilot program to incentivize visitors 

to submit applications during low-peak seasons. Visa interview wait times 

typically lengthen during the summer months and around holidays so this bill 

gives the State Department the flexibility to lower visa application fees for B-1 

and B-2 visas during off-peak seasons which will encourage travelers with 

greater flexibility to apply for visas when demand is lower. 

• Establishing a visa processing standard. This bill would mandate the State 

Department to conduct visa interviews and review applications not later than 

15 days after the date on which an applicant requests an appointment. 

Beginning one year after its enactment, this legislation would require the State 

Department to move to a 10 day processing standard for all nonimmigrant 

visas. However, this bill would allow additional processing time for 

applications subject to security-related checks and clearance. A visa processing 

standard would provide international travelers more predictability regarding the 

U.S. visa application process. Additionally, we believe that this enhanced 

processing standard would provide the State Department sufficient time to 

adequately interview and review a routine nonimmigrant visa application. 

• Encouraging the State Department to use nonimmigrant visa application fees 

to hire a sufficient number of foreign service officers and limited non-career 

appointment consular officers to continuously meet and maintain the 

processing standard. The State Department has already added limited noncareer appointment consular officers to countries with long visa wait times 

such as Brazil and China; however, travelers to the U.S. from these countries 

8 
48 

are primed to grow exponentially in the next few years and this legislation 

would ensure that the State Department plans accordingly so that it can 

continue to meet the growing demand. 

• Expanding the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The VWP currently offers visafree travel to 36 partnering countries. A number of additional countries, 

including Poland and Taiwan, have indicated an interest in joining the program. 

Additionally, the Chamber believes that Brazil, Chile, and Argentina would be 

strong candidates for participation. The JOLT Act would allow the Secretary 

of Homeland Security to designate additional program countries after they have 

successfully met the necessary security requirements, while also updating the 

program's eligibility requirements. Expansion of the VWP is the most 

economically significant step that the U.S. government can take to improve the 

performance and competitiveness of the visa processing system while 

maintaining national security. VWP travelers are one of the largest sources of 

inbound overseas travel to the United States. According to the Department of 

Commerce, 65 percent of all overseas visitors to the U.S. in 2010 traveled 

under the VWp.lO While in the U.S., these visitors spent more than $61 billion, 

which supported 433,000 American jobs and generated $9 billion in 

government tax revenues.l1 Prior to acceptance into the program, participating 

countries in the V\W must agree to adopt strict security measures, strong 

travel document standards, and enhanced information sharing agreements with 

the United States which makes our nation significantly more secure. 

Conclusion 

Today we are talking about jobs. We are talking about a way in which we can 

strengthen our economy just by encouraging more travelers to visit the U.S. 

The Chamber believes that the JOLT Act could accomplish many of the goals 

that would allow the U.S. to recapture its share of the global travel market and will 

help get Americans back to work. This bill could constitute a sound foundation 

toward expanding overseas travel to the United States while maintaining national 

security. We stand ready to work with the Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

and the rest of Congress to move forward on these important reforms. 

The U.S. is the greatest travel destination in the world. Every family that 

chooses to vacation in our country and every business person that travels here to 

10 u.s. Travel Association, supra note I, at 43. 

11 Ibid. 

9 
49 

conduct their business can see that. To bring more international travelers to the 

United States we need to put the welcome mat back out. That means vigorously 

promoting what America has to offer and reducing the "hassle factor" of visiting the 

United States without compromising security. The JOLT Act is a step in the right 

direction and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports its passage. 

10 
50 

u.s. TRAVEL 

ASSOCIATION 

TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD 

OF 

ROGER Dow, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION 

ON 

"THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE FOR PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL 

TO THE UNITED STATES" 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

MARCH 27, 2012 

U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION 

1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW, SUlTE 450 

WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3934 

202.408.8422 

FAX 202.408.1255 
51 

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to 

offer testimony on behalf of the U.S. Travel Association (U.S. Travel), the national, non -profit 

organization representing all sectors of America's travel industry. U.S. Travel's mission is to increase 

travel to and within the United States. On behalf of our industry, I commend you for today's 

hearing about the economic imperative for promoting international travel to our shores. Last year, 

the $759 billion travel industry generated $1.8 trillion in total economic output and has the potential 

to grow - and to grow fast. 

Travel generates good, domestic jobs tbat cannot be outsourced. In 2010, the travel industry 

supported 14.1 million jobs and was among the top 10 employers in 48 U.S. states and the District 

of Columbia. For example, travel directly employs more than 411,000 New Yorkers, contributes 

$48.2 billion annually to the New York economy and generates $9.4 billion in state and local tax 

revenue. Similarly, travel directly employs more than 510,000 Texans, contributes more than $47 

billion to the Texas economy and generates nearly $8 billion in tax receipts. In every region of 

America, travel helps pay the salaries of police, firefighters and teachers without creating much new 

demand for those public services. 

Increasing international travel in the United States is effective economic stimulus - and it doesn't 

cost taxpayers a dime. When tourists travel to and within the United States, they inject new money 

into the U.S. economy by staying in U.S. hotels, eating at U.S. restaurants, spending in U.S. stores, 

and visiting U.S. attractions. The resulting revenues are breathtaking; the average Chinese visitor 

spends upwards of $6000 per trip. Moreover, overseas business travelers attend dozens of 

international conferences and trade shows in the U.S., and engage in face-to-face negotiations that 

yield sales of U.S. commercial goods and services. 

Spending by international travelers is a significant U.s. export that contributes positively to 

America's trade balance and could do much better. Larry Summers, former director of the 

National Economic Council, observed recently that "the easiest way to increase exports and close 

the trade gap is by increasing international travel to the United States." 

But we have not taken the modest steps to realize that enormous potential. The years from 2001 

through 2010 were a lost decade for America's travel industry and the U.S. economy. While global 

international travel soared, America failed to keep pace. Unlike for other exports, the barriers to 

travel are primarily self-imposed. There are no trade agreements to be negotiated or tariffs to reduce 

with other countries. The principal barriers to increased travel to and within the United States are 

the inefficiencies, uncertainties and delays that characterize our visa and entry process. 

The opportuniry costs of this slippage are staggering. If America had kept pace with the growth in 

global long-haul international travel between 2000 and 2010, 78 million more travelers would have 

visited the United States, adding a total of $606 billion to the U.S. economy that could support more 

than 467,000 additional U.S. jobs annually over these years. 

Looking ahead, international arrivals around the globe are projected to grow 36 percent between 

2010 and 2020, resulting in $2.2 trillion in direct travel spending and 62 million jobs. Over the same 

period, international travel revenue as a share of global GDP is forecast to increase by ten percent. 

This presents enormous opportunities. Unlike many other nations, the U.S. has not embraced that 

opportuniry. Instead, we have left that potential revenue on the table. 
52 

In May 2011, the U.S. Travel Association released a comprehensive report attributing our lost 

market share in part to chronic inefficiencies in the U.S. visa system. Our report further 

documented that these self-imposed trade barriers were particularly stifling visitation from key highgrowth and high-spend markets such as Brazil, China and India. 

Given this history, it is important to note that real progress has since been made by the U.S. 

Department of State to increase its capacity to process visa applicants, especially in Brazil and China. 

Recent initiatives include adding visa adjudicators, extending post hours, expanding facilities or 

opening new ones, permitting interview waivers where appropriate, and deploying temporary duty 

officers to manage seasonal spikes in demand. Taken together, these steps will go a long way to 

reducing the confusion and delay that has plagued the visa process, particularly in countries with 

high demand for U.S. travel. 

Furthermore, we applaud the President for issuing Executive Order 13597 which tasked a new 

interagency Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness with developing a federal strategy for jumpstarting international travel to the United States. In addition to long-range plans, the Executive 

Order required accelerated steps to generate positive economic impact in 2012; that initial shortterm plan is due next month. 

In the meantime, there is also a clear role for Congress to help encourage legitimate international 

travel. In that context, we appreciate your leadership in holding today's hearing and enthusiastically 

endorse the Jobs Originated through Launching Travel Act, which we believe would address some 

of the most pressing barriers to inbound business and leisure travel to the United States. The JOLT 

Act proposes a number of sensible reforms -- such as premium processing fees, incentives for 

applying during low-demand periods, longer visa validity periods - to streamline and expedite the 

visa process. Today I would like to focus on two particularly important provisions of the legislation: 

the upgraded visa processing standard and reform of the Visa Waiver Program. 

Visa Processing Standard 

If the United States regains the 17 percent global travel market share we once held - and especially if 

we can match the market power our Western European competitors currently enjoy in the thriving 

Brazilian, Chinese and Indian travel markets - it will be because we overcome the current problems 

in our visa process. 

Toward that end, one particular provision of the JOLT Act is absolutely critical: codification of a 

two-week visa processing standard. Longstanding State Department policy has required visas to be 

processed \vithin 30 days but historically this policy bas been unevenly applied. As a result, overseas 

applicants for U.S. visas have often faced daunting wait times, sometimes exceeding 100 days. The 

foreign press has had a field day, literally at our expense, by retelling visa processing horror stories of 

foreign musicians unable to perform in the U.S., overseas families missing weddings here, and U.S.-

based international conferences - from consumer electronics to thoracic surgeons - that can no 

longer count on overseas participation. 

These extended delays do nothing to enhance our security. It is not until the visa applicant reaches 

the front of that line that U.S. security safeguards become relevant. The delay serves only to 

discourage prospective visitors from choosing the United States as their preferred destination. 
53 

This problem was addressed in the President's recent Executive Order, which committed the State 

Department to processing 80 percent of all non-immigrant visas within 15 days. We are very 

pleased that the JOLT Act would extend and codify this standard. Upon enactment, the legislation 

would require scheduling of the visa interview, the key element of the process, within 15 days; and a 

year later, the bill would require an interview to be held within 10 days. In our view, this is precisely 

the right approach; it sends a clear message that we remain serious about security safeguards but also 

seek to encourage and welcome legitimate visitors. 

There are other proposals, from new performance metrics to videoconference technology for 

interviews, that we believe would help reduce the unproductive backlog that discourages potential 

overseas visitors to the U.S. and instead sends them to competing global destinations. It is our hope 

that such changes - or even pilot projects to test the effectiveness of such approaches - will be 

incorporated into the national travel competitiveness strategy required under the recent Executive 

Order. 

Visa Waiver Program 

With one economical step, we could help stimulate the economy whlle also making the United States 

and its partners more secure. That is why we are also so supportive of the provision of the JOLT 

Act that would lead to expansion of the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) which is critical to both our 

national security and our economic health. 

VWP countries are already the largest source of inbound travel to the United States. In 2010, over 

17 million visitors to the U.S. nearly two-thirds of all overseas visitors - arrived through the VWP. 

While here, they spent more than $61 billion, supporting 433,000 American jobs along with $12 

billion in payroll, and generating $9 billion in government tax revenues. 

We strongly suppott the objective in the President's recent Executive Order to accelerate efforts to 

expand the VWP. We are pleased that the Administration has nominated Taiwan for V\1(;'P status. 

We also believe the Departments of State and Homeland Security should immediately begin bilateral 

"roadmap" negotiations with countries willing to meet the program's strict security criteria. 

Every potential new VWP visitor from Brazil, Poland and other key markets constitutes a walking 

economic stimulus package. Many have the desire and means to travel to the United States, for 

business or pleasure. It is just a question of whether our entry process is viewed as welcoming or 

discouraging, compared with competing destinations around the globe. 

Recently, the U.S. Travel Association studied the economic impact of including 11 potential 

candidates for V\1(;'P status: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chlle, Croatia, Israel, Panama, Poland, 

Romauia, Taiwan and Uruguay. Last year, three million visitors from these countries spent $14 

billion in the United States, directly supporting 104,300 jobs in the American travel industry. In the 

first year of participation in the VWP, the growth rate of visitation from these countries would 

nearly double. If that first year were 2012, VWP status. would generate an additional 482,000 arrivals 

and $5.1 billion more in total revenue. VWP eligibility would quickly drive up arrivals from these 11 

nations to four million visitors with an overall economic impact exceeding $41 billion, supporting 

256,000 American jobs. The 32,200 additional U.S. jobs created this year would be eight times more 

than employment at the largest auto assembly plant in Michigan. 
54 

The economic stimulus ofVWP expansion is made dramatically more attractive because the VWP is 

fundamentally a national security program. Congress re-shaped the VWP in 2007 so that it 

significantly enhances U.S. security. Reflecting the security-enhancing nature of the program, 

Homeland Security Secretaty Napolitano, cited VWP expansion as an example of "efforts to guard 

against terrorism while enhancing legal travel and trade." This view is non-partisan: former 

Homeland Secretary Chertoff characterized the VWP as "a 21st century solution to the problem of 

managing to keep terrorists out of the United States. 

To qualify, VWP countries must adopt stringent security measures, strong travel document 

standards, and strict information sharing agreements with the U.S. V\lV'P countries must issue 

International Civil Aviation Organization-compliant electronic passports; report information on all 

lost and stolen passports to the United States through INTERPOL; and share information on 

travelers who may pose a terrorist or criminal threat to the U.S. As a result, our government is able 

to supplement our watch-list database with information from the travelers' home governments. In 

addition, each 'lWP traveler is pre-screened before boarding a flight to the U.S. via the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization. In addition, VWP countries must accept return of their criminal 

aliens, which enhances our public safety. These requirements enable us to better detect, apprehend 

and limit the movement of terrorists, criminals and other dangerous travelers - and to shift limited 

visa screening resources to higher risk countries. 

That is why we strongly support the objective of the JOLT Act to update the criteria for inclusion of 

additional VWP countries, with the intent to accelerate VWP expansion. In particular, we applaud 

the hill's provision to require an overstay rate of less than 3 percent as a key threshold eligibility 

criteria; and to restore the authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to recommend 

nomination of a. new VWP nation if it has visa refusal rates under 10 percent. 

The Visa Waiver Program is already critical to homeland security and to international travel security. 

These reforms will ensure that VWP also helps jump-start our domestic economy. 

Conclusion 

The global travel market is booming, for both tourism and business travel. As demand rises, 

especially in key emerging markets, prospective travelers have choices about their global 

destinations. Interest in visiting the United States remains strong. But potential visitors are 

discouraged by real and perceived hassles in our visa process that could be eliminated without 

compromising security. 

If the U.S. recaptures our historic share of worldwide overseas ttavel by 2015 and maintained that 

share through 2020, it will add nearly $100 billion to the economy over the next decade and create 

nearly 700,000 more U.S. jobs. The stakes are high for every American business seeking to host 

meetings with international customers, for dozens of international trade shows each year whose 

foreign clients need to enter the U.S. on a deadline, and for tens of thousands of U.S. workers and 

businesses dependent on a vibrant inbound travel market. 

Also at issue is the global image of the United States. As we alI know, the most effective 

ambassadors of American values are ordinaty Americans. Overseas visitors form life-long 
55 

impressions of American society based on their visits to destinations, large and small, across 

America. From our national parks to our ballparks to our theme parks, these visitors see the best of 

the United States. The more they know us, the better they like us - and the likelier they are to return 

again 

Accordingly, we appreciate your ongoing interest in an efficient and secure entty process and will 

continue to work closely with you to welcome many more leisure and business visitors to the United 

States. 
56 

GAO 

GAO-12-599T 

United States Government Acconntability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Refugees, and Border Security, Committee 

on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate 

VISA WAIVER PROGRAM 

Additional Actions Needed 

to Mitigate Risks and 

Strengthen Overstay 

Enforcement 

Statement of Rebecca Gambler, Acting Director 

Homeland Security and Justice 

and 

Michael J. Courts, Acting Director 

International Affairs and Trade 

ru,S. Government Accountability 

YEARS 1921·2011 IGAOi." '\C(ot~URllITY * !\TEGRln * RFLl4!HLITY 
57 

Why GAO Did This Study 

DHS manages the Visa Waiver 

Program, which allows nationals from 

36 countries to apply for admission to 

the United States as temporary visitors 

for business or pleasure without a visa. 

From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, 

over 98 million visitors were admitted 

to the United States under the Visa 

Waiver Program. During that time 

period, the Department of State issued 

more than 36 million nonimmigrant 

visas for temporary travef to the 

country, DHS is also responsible for 

investigating overstays~unauthorized 

immigrants who entered the country 

legally on a temporary basis but then 

overstayed their authorized periods of 

admission. The Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9111 Act) 

required DHS, in consultation with the 

Department of State, to take steps to 

enhance the security of the program. 

This t8'stimony is based on GAO 

products issued in September 2008: 

April, May, and December 2011; and 

selected updates from DHS as of 

March 2012 on the status of DHS's 

efforts to implement the 9/11 Act 

requirements and to address prior 

GAO recommendations. As requested, 

it addresses the following issues; (1) 

challenges in the Visa Waiver 

Program, and (2) overstay 

enforcement efforts. 

What GAO Recommends 

GAO made recommendations in prior 

reports for DHS to, among other 

thIngs, strengthen plansto address 

certain risks of the Visa Waiver 

Program and for overstay enforcement 

efforts. DHS generally concurred with 

these recommendations and has 

actions planned or underway to 

address them, 

·&ttmlifi*Nf 

VISA WAIVER PROGRAM 

Additional Actions Needed to Mitigate Risks and 

Strengthen Overstay Enforcement 

What GAO Found 

GAO has reported on actions that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

has taken to improve the security of the Visa Waiver Program; but, additional 

risks remain. In May 2011, GAO reported that DHS implemented the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), required by the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9111 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), and took 

steps to minimize the burden associated with this requirement DHS requires 

Visa Waiver Program travelers to submit biographical information and answers to 

eligibility questions through EST A prior to travel. DHS made efforts to minimize 

the burden imposed by this requirement. For example, although travelers 

formerly filled out a Visa Waiver Program application form for each journey to the 

United States, ESTA approval is generally valid for 2 years. However, GAO 

reported that DHS had not fully evaluated security risks related to the small 

percentage of travelers without verified ESTA approvaL In 2010, airlines 

complied with the requirement to verify ESTA approval for almost 98 percent of 

Visa Waiver Program passengers prior to boarding, but the remaining 2 

percent-about 364,000 travelers-traveled under the program without verified 

EST A approval. In May 2011, GAO reported that DHS had not yet completed a 

review of these cases to know to what extent they pose a risk to the program and 

recommended that it establish timeframes for regular review. DHS concurred and 

has since established procedures to review a sample of noncompliant 

passengers on a quarterly basis. Further, per the 9111 Act. DHS requires Visa 

Waiver Program countries to enter into three information-sharing agreements 

with the United States; however, DHS reported that only about half of the 36 

countries have fully complied with this requirement as of March 2012, and many 

of the signed agreements have not been implemented. DHS, with its interagency 

partners, established a comp!Jance schedule to finalize these agreements by 

June 2012. Also, DHS and its interagency partners have developed measures 

short of termination that could be applied on a case-by~case basis to countries 

not meeting their compliance date. 

In April 2011 , GAO reported that federal agencies take actions against a small 

portion of overstays, but improving planning could strengthen overstay 

enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Counterterrorism 

and Criminal ExplOitation Unit (CTCEU) is responsible for overstay enforcement. 

CTCEU arrests a sma!! portion of the estimated 4 to 5.5 million overstays In the 

United States because of, among other things, competing priorities, but ICE 

expressed an intention to augment its overstay enforcement resources. From 

fiscal years 2006 through 2010, ICE reported devoting about 3 percent of its total 

field office investigative hours to CTCEU overstay investigations. ICE was 

considering assigning some responsibmty for noncriminal overstay enforcement 

to its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) directorate, which 

apprehends and removes aliens subject to removal from the United States. [n 

April 2011, GAO recommended that developing a time frame for assessing 

needed resources ICE could strengthen ICE's planning efforts. DHS concurred 

and stated that ICE planned to identify resources needed to transition this 

responsibility to ERO as part of its fiscal year 2013 resource planning process. 

_____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
58 

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Visa Waiver Program, which 

allows nationals from 36 countries to apply for admission to the United 

States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure without first 

obtaining a visa from a U.S. consular office abroad. 1 This statement also 

addresses activities to identify and take enforcement against overstaysindividuals who were admitted to the United States legally on a temporary 

basis-either with a visa, or in some cases, as a visitor who was allowed 

to enter without a visa such as under the Visa Waiver Program-but then 

overstayed their authorized periods of admission. 2 From fiscal years 2005 

through 2010, more than 98 million visitors were admitted to the United 

States under the Visa Waiver Program. During this same time period, the 

Department of State issued more than 36 million nonimmigrant visas for 

business travel, pleasure, tourism, medical treatment, or for foreign and 

cultural exchange student programs, among other things. 3 In addition, the 

lTo qualify for the Visa Waiver Program, a country must meet various requirements, such 

as entering into an agreement with the United States to report lost or stolen passports 

within a strict time limit and in a manner specified in the agreement. Currently, 36 

countries participate in the Visa Waiver Program: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 

Brunei, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, 

Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, 

Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea. Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

Visitors who are also allowed to seek admission without a visa include citizens of Canada 

and the British Overseas Territory ot Bermuda (and certain residents of other adjacent 

islands, such as the Bahamas) under certain circumstances. 

2!n-country overstays refer to nonimmigrants who have exceeded their authorized periods 

of admission and remain in the United States without lawful status, while out-at-country 

overstays refer to individuals who have departed the United States but who, on the basis 

of arrival and departure information, stayed beyond their authorized periods of admission. 

3Temporary visitors to the United States generally are referred to as "nonimmigrants. H For 

a listing and descriptions of nonimmigrant categories, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15); see 

also 8 C.F.R § 214.1(a)(1)-(2). Generally. nonimmigrants wishing to visit the United 

States gain permiSSion to apply for admission to the country through one of two ways. 

First, those eligible for the Visa Waiver Program apply online to establish eligibility to 

trave! under the program prior to departing for the United States (unless they are seeking 

admission at a land port of entry, in which case eligibility is established at the time of 

application for admission). Second, those not eligible for the Visa Waiver Program and not 

otherwise exempt from the visa requirement must visit the U.s. consular office to obtain a 

visa, Upon arriving at a port of entry, nonimmigrants must undergo inspection by U$. 

Customs and Border Protection officers, who determine whether or not they may be 

admitted into the United States. 

Page 1 GAO·12·599T 
59 

most recent estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center approximated that. 

in 2006, out of an unauthorized resident alien population of 11.5 million to 

12 million in the United States, about 4 million to 5.5 million were 

overstays.4 

The Visa Waiver Program was established in 1986 to promote the 

effective use of government resources and facilitate international travel 

without jeopardizing U.S. security.5 We have reported that the program 

was designed to boost international business and tourism, and allow the 

Department of State to shift its consular resources to posts with higherrisk visa applicants. 6 However, we have also reported that the program 

has inherent risks.7 The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) called for DHS, which implements the 

Visa Waiver Program, to take steps to enhance its security." Among the 

mandated changes were (1) the implementation of an electronic system 

for travel authorization designed to determine in advance of travel the 

eligibility of Visa Waiver Program applicants to travel to the United States 

under the program, (2) a requirement that all Visa Waiver Program 

countries enter into agreements to share information with the United 

States on whether citizens and nationals of that country traveling to the 

United States represent a threat to the security or welfare of the United 

States, and (3) a requirement that all Visa Waiver Program countries 

enter into agreements with the United States to report or make available 

lost and stolen passport data to the United States. Prior to these changes, 

the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 

mandated that DHS evaluate and report on the security risks posed by 

4Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population 

(Washington, D.C.: May 22. 2006). 

5 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359) 

created the Visa Waiver Program as a pilot in 1986. It became a permanent program in 

2000 under the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act (Pub, L No. 106-396, 114 Stat 1637 

(2000». 

6 GAO, Visa Waiver Program: Actions Are Needed to Improve Management of the 

Expansion Process, and to Assess and Mitigate Program Risks, GAO-08-967 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15.2008). 

7 GAO, Border Security: Stronger Actions Needed to Assess and Mitigate Risks of the 

Visa Waiver Program, GAO-06-854 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006). 

'Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 711(d), 121 Stat. 266, 341-45. 

Page 2 GAO-12-599T 
60 

each Visa Waiver Program country's participation in the program at least 

once every 2 years.9 

DHS has certain responsibilities for implementing the Visa Waiver 

Program, as well as for overstay enforcement efforts. Overall, DHS is 

responsible for establishing visa policy, including policy for the Visa 

Waiver Program. Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

is tasked with, among other duties, inspecting all people applying for entry 

to the United States to determine their admissibility to the country and 

screening Visa Waiver Program applicants to determine their eligibility to 

travel to the United States under the program. DHS's U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead agency responsible for 

enforcing immigration law in the interior of the United States and is 

primarily responsible for overstay enforcement. Within ICE, the 

Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) is primarily 

responsible for overstay investigations, including investigations of Visa 

Waiver Program participants who overstay their authorized periods of 

admission. Further, the Department of State is responsible for 

adjudicating visas for foreign nationals seeking admission to the United 

States. 

Since September 11, 2001, GAO has published 5 reports on the Visa 

Waiver Program. The reports have examined, for example, DHS's 

assessment of security risks associated with the program and proposed 

changes to the program. As requested, my testimony will cover the 

following key issues: (1) challenges and weaknesses in the Visa Waiver 

Program; and (2) efforts to take enforcement action against overstays and 

reported results. This testimony is based on our prior reports on the Visa 

Waiver Program, and overstay enforcement efforts published in 

September 2008 and May 2011, and April 2011, respectively.'o It is also 

based on our December 2011 testimony on these issues." For these 

L. No. 107-173. § 307(a), 116 Stat. 543, 556. 

10 GAO-08M967; GAO, Visa Waiver Program: DHS Has Implemented the Electronic 

System for Travel Authorization, but Further Steps Needed to Address Potential Program 

Risks, GAO-11-335 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2011); and Overstay Enforcement: 

Additional Mechanisms for Collecting, Assessing, and Sharing Data Could Strengthen 

DHS's Efforts but Would Have Costs, GAO-II-411 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2011). 

11 GAO, Visa Waiver Program: Additional Actions Needed to Address Risks and 

Strengthen Overstay Enforcement, GAO-12-287T (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2011). 

Page 3 GAO-12-599T 
61 

Further Steps Are 

Needed to Mitigate 

Risks in the Visa 

Waiver Program 

reports, we examined program documentation, such as standard 

operating procedures, guidance for investigations, and implementation 

plans. We also interviewed DHS and Department of State officials. 

Additional details on the scope and methodology are available in our 

published reports. In addition, this statement contains updates to selected 

information from these reports on, for example, the number of signed 

information-sharing agreements. For these updates, we examined 

documentation from DHS as of March 2012. All of our work was 

conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

In May 2011, we reported that DHS implemented the Electronic System 

for Travel Authorization (ESTA) to meet a statutory requirement intended 

to enhance Visa Waiver Program security and took steps to minimize the 

burden on travelers to the United States added by the new requirement.'2 

However, DHS had not fully evaluated security risks related to the small 

percentage of Visa Waiver Program travelers without verified EST A 

approval. DHS developed EST A to collect passenger data and complete 

security checks on the data before passengers board a U.S. bound 

carrier. DHS requires applicants for Visa Waiver Program travel to submit 

biographical information and answers to eligibility questions through 

ESTA prior to travel. Travelers whose EST A applications are denied must 

apply for a U.S. visa for travel to the United States. In developing and 

implementing ESTA, DHS took several steps to minimize the burden 

associated with ESTA use. For example, ESTA reduced the requirement 

that passengers provide biographical information to DHS officials from 

every trip to once every 2 years. In addition, because of ESTA, DHS 

informed passengers who do not qualify for Visa Waiver Program travel 

that they need to apply for a visa before they travel to the United States. 

Moreover, most travel industry officials we interviewed in six Visa Waiver 

Program countries praised DHS's widespread EST A outreach efforts, 

u.s.c. § 1187(h)(3). 

Page4 GAO-12-599T 
62 

reasonable implementation time frames, and responsiveness to feedback, 

but expressed dissatisfaction over EST A fees paid by EST A applicants.'3 

In 2010, airlines ccmplied with the requirement to verify EST A approval 

for almost 98 percent of the Visa Waiver Program passengers prior to 

boarding, but the remaining 2 percent-about 364,000 travelers-traveled 

under the Visa Waiver Program without verified ESTA approval. In 

addition, about 650 of these passengers traveled to the United States 

with a denied ESTA. As we reported in May 2011, DHS had not yet 

completed a review of these cases to know to what extent they pose a 

risk to the program. At the time of our report, DHS officials told us that 

there was no official agency plan for monitoring and oversight of EST A. 

DHS tracked some data on passengers that traveled under the Visa 

Waiver Program without verified ESTA approval but did not track other 

data that would help officials know the extent to which noncompliance 

poses a risk to the program. Without a completed analysis of 

nonccmpliance with ESTA reqUirements, DHS was unable to determine 

the level of risk that nonccmpliance poses to Visa Waiver Program 

security and to identify improvements needed to minimize 

noncompliance. In addition, without analysis of data on travelers who 

were admitted to the UnHed States without a visa after being denied by 

ESTA, DHS could not determine the extent to which ESTA was 

accurately identifying individuals who should be denied travel under the 

program. In May 2011, we reccmmended that DHS establish time frames 

for the regular review and documentation of cases of Visa Waiver 

Program passengers traveling to a U.S. port of entry without verified 

EST A approval. DHS concurred with our recommendation and has 

established procedures to review quarterly a sample of noncompliant 

passengers to evaluate potential security risks associated with the EST A 

program. 

Further, in May 2011, we reported that to meet certain statutory 

reqUirements, DHS requires that Visa Waiver Program countries enter 

into three information-sharing agreements with the United States; 

however, only about half of the countries had fully ccmplied with this 

requirement and many of the signed agreements have not been 

September 2010, the U,S. government began to charge ESTA applicants a $14 fee 

when they applied for ESTA approval, including $10 for the creation of a corporation to 

promote travel to the United States and $4 to fund EST A operations, 

Page 5 GAO·12-599T 
63 

implemented. 14 The 9111 Act specifies that each Visa Waiver Program 

country must enter into agreements with the United States to share 

information regarding whether citizens and nationals of that country 

traveling to the United States represent a threat to the security or welfare 

of the United States and to report lost or stolen passports. DHS, in 

consultation with other agencies, has determined that Visa Waiver 

Program countries can satisfy the requirement by entering into the 

following three bilateral agreements: (1) Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive (HSPD) 6, (2) Preventing and Combating Serious Crime 

(PCSC), and (3) Lost and Stolen Passports. 'S 

HSPD-6 agreements establish a procedure between the United States 

and partner countries to share watchlist information about known or 

suspected terrorists. As of January 2011, 19 of the 36 Visa Waiver 

Program countries had signed HSPD-6 agreements, and 13 had 

begun sharing information according to the Signed agreements. 

Noting that the federal government continues to negotiate HSPD-6 

agreements with Visa Waiver Program countries, officials cited 

concerns regarding privacy and data protection expressed by many 

Visa Waiver Program countries as reasons for the delayed progress. 

According to these officials, in some cases, domestic laws of Visa 

Waiver Program countries limit their ability to commit to sharing some 

information, thereby complicating and slowing the negotiation 

process. In March 2012, DHS reported that 24 of the 36 Visa Waiver 

Program countries have signed HSPD-6 agreements. 

The PCSC agreements establish the framework for law enforcement 

cocperation by providing each party automated access to the other's 

criminal databases that contain biographical, biometric, and criminal 

history data. As of January 2011,18 of the 36 Visa Waiver Program 

countries had met the PCSC information-sharing agreement 

requirement, but the networking modifications and system upgrades 

required to enable this information sharing to take place have not 

been completed for any Visa Waiver Program countries. According to 

officials, DHS is frequently not in a position to influence the speed of 

PCSC implementation for a number of reasons. For example, 

U.S.C. § 1187(c)(2)(D), (F). 

15For the HSPD-6 and PCSC agreements, DHS made the determination in consultation 

with State and Justice. For the Lost and Stolen Passports agreement, DHS made the 

determination in consultation with State. 

Page 6 GAO·12-599T 
64 

according to DHS officials, some Visa Waiver Program countries 

require parliamentary ratification before implementation can begin. 

Also, U.S. and partner country officials must develop a common 

information technology architecture to allow queries between 

databases. DHS reported in March 2012 that the number of Visa 

Waiver Program countries meeting the PCSC requirement had risen 

to 23. 

The 9/11 Act requires Visa Waiver Program countries to enter into an 

agreement with the United States to report, or make available to the 

United States through Interpol or other means as designated by the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, information about the theft or loss of 

passports. As of March 2012, all Visa Waiver Program countries were 

sharing lost and stolen passport information with the United States, 

and all of the countries had entered into Lost and Stolen Passport 

agreements, according to DHS. 

DHS, with the support of interagency partners, established a compliance 

schedule requiring the last of the Visa Waiver Program countries to 

finalize these agreements by June 2012. Although termination from the 

Visa Waiver Program is one potential consequence for countries not 

complying with the information-sharing agreement requirement, U.S. 

officials have described it as undesirable. DHS, in coordination with the 

Department of State and the Department of Justice, developed measures 

short of termination that could be applied to countries not meeting their 

compliance date. Specifically, DHS helped write a classified strategy 

document that outlines a contingency plan listing possible measures short 

of termination from the Visa Waiver Program that may be taken if a 

country does not meet its specified compliance date for entering into 

information-sharing agreements. The strategy document provides steps 

that would need to be taken prior to selecting and implementing one of 

these measures. According to officials, DHS plans to decide which 

measures to apply on a case-by-case basis. 

In addition, as of May 2011, DHS had not completed half of the most 

recent biennial reports on Visa Waiver Program countries' security risks in 

a timely manner. In 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 

Reform Act mandated that, at least once every 2 years, DHS evaluate the 

effect of each country's continued participation in the program on the 

security, law enforcement, and immigration interests of the United 

Page 7 GAO·12-599T 
65 

Federal Agencies 

Take Actions against a 

Small Portion of the 

Estimated Overstay 

Population 

ICE Investigates Few InCountry Overstays, but Its 

Efforts Could Benefit from 

Improved Planning 

States. 16 According to officials. DHS assesses. among other things. 

counterterrorism capabilities and immigration programs. However. DHS 

had not completed the latest biennial reports for 18 of the 36 Visa Waiver 

Program countries in a timely manner. and over half of these reports are 

more than 1 year overdue. Further. in the case of 2 countries. DHS was 

unable to demonstrate that it had completed reports in the last 4 years. 

DHS cited a number of reasons for the reporting delays. For example. 

DHS officials said that they intentionally delayed report completion 

because they frequently did not receive mandated intelligence 

assessments in a timely manner and needed to review these before 

completing Visa Waiver Program country biennial reports. We noted that 

DHS had not consistently submitted these reports in a timely matter since 

the legal requirement was made biennial in 2002. and recommended that 

DHS take steps to address delays in the biennial country review process 

so that the mandated country reports can be completed on time. DHS 

concurred with our recommendation and. in March 2012. reported that the 

Visa Waiver Program Office had implemented a reporting process and 

schedule to address delays in completing the biennial reviews and 

associated reports. 

As we reported in April 2011. ICE CTCEU investigates and arrests a 

small portion of the estimated in-country overstay population due to. 

among other things. ICE's competing priorities; however. these efforts 

could be enhanced by improved planning and performance management 

CTCEU. the primary federal entity responsible for taking enforcement 

action to address in-country overstays. identifies leads for overstay cases; 

takes steps to verify the accuracy of the leads it identifies by. for example. 

checking leads against multiple databases; and prioritizes leads to focus 

on those the unit identifies as being most likely to pose a threat to 

Pub. L No. 107-173. § 307(a)(2), 116 Stat 543. 556. 

Page 8 GAO·12·599T 
66 

national security or public safety. CTCEU then requires field offices to 

initiate investigations on all priority, high-risk leads it identifies. 

According to CTCEU data, as of October 2010, ICE field offices had 

closed about 34,700 overstay investigations that CTCEU headquarters 

aSSigned to them from fiscal year 2004 through 2010. 17 These cases 

resulted in approximately 8,100 arrests (about 23 percent of the 34,700 

investigations), relative to a total estimated overstay population of 

4 million to 5.5 million." About 26,700 of those investigations (or 

77 percent) resulted in one of three outcomes. '9 In 9,900 investigations, 

evidence was uncovered indicating that the suspected overstay had 

departed the United States. In 8,600 investigations, evidence was 

uncovered indicating that the subject of the investigation was in-status 

(e.g., the subject filed a timely application with the United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to change his or her status 

and/or extend his or her authorized period of admission in the United 

States). Finally, in 8,200 investigations, CTCEU investigators exhausted 

all investigative leads and could not locate the suspected overstay.20 Of 

the approximately 34,700 overstay investigations assigned by CTCEU 

headquarters that ICE field offices closed from fiscal year 2004 through 

17CTCEU also investigates suspected Visa Waiver Program overstays. out..of*status 

students and violators of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. a program 

that requires certain visitors or nonimmigrants to register with DHS for national security 

reasons. For the purpose of this discussion, these investigations are referred to 

collectively as Qover$tay~ investigations. In addition to CTCEU investigative efforts. other 

ICE programs within Enforcement and Removal Operations may take enforcement action 

against overstays, though none of these programs solely or directly focus on overstay 

enforcement. For example, if the Enforcement and Removal Operations Criminal Alien 

Program identifies a criminal alien who poses a threat to public safety and is also an 

overstay, the program may detain and remove that criminal alien from the United States. 

18The most recent estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center approximated that, in 2006. 

out of an unauthorized resident alien population of 11.5 million to 12 million in the United 

States, about 4 million to 5.5 million were overstays. Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry 

for the Unauthorized Migrant Population 0,Nashington, D.C.: May 22, 2006). 

191nvestigations resulting and not resulting in arrest do not total 34,700 due to rounding. 

20With regard to the second outcome, that the subject is found to be in~status, under 

certain circumstances, an application for extension or change of status can temporarily 

prevent a visitor's presence in the United States from being categorized as unauthorized. 

See Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations Directorate, USCIS. 

~Consolidation of Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for Purposes of Sections 

212(a)(9)(8)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act," 

memorandum, Washington, D.C .. May 6,2009. 

Page 9 GAO·12·599T 
67 

2010, ICE officials attributed the significant portion of overstay cases that 

resulted in a departure finding, in-status finding, or with all leads being 

exhausted generally to difficulties associated with locating suspected 

overstays and the timeliness and completeness of data in DHS's systems 

used to identify overstays. 

Further, ICE reported allocating a small percentage of its resources in 

terms of investigative work hours to overstay investigations since fiscal 

year 2006, but the agency expressed an intention to augment the 

resources it dedicates to overstay enforcement efforts moving forward. 

Specifically, from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, ICE reported devoting 

from 3.1 to 3.4 percent of its total field office investigative hours to 

CTCEU overstay investigations. ICE attributed the small percentage of 

investigative resources it reported allocating to overstay enforcement 

efforts primarily to competing enforcement priorities. According to the ICE 

Assistant Secretary, ICE has resources to remove 400,000 aliens per 

year, or less than 4 percent of the estimated removable alien population 

in the United States. In June 2010, the Assistant Secretary stated that 

ICE must prioritize the use of its resources to ensure that its efforts to 

remove aliens reflect the agency's highest priorities, namely 

nonimmigrants, including suspected overstays, who are identified as high 

risk in terms of being most likely to pose a risk to national security or 

public safety. As a result, ICE dedicated its limited resources to 

addressing overstays it identified as most likely to pose a potential threat 

to national security or public safety and did not generally allocate 

resources to address suspected overstays that it assessed as noncriminal and low risk. ICE indicated it may allocate more resources to 

overstay enforcement efforts moving forward, and that it planned to focus 

primarily on suspected overstays who ICE has identified as high risk or 

who recently overstayed their authorized periods of admission. 

ICE was considering aSSigning some responsibility for noncriminal 

overstay enforcement to its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) 

directorate, which has responsibility for apprehending and removing 

aliens who do not have lawful immigration status from the United States. 

However, ERO did not plan to assume this responsibility until ICE 

assessed the funding and resources doing so would require. ICE had not 

established a time frame for completing this assessment. We reported in 

April 2011 that by developing such a time frame and utilizing the 

assessment findings, as appropriate, ICE could strengthen its planning 

efforts and be better positioned to hold staff accountable for completing 

the assessment. We recommended that ICE establish a target time frame 

for assessing the funding and resources ERO would require in order to 

Page 10 GAO·12·599T 
68 

More Reliable, Accessible 

Data Could Improve DRS's 

Efforts to Identify and 

Share Information on 

Overstays 

assume responsibility for civil overstay enforcement and use the results of 

that assessment. DHS officials agreed with our recommendation and 

stated that ICE planned to identify resources needed to transition this 

responsibility to ERO as part of its fiscal year 2013 resource planning 

process. 

DHS has not yet implemented a comprehensive biometric system to 

match available information provided by foreign nationals upon their 

arrival and departure from the United States. In 2002, DHS initiated the 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program 

(US-VISIT) to develop a comprehensive entry and exit system to collect 

biometric data from aliens traveling through U.S. ports of entry. In 2004, 

US-VISIT initiated the first step of this program by collecting biometric 

data on aliens entering the United States. In August 2007, we reported 

that while US-VISIT biometric entry capabilities were operating at air, sea, 

and land ports of entry, exit capabilities were not, and that DHS did not 

have a comprehensive plan or a complete schedule for biometric exit 

implementation. 21 Moreover, in November 2009, we reported that DHS 

had not adopted an integrated approach to scheduling, executing, and 

tracking the work that needed to be accomplished to deliver a 

comprehensive exH solution as part of the US-VISIT program. We 

concluded that, wHhout a master schedule that was integrated and 

derived in accordance with relevant guidance, DHS could not reliably 

commit to when and how it would deliver a comprehensive exit solution or 

adequately monitor and manage its progress toward this end. We 

recommended that DHS ensure that an integrated master schedule be 

developed and maintained. DHS concurred and reported, as of July 2011, 

that the documentation of schedule practices and procedures was 

ongoing, and that an updated schedule standard, management plan, and 

management process that are compliant with schedule guidelines were 

under review. 

21The purpose of US-VISIT is to provide biometric (e.g., fingerprint) identification-through 

the collection, maintenance, and sharing of biometric and selected biographic data-to 

authorized DHS and other federal agencies. See GAO, Homeland Security: U.S. Visnor 

and Immigrant Status Program's Longstanding Lack of Strategic Direction and 

Management Controls Needs to Be Addressed, GAO·07-1065 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 31, 2007). 

Page 11 GAO-12-599T 
69 

In the absence of a comprehensive biometric entry and exit system for 

identifying and tracking overstays, US-VISIT and CTCEU primarily 

analyze biographic entry and extt data collected at land, air, and sea ports 

of entry to identify overstays. In April 2011, we reported that DHS's efforts 

to identify and report on visa overstays were hindered by unreliable data. 

Specifically, CBP does not inspect travelers exiting the United States 

through land ports of entry, including collecting their biometric information, 

and CBP did not provide a standard mechanism for nonimmigrants 

departing the United States through land ports of entry to remit their 

arrival and departure forms. Nonimmigrants departing the United States 

through land ports of entry turn in their forms on their own initiative. 

According to CBP officials, at some ports of entry, CBP provides a box for 

nonimmigrants to drop off their forms, while at other ports of entry 

departing non immigrants may park their cars, enter the port of entry 

facility, and provide their forms to a CBP officer. These forms contain 

information, such as arrival and departure dates, used by DHS to identify 

overstays. If the benefits outweigh the costs, a standard mechanism to 

provide nonimmigrants with a way to turn in their arrival and departure 

forms could help DHS obtain more complete and reliable departure data 

for identifying overstays. We recommended that the Commissioner of 

CBP analyze the costs and benefits of developing a standard mechanism 

for collecting these forms at land ports of entry, and do so to the extent 

that benefits outweigh the costs. CBP agreed with our recommendation 

and in September 2011 stated that it planned to complete a cost-effective 

independent evaluation of possible solUtions and formulate an action plan 

based on the evaluation for implementation by March 2012. 

Further, we previously reported on weaknesses in DHS processes for 

collecting departure data, and how these weaknesses impact the 

determination of overstay rates. The 9/11 Act required that DHS certify 

that a system is in place that can verify the departure of not less than 

97 percent of foreign nationals who depart through U.S. airports in order 

for DHS to expand the Visa Waiver Program."In September 2008, we 

reported that DHS's methodology for comparing arrivals and departures 

for the purpose of departure verification would not inform overall or 

country-specific overstay rates because DHS's methodology did not begin 

with arrival records to determine if those foreign nationals departed or 

remained in the United States beyond their authorized periods of 

u.s.c. § 1187(c)(8). 

Page 12 GAO-12-599T 
70 

admission. 23 Rather, DHS's methodology started with departure records 

and matched them to arrival records. As a resun, DHS's methodology 

counted overstays who left the country, but did not identify overstays who 

have not departed the United States and appear to have no intention of 

leaving. We recommended that DHS explore cost-effective actions 

necessary to further improve the reliability of overstay data. DHS 

concurred and reported that it is taking steps to improve the accuracy and 

reliability of the overstay data, by efforts such as continuing to audit 

carrier performance and working with airlines to improve the accuracy 

and completeness of data collection. Moreover, by statute, DHS is 

required to submit an annual report to Congress providing numerical 

estimates of the number of aliens from each country in each 

nonimmigrant classification who overstayed an authorized period of 

admission that expired during the fiscal year prior to the year for which 

the report is made. 24 DHS officials stated that the department has not 

provided Congress annual overstay estimates regularly since 1994 

because officials do not have sufficient confidence in the qualny of the 

department's overstay data-which is maintained and generated by USVISIT. As a result, DHS officials stated that the department cannot 

reliably report overstay rates in accordance with the statute. 

In addition, in April 2011 we reported that DHS took several steps to 

provide its component entities and other federal agencies with information 

to identify and take enforcement action on overstays, including creating 

biometric and biographic lookouts-or electronic alerts-on the records of 

overstay subjects that are recorded in databases. However, DHS did not 

create lookouts for the following two categories of overstays: 

(1) temporary visitors who were admitted to the United States using 

nonimmigrant business and pleasure visas and subsequently overstayed 

by 90 days or less; and (2) suspected in-country overstays who CTCEU 

deems not to be a priority for investigation in terms of being most likely to 

pose a threat to national security or public safety. Broadening the scope 

of electronic lookouts in federal information systems could enhance 

overstay information sharing. In April 2011, we recommended that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Commissioner of Customs and 

Border Protection, the Under Secretary of the National Protection and 

Programs Directorate, and the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and 

248 U.S.C. § 1376(b). 

Page 13 GAO·12-599T 
71 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Customs Enforcement to assess the costs and benefits of creating 

biometric and biographic lookouts for these two categories of overstays, 

Agency officials agreed with our recommendation and have actions under 

way to address it For example, agency officials stated that they have met 

to assess the costs and benefits of creating lookouts for those categories 

of overstays, 

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have, 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Rebecca 

Gambler at (202) 512-6912 or gamblerr@gao,govorMichael J, Courts at 

(202) 512-8980 or courtsm@gao,gov, In addition, contact pOints for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this statement Individuals who made key contributions to 

this testimony are Kathryn H, Bernet, Assistant Director; Anthony Moran, 

Assistant Director; Frances Cook; Nanette Barton; and, Wendy Johnson, 

Page 14 GAO-12-599T 
72 

Related GAO Products 

(441069) 

Visa Waiver Program: DHS Has Implemented the Electronic System for 

Travel Authorization, but Further Steps Needed to Address Potential 

Program Risks. GAO-11-335. (Washington, D.C., May 5, 2011). 

Overstay Enforcement: Additional Mechanisms for Collecting, Assessing, 

and Sharing Data Could Strengthen DHS's Efforts but Would Have Costs. 

GAO-11-411. (Washington, D.C., April 15, 2011). 

Visa Waiver Program: Actions Are Needed to Improve Management of 

the Expansion Process, and to Assess and Mitigate Program Risks. 

GAO-08-967. (Washington, D.C., Sep 15, 2008). 

Border Security: State Department Should Plan for Potentially Significant 

Staffing and Facilities Shortfalls Caused by Changes in the Visa Waiver 

Program. GAO-08-623. (Washington, D.C., May 22, 2008). 

Border Security: Stronger Actions Needed to Assess and Mitigate Risks 

of the Visa Waiver Program. GAO-06-854. (Washington, D.C., Ju128, 

2006). 

Overstay Tracking: A Key Component of Homeland Security and a Layered Defense. GAO-04-82. (Washington, D.C., May 21, 2004). 

Border Security: Implications of Eliminating the Visa Waiver Program. 

GAO-03-38. (Washington, D.C., Nov 22, 2002). 

Page 15 GAO·12·599T 
73 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
74 

GAO.s Mission 

Obtailling Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

pOlicies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliabilHy. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO's website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select .. E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: www.gao.govlfraudnetlfraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 
75 

QUESTIONS FOR THOMAS DONOHUE SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Written Questions to Tom Donohue, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

One section of the JOLT Act that your organizations have endorsed would encourage the 

State Department to use visa application fees to hire additional staff to process visa 

applications within a shorter time period. 

To your knowledge, are the current visa applicationjees collected by the State 

Department enough to sufficiently cover the hiring oj additional visa adJudicators? 

• Has the State Department or your organization conducted an assessment to determine if 

visa processingjees would need to be increased in order jor the State Department to hire 

additional staff? 
76 

QUESTIONS FOR ROGER DOW SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Written Questions to Roger Dow, U.S. Travel Association 

One section of the JOLT Act that your organizations have endorsed would encourage the 

State Department to use visa application fees to hire additional staff to process visa 

applications within a shorter time period. 

To your knowledge, are the current visa application fees collected by the State 

Department enough to sufficiently cover the hiring of additional visa adjudicators? 

• Has the State Department or your organization conducted an assessment to determine if 

visa processing fees would need to be increased in order for the State Department to hire 

additional staff? 
77 

QUESTIONS FOR REBECCA GAMBLER SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Written Questions to Roger Dow, U.S. Travel Association 

One section of the JOLT Act that your organizations have endorsed would encourage the 

State Department to use visa application fees to hire additional staff to process visa 

applications within a shorter time period. 

To your knowledge, are the current visa application fees collected by the State 

Department enough to sufficiently cover the hiring of additional visa adjudicators? 

• Has the State Department or your organization conducted an assessment to determine if 

visa processing fees would need to be increased in order for the State Department to hire 

additional staff? 
78 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Written Questions to Rebecca Gambler 

Homeland Security Director, GAO 

According to a 2011 GAO report, DHS has produced a compliance schedule that requires all 

Visa Waiver Program countries to enter into information-sharing agreements by June 2012. 

• Has GAO determined if the Department o/Homeland Security is on track to meet this 

deadline? 

• lfthis deadline is not met, what measures should be taken by DHS to ensure a country is 

in compliance with all Visa Waiver Program requirements? 

According to a 2011 GAO report, in 2010, air and sea carriers verified Electronic System for 

Travel Authorization (EST A) approvals for 98 percent of VWP passengers prior to boarding. 

GAO found that DHS has not fully analyzed the potential risks posed by the 2 percent of cases 

where carriers boarded passengers without verifying their EST A approvals. 

• How has DHS responded to this finding and worked to mitigate this potential security 

risk? 

A 2011 GAO report found that DHS has not completed half of the most recent biennial reports 

on each country's participation in the Visa Waiver Program. In 2007, DHS established protocols 

for the timely completion of these reports. Nevertheless, DHS remains unable to meet report 

deadlines .. 

• What steps should DHS take to comply with the biennial reporting requirement? 

1 
79 

QUESTIONS FOR THOMAS DONOHUE SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE LEE

Questions for the Record 

Senator Mike Lee 

"The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States" 

March 28, 2012 

Thomas I. Donohue 

1. How are the funds received from application fees to be used? 

a. To meet the requirements of this bill, more employees must be hired. It is 

apparent that this requirement will raise costs, yet it will allow the department 

to review more visa applications for usually higher fees. How will the new 

revenues compensate for the new costs? 
80 

QUESTIONS FOR ROGER DOW SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE LEE

Questions for the Record 

Senator Mike Lee 

"The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States" 

March 28, 2012 

Roger!. Dow 

1. This bill will bolster the United States' share in the international travel market. I would 

like to know if there is a direct correlation between international travel and interstate 

travel - do international tourists or business travelers tend to travel from state to state 

while they are visiting the United States? 

2. Section 2 of the JOLT Act allows the Secretary of State to lengthen the visa validity 

period. 

a. Does the average foreign tourist visit the United States frequently enough to find 

this useful? 

b. How will this provision affect the funds received from application fees? 

i. How are these funds to be used? 
81 

QUESTIONS FOR REBECCA GAMBLER SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE LEE

Questions for the Record 

Senator Mike Lee 

"The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States" 

March 28, 2012 

Rebecca Gambler 

1. As I understand, DHS records an address from visa holders and generate lists of those 

visa holders that do not have a recorded departure. 

a. From there, what happens to those who overstay their visa? 

b. What do you believe can be done to create and enforce an efficient exit system? 

2. Do you believe a country's visa refusal rate is an adequate indicator of the country's 

threat to U.S. national security? 

3. Will the visa expediting process for B-1 and B-2 visas affect national security? 
82 

QUESTIONS FOR REBECCA GAMBLER SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS

Senator Jeff Sessions 

Questions for the Record 

Rebecca Gambler, Government Accountability Office 

1. Can the Department of Homeland Security currently reliably identify aliens who 

overstay their authorized period of admission? 

a. Why is it important for the Department of Homeland Security to be able to 

reliably identify aliens who overstay their authorized period of admission? 

b. Would a system that collects the biometric information of aliens who exit the 

country aid the Department of Home1and Security in identifYing aliens who 

overstay their period of admission? 

c. What obstacles are there to gathering reliable biographic data on aliens as they 

exit the country? 

d. What obstacles are there to gathering reliable biometric information on aliens as 

they exit the country? 

e. Why would the collection of biometric information from aliens exiting the 

country provide a more reliable way to identifY aliens who overstay their period 

of admission than the collection ofbiographic information? 

f. What would it cost the federal government to implement a system to collect the 

biometric information of every alien that leaves the country at air and sea ports of 

entry? 

2. It has been estimated that 40% of aliens who enter the country legally overstay their 

authorized period of admission. It also has been reported that less than 3% of Polish 

nationals overstay their authorized period of admission. In the absence of a biometric 

system that records when an alien exits the country, how are these estimates of overstay 

rates made? 

3. Currently, Visa Waiver countries must have a low rate of refusal for all nonimmigrant 

visa applicants. The law gives the Secretary the authority to waive this requirement, but 

not until we are capable of recording the entry and exit of 97% of all foreign visitors. 

a. Why is it important that Visa Waiver countries have a low rate of refusal? 

b. What are the risks of waiving the refusal rate requirement when there is no system 

for recording the biometric information of aliens who exit the country? 

4. You testified that the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to evaluate the 

continued participation of each Visa Waiver country with respect to the security, law 
83 

enforcement, and immigration interests of the U.S. and report this information to 

Congress every two years. You also testified that the Department of Homeland Security 

has not completed half of the most recent biennial reports. 

a. Aside from these biennial reviews, does the Department of Homeland Security 

use any other mechanism of review to evaluate the Visa Waiver countries' 

continued participation in the program? 

b. You testified that the Department of Homeland Security has never consistently 

made the required biennial reports to Congress. What have been the 

consequences of the Department's failure to conduct these reviews in a timely 

manner? 

5. One way to effectively determine when a foreign visitor leaves the country is to require 

each temporary foreign visitor to purchase a card that contains their photograph, 

biographic information, and fingerprint biometric. The card would also provide visitors 

with confidence as they travel throughout the conntry as it would indicate their 

authorized period of stay. To record their exit from the country, visitors would scan the 

card at an electronic kiosk operated by the Department of Homeland Security. The kiosk 

would also record their fingerprint to ensure the person holding the card is the lawful 

owner. In order to implement this system we would need to develop the cards, the 

kiosks, and the technology. 

a. Can you estimate the cost of implementing such a system? 

b. Could such a system pay for itself if an appropriate fee was charged to purchase 

the card? 

2 
84 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

NOTE: At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain 

responses to the written questions, the Committee had not received 

any communication from Thomas Donohue. 

NOTE: At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain 

responses to the written questions, the Committee had not received 

any communication from Roger Dow. 
85 

RESPONSES OF REBECCA GAMBLER TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS JEFF

SESSIONS, MIKE LEE, AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN
86 

complete information that the nonimmigrants departed the United States, hindering 

DHS's efforts to determine whether those nonimmigrants were overstays. We 

recommended that DHS analyze the costs and benefits of developing a standard 

mechanism for collecting arrival and departure forms at land ports of entry and 

develop a standard mechanism to collect these forms, to the extent that benefits 

outweigh the costs. DHS agreed with our recommendation and in September 2011 

stated that it planned to complete a cost-effective independent evaluation of possible 

solutions and formulate an action plan based on the evaluation. 

a. Why is it important for the Department of Homeland Security to be 

able to reliably identify aliens who overstay their authorized period 

of admission? 

In February 2008, we reported that most overstays are likely motivated by economic 

opportunities to stay in the United States beyond their authorized periods of 

admission. 3 However, individuals overstaying their authorized periods of admission 

could pose homeland security concems For example, in some instances, overstays 

have been identified as terrorists or involved in terrorist-related activity, such as 5 of 

the 19 September 11, 2001. hijackers. In addition, in April 2011, we reported that 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data indicated that of approximately 400 

individuals reported by the Department of Justice as convicted in the United States 

as a result of international terrorism-related investigations conducted from 

September 2001 through March 2010, approximately 36 were overstays.' 

Further, it is important for DHS to be able to reliably identify overstays for the Visa 

Waiver Program. Regarding this program, analyzing data on overstay rates for 

current and aspiring Visa Waiver Program countries is integral to meeting a statutory 

requirement for continued eligibility in the Visa Waiver Program. However, we 

reported in February 2008 that DHS had historically not monitored country overstay 

rates because of weaknesses in DHS's data. We reported that the inability of the 

U.S. government to track the status of visitors in the country, identify those who 

overstay their authorized period of visit, and use these data to compute overstay 

rates has been a long-standing weakness in DHS's oversight of the Visa Waiver 

Program. We reported that a system that records departures from U.S. airports (or 

air exit system), which facilitates the development of reliable overstay rate data, is 

important to managing potential risks in expanding the Visa Waiver Program. 

b. Would a system that collects the biometric infonnation of aliens who 

exit the country aid the Department of Homeland Security In 

identifying aliens who overstay their period of admission? 

DHS faces challenges in identifying overstays due to its general reliance on 

biographic entry and exit information, rather than biometric information, hindering 

DHS's efforts to reliably idenilfy overstays. In April 2011 , we reported that more 

reliable, accessible data could improve DHS's efforts to identify and share 

information on overstays. 

3 GAO. Visa Waiver Program: Umitations with Department of Hol'rle!and SOOUrfty's Plan to Verify Departure of Foreign 

Nationals, GAO-08-458T (WaShington, D.C.: Feb 28, 2008) 

• GAO·11411. 

Page 2 
87 

DHS has not yet implemented a comprehensive biometric system to match available 

information provided by foreign nationals upon their arrival and departure from the 

United States, as required by statute. The Immigration and Naturalization Service 

Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 required implementation of an 

integrated entry and exit data system for foreign nationals! This act replaced in its 

entirety a provision of the lIJegallmmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996 that had required an automated system to record and then match the 

departure of every foreign national from the United States to the individual's arrival 

records The Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement 

Act instead required an electronic system that would provide access to and integrate 

foreign national arrival and departure data that are authorized or required to be 

created or collected under law and are in an electronic format in certain databases, 

such as those used at ports of entry and consular offices. In 2002, DHS initiated the 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (USVISIT) program to develop a comprehensive entry and exit system to collect 

biometric data from aliens traveling through United States ports of1lntry. In 2004, 

US-VISIT initiated the first step of this program by collecting biometric data on aliens 

entering the United States. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 

2004 required the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to accelerate 

full implementation of an automated biometric entry and exit data system that 

matches available information provided by foreign nationals upon their arrival and 

departure from the United Statest In August 2007, we reported that while US-VISIT 

biometric entry capabilities were operating at air, sea, and land ports of entry, exit 

capabilities were not, and that DHS did not have a comprehensive plan or a 

complete schedule for biometric exit implementation.· 

c. What obstacles are there to gathering reliable biographic data on 

aliens as they exit the country? 

In April 2011, we identified challenges faced by DHS in collecting reliable depature 

data. For example, we found that DHS does not provide a standard mechanism for 

nonimmigrants departing the United States through land ports of entry to remit their 

arrival and departure forms. Nonimmigrants departing the United States through land 

ports of entry tum in their forms on their own initiative. According to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) officials, at some ports of entry, CBP provides a box for 

nonimmigrants to drop off their forms, while at other ports of entry departing 

non immigrants may park their cars, enter the port of entry facility, and provide their 

forms to a CBP officer. These forms contain information, such as arrival and 

departure dates, used by DHS to identify overstays. We recommended that DHS 

analyze the costs and benefits of developing a standard mechanism for collecting 

arrival and departure forms at land ports of entry and develop a standard mechanism 

to collect these forms, to the extent that benefits outweigh the costs. DHS agreed 

with our recommendation and in September 2011 stated that it planned to complete 

a cost-effective independent evaluation of possible solutions and formulate an action 

plan based on the evaluation . 

• 8 U.S.C. § 13650. 

'Pub. L No. 104-208, div. C, § lID, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-558 to 59. 

, B U.S.C. § 1365b 

~ GAO. Homeland Security: U. S. Visitor and ImmIgrant Status Program's Longst8ndmg Lack af Strategic Direction and 

Management Conlm's Needs ta Be Addressed, GA()..()7~1065 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 31, 2007). 

Page 3 
88 

In addition, we reported that CBP has faced difficulties in ensuring the accuracy of 

departure information collected from air and sea POEs. SpecifICally, regulations 

require air and sea carriers to submit electronic passenger departure manifestscontaining, among other things, the names and other identifying information of 

passengers-before the airplane or vessel departs from the United States.' The 

regulations also specify that the carrier collecting the manifest information is 

responsible for comparing the travel document presented by the passenger with the 

travel document information it is transmitting to CBP to ensure that the information is 

correct, the document appears to be valid for travel purposes, and the passenger is 

the person 10 whom Ihe document was issued.'o However, carriers may elect to 

verify that a passenger matches the travel document he or she presented al a checkin counler prior to the individual entering the boarding area rather than doing so as 

passengers board Ihe airplanes or vessels, and CBP does not have a process to 

perform this verification at boarding. CBP officials told us that. as a result. the current 

system for verifying air and sea departures is vulnerable to fraud. 

d. What obstacles are there to gathering reliable biometric information 

on aliens as they exit the country? 

Since 2004, we have identified various weaknesses in DHS's efforts to develop and 

implement a biometric exit capability under the US-VISIT program, hindering DHS's 

ability to collect reliable biometric information on aliens upon their depature from the 

United States. Specifically, in August 2007 we reported that DHS did not have a 

comprehensive plan or a complete schedule for biometric exit implementation. In 

addition, we reported that DHS continued to propose spending tens of millions of 

dollars on US-VISIT exit projects that were not well-defined, planned, or justified on 

the basis of costs, benefits, and risks. Moreover. in November 2009, we reported thai 

DHS had not adopted an integrated approach to scheduling, executing. and tracking 

the work that needed 10 be accomplished to deliver a comprehensive exit solution as 

part of the US-VISIT program. We concluded that, withoul a master schedule that 

was integrated and derived in accordance with relevant guidance, DHS could nol 

reliably commit to when and how ~ would deliver a comprehensive exit solution or 

adequately monitor and manage its progress toward this end. Since 2004, we have 

made numerous recommendations to address US-VISIT weaknesses, including that 

DHS ensure that US-VISIT expenditure plans fully disclose what system capabilities 

and benefits are to be delivered. by when, and al what cost, as well as how the 

program is being managed." We also recommended that DHS ensure that an 

integrated master schedule oe developed and maintained. DHS concurred and 

reported, as of July 2011, thai the documentation of schedule practices and 

procedures was ongoing. and that an updated schedule standard, management 

plan, and management process that are compliant with schedule guidelines were 

under review. 

fJ 19 C.F.R. §§ 122.75a(b). 4.64{b). Carriers are to submit the electronic departure manifest no later than 60 minutes prior to 

departure for vessels, and for airplanes, either no later than 30 minutes prior to the securing of the aircraft: or no later than the 

securing of the aircraft, depending on the type of electronic transmission system used. 

"19 C FR. §§ 122.7Sa(d), 4.64(d) l' GAO, Homeland Security: Key US~ VISIT Components at Varying Stages of Complerion, but Integrated and Reliable 

Schedule Needed, GJ\0-10-13 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19,2009); GAO-07-1065; and Home/and Security: First Phase of 

Vjsitor and Immigration Status Program Operating, but Improvements Needed, GAO~04-5a6 (Washington, D.C .. May 11, 

200(1). 

Page 4 
89 

e. Why would the collection of biometric information from aliens 

exiting the country provide a more reliable way to identify aliens 

who overstay their period of admission than the collection of 

biographic information? 

As we and others have reported, the absence of a biometric exit capability raises 

questions about what meaningful US-VISIT data are available to DHS components, 

such as U,S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Without this exit 

capability, DHS cannot ensure the integrity ofthe immigration system by identifying 

and removing those people who have overstayed their original period of admissiona stated goal of US-VISIT. Further, ICE's efforts to ensure the integrity of the 

immigration system could be degraded if it continues to spend its limited resources 

on investigating potential visa violators who have already left the country,12 

Moreover, we reported in April 2011 that as DHS's ability to accurately identify 

overstays is largely dependent on the quality of the alien arrival and departure data 

CBP collects, it is important that CBP take steps to ensure these data are as reliable 

as possible, For example, regarding air ports of entry air carriers transmit visitor 

manifest information, which is obtained directly from government-issued passports, 

to CBP through the Advanced Passenger Information System. This system includes 

air arrival and departure manifest information, such as name, date of birth, travel 

document issuing country, gender, U,S, destination address, entry date, and 

departure date, DHS acknowledges that there are weaknesses in the departure data 

and works with airlines to ensure that the manifest data provided to CBP are reliable. 

According to DHS, it works with air carriers to try to improve both the timeliness and 

comprehensiveness of manifest records, and fines carriers that provide incomplete 

or inaccurate information, However, because the department has not completed the 

exit portion of the US-VISIT program, , at U.S air ports of entry, there is no 

corresponding check on the accuracy and completeness of the departure manifest 

infonnation supplied by the airlines. As a result, the department cannot be certain 

that visitors listed on airlines' manifest data as departing the country did in fact 

physically depart, A biometric exit system at air ports of entry could help to address 

this issue. 

f. What would it cost the federal government to implement a system to 

collect the biometric information of every alien that leaves the 

country at air and sea ports of entry? 

We have not assessed the costs associated with implementation of a bioemtric exit 

system at air and sea ports of entry, In September 2011 we reported that DHS 

reports that, through fiscal year 2011, it has been appropriated about $3,2 billion for 

US-VISIT. As of July 2011, program officials reported that about $193 million of the 

appropriation had been obligated to develop air/sea and land exit solutions since 

2002,13 ,Further, we have issued a number of reports on DHS's management and 

planning of the US-VISIT program, including DHS's planning for the development of 

a biometric exi(capability. For example, since 2004, we have made numerous 

recommendations to address US-VISIT weaknesses, including that DHS ensure that 

US-VISIT expenditure plans fully disclose what system capabilities and benefits are 

n GAO. Homeland Security: Prospects For Biomotric US-VISIT Exit Capabifity R&main Unclear. GAO-OJ -1 044T (Washington, 

D,C.: June 28,2007). 

n GAO. DepaTtment of Homeland Security: Progress Made and Work Remafmng In fmplemenling Homeland Security Missions 

10 Years Affer9l11, GAO-11-B81 (Washington, D.C.: Sept 7, 2011). 

Page 5 
90 

to be delivered, by when, and at what cost, as well as how the program is being 

managed. " DHS has taken action to address these recommendations. 

2. It has been estimated that 40% of aliens who enter the country legally overstay 

their authorized period of admission. It also has been reported that less than 

3% of Polish nationals overstay their authorized period of admission. In the 

absence of a biometric system that records when an alien exits the country, 

how are these estimates of overstay rates made? 

We have not assessed how those overstay rates were determined. However, in April 

2011, we reported that in the absence of a comprehensive biometric entry and exit 

system for identifying and tracking overstays, US-VISIT and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) within DHS primarily analyzed biographic entry and exit 

data collected alland, air. and sea ports of entry to identify overstays and develop 

rates for specific countries. Specifically. US-VISIT first generates an automated 

report that identifies nonimmigrants whose period of authorized admission has 

elapsed but for whom there is no departure record. Then, US-VISIT conducts 

automated and manual searches of databases for information indicating that any of 

the remaining suspected overstays have left the country, have been granted an 

adjustment of status, or have a legitimate reason for staying longer than their 

authorized periods of admission. However, we reported that DHS does not yet have 

an accurate way to determine reliable overstay data, or develop overstay rates for 

those traveling to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. 

3. Currently, Visa Waiver countries must have a low rate of refusal for all 

nonimmigrant visa applicants. The law gives the Secretary the authority to 

waive this requirement, but not until we are capable of recording the entry and 

exit of 97% of all foreign visitors. 

a. Why is it important that Visa Waiver countries have a low rate of 

refusal? 

We have not evaluated visa refusal rates for Visa Waiver Program countries. 

Current law specifies that the refusal rate 15 for temporary business and tourism visas 

be used to determine the eligibility of countries seeking to enter the Visa Waiver 

Program.16 

b. What are the risks of waiving the refusal rate requirement when 

there is no system for recording the biometric information of aliens 

who exit the country? 

We have not assessed the risks associated with waiving the visa refusal rate. 

Members of Congress have considered legislation to raise the refusal rate 

'4 GA()"'10-13, GAQ..07~1065, and GAO-04-S8S 

15 The refusal rate refers to-the temporary business and tourism visa applicati~~s that are denied as a percentage of the total 

temporary business and tourism visa applications for nationals of that country. 

t5 In August 2007, legislation was enacted that allows DHS to consider admitting countries that otherwise meet the program's 

requirements but that have business and tourism visas refusal rates between 3 percent and 10 percent, if the countries meet 

certain conditions. such as cooperating with the United States on counterterrorism initiatives Previously, only countries with 

refusal rates below 3 percent in the prior fiscal year qualified to be considered for admission. Before DHS could exercise this 

new authority, the legislation---referred to as the "9/11 Acf --required that the department complete certain actions aimed at 

enhancing the security of the Visa Waiver Program. See Implementing Recommendations of the 9111 Commission Act of 2007, 

Pub. L No. 110·53. § 711(0).121 Stat. 266. 33~40. 

Page 6 
91 

requirement from 3 percent to 10 percent under certain conditions. Thus, it could be 

possible that a greater percentage of travelers who apply to travel under the Visa 

Waiver Program from countries whose refusal rate is higher than 3 percent would 

have otherwise been denied a visa. Visa waiver travelers are not subject to the same 

degree of screening as those with visas because they are not interviewed by a 

Department of State consular officer before arriving at a U.S. port of entry. 

Nevertheless, these travelers would need to be approved in advance for travel under 

the program to the United States via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 

(ESTA). Passengers whose ESTA application is denied must then obtain a visa to 

be pennitted to travel to the United States. 

4. You testified that the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to 

evaluate the continued participation of each Visa Waiver country with respect 

to the security, law enforcement, and immigration interests of the U.S. and 

report this information to Congress every two years. You also testified that the 

Department of Homeland Security has not completed half of the most recent .-

biennial reports. 

a. Aside from these biennial reviews, does the Department of 

Homeland Security use any other mechanism of review to evaluate 

the Visa Waiver countries' continued participation in the program? 

To fulfill the legal requirements, DHS conducts reviews of Visa Waiver Program 

countries that examine and document, among other things, counterterrorism and law 

enforcement capabilities, border control and immigration programs and policies, and 

security procedures. In conjunction with DHS's reviews, the Director of National 

Intelligence produces intelligence assessments that DHS reviews prior to finalizing 

its country biennial reports. If issues of concern are identified during the country 

review process, DHS drafts an engagement strategy documenting the issues of 

concem and suggesting recommendations for addressing the issues. According to 

Visa Waiver Program officials, they also regularly monitor participating countries' 

efforts to stay infonned about any emerging issues that may affect the countries' 

program status. 

b. You testified that the Department of Homeland Security has never 

consistently made the required biennial reports to Congress. What 

have been the consequences of the Department's failure to conduct 

these reviews in a timely manner? 

Because DHS has not consistently submitted the reports in a timely manner since 

the legal requirement was imposed in 2002, Congress does not have the assurance 

that DHS efforts to require program countries to minimize vulnerabilities and its 

recommendations for continued status in the Visa Waiver Program are based on upto-date assessments. The legislative mandate requiring Visa Waiver Program 

country biennial reports provides important infonnation to Congress on security 

measures in place in visa waiver countries but also on potential vulnerabilities that 

could affect the countries' future participation in the program. 

5. One way to effectively determine when a foreign visitor leaves the country is to 

require each temporary foreign visitor to purchase a card that contains their 

photograph, biographic information, and fingerprint biometric. The card would 

also provide visitors with confidence as they travel throughout the country as 

it would indicate their authorized period of stay. To record their exit from the 

country, visitors would scan the card at an electronic kiosk operated by the 

Page 7 
92 

Department of Homeland Security. The kiosk would also record their 

fingerprint to ensure the person holding the card is the lawful owner. In order 

to implement this system we would need to develop the cards, the kiosks, and 

the technology. 

a. Can you estimate the cost of implementing such a system? 

We have not conducted work to assess the costs of implementing such a system. 

b. Could such a system pay for itself if an appropriate fee was charged 

to purchase the card? 

We have not conducted work to assess whether such a system could pay for itself 

through fees. 

Questions from Senator Feinstein 

1. According to a 2011 GAO report, DHS has produced a compliance schedule 

that requires all Visa Waiver Program countries to enter into informationsharing agreements by June 2012. 

a. Has GAO determined if the Department of Homeland Security is on 

track to meet this deadline? 

We have not conducted further work to determine if the Department of Homeland 

Security is on track to meet this deadline. However. DHS reported that only about 

half of the 36 Visa Waiver Program countries have fully complied with the 

requirement to enter into information sharing agreements as of March 2012, and 

many of the signed agreements have not been implemented. 

b. If this deadline is not met, what measures should be taken by DHS to 

ensure a country is in compliance with all Visa Waiver Program 

reqUirements? 

Although termination from the Visa Waiver Program is one potential consequence for 

countries not complying with the information-sharing agreement requirement, U.S. 

offiCials have described it as undesirable. saying it would significantly impact 

diplomatic relations and would weaken any informal exchange of information. DHS, 

in coordination with the Department of State and the Department of Justice, 

developed a classified strategy document that outlines a contingency plan listing 

possible measures short of termination from the Visa Waiver Program that may be 

taken if a country does not meet its specified compliance date for entering into 

information-sharing agreements. The strategy document provides steps that would 

need to be taken prior to selecting and implementing one of these measures. 

According to officials, DHS plans to decide which measures to apply on a case-bycase basis. 

2. According to a 2011 GAO report, in 2010, air and sea carriers verified 

Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) approvals for 98 percent of 

VWP passengers prior to boarding. GAO found that DHS has not fully 

analyzed the potential risks posed by the 2 percent of cases where carriers 

boarded passengers without verifying their ESTA approvals. How has DHS 

responded to this finding and worked to mitigate this potential security risk? 

Page 8 
93 

In May 2011, GAO recommended that DHS establish time frames for the regular 

review and documentation of cases of Visa Waiver Program passengers traveling to 

a U.S. port of entry without verified EST A approval. DHS concurred with our 

recommendation and reported that it has established procedures to review quarterly 

a sample of noncompliant passengers to evaluate potential security risks associated 

with the ESTA program. 

3. A 2011 GAO report found that DHS has not completed half of the most recent 

biennial reports on each country's participation In the Visa Waiver Program. In 

2007, DHS established protocols for the timely completion of these reports. 

Nevertheless, DHS remains unable to meet report deadlines. What steps 

should DHS take to comply with the biennial reporting requirement? 

In the 2011 report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security take 

steps to address delays in the biennial country review process so that the mandated 

country reports can be completed on time. DHS concurred with this 

recommendation, and its Visa Waiver Program Office has developed a reporting 

timeline to address delays in completing Visa Waiver PrOgram eligibility reviews and 

associated reports. The Program Office has also identified a mechanism to inform 

Congress of potential delays for particular reviews and associated reports. 

QUe$tions from Senator lee 

1. As I understand, DHS records an address from visa holders and generate lists 

of those visa holders that do not have a recorded departure. 

a. From there, what happens to those who overstay their visa? 

US-VISIT and ICE primarily analyze biographic entry and exit data collected at land, 

air, and sea ports of entry to identify overstays. Specifically, US-VISIT first generates 

an automated report that identifies nonimmigrants whose period of authorized 

admission has elapsed but for whom there is no departure record. Then, US-VISIT 

conducts automated and manual searches of databases for information indicating 

that any of the remaining suspected overstays have left the country, have been 

granted an adjustment of status, or have a legitimate reason for staying longer than 

their authorized periods of admission. Any leads on potential overstays are passed to 

ICE for further investigation. ICE prioritizes overstay leads based on various factors 

that consider the potential risks overstays may pose to national security and public 

safety, and field offices investigate those leads that ICE identifies as a priority. 

b. What do you believe can be done to create and enforce an efficient exit 

system? 

In April 2011, we reported on challenges faced by DHS in collecting accurate and 

reliable departure information from foreign nationals exiting the United States. In 

particular, we identified challenges associated with the incomplete collection of 

departure data at ports of entry and the lack of mechanisms for assessing the quality 

of leads that are sent to field offices for investigation. We recommended that DHS 

analyze the costs and benefits of developing a standard mechanism for collecting 

arrival and departure forms at land ports of entry and develop a standard mechanism 

to collect these forms, to the extent that benefits outweigh the costs. We also 

recommended that DHS develop a performance measure for assessing the quality of 

Page 9 
94 

leads assigned to ICE field offices for investigations. DHS agreed with our 

recommendations and has actions underway to address them, such as planning to 

complete a cost-effective independent evaluation of possible solutions and formulate 

an action plan based on the evaluation. 

2. Do you believe a country's visa refusal rate is an adequate indicator of the 

country's threat to U.S. national security? 

A country's refusal rate refers only to the temporary business and tourism visa 

applications that are denied as a percentage of the total temporary business and 

tourism visa applications for nationals of that country. Foreign nationals applying for 

a visa to visit the United States can be denied a visa for a number of reasons that 

are specified by statute. For example, the applicant will be denied if he did not 

overcome the presumption of immigrant intent by sUfficiently demonstrating that he 

had strong ties to his home country that will compel him to leave the United States at 

the end of his temporary stay. Other bases for denial include fraud, the potentiat for 

becoming a public charge, and national security concerns. For a country to qualify to 

. participate in the Visa Waiver Program, having a low refusal rate is only one of 

several security-related requirements it must meet. 

3. Will the visa expediting process for B·1 and B·2 visas affect national security? 

In January 2012 the President announced a Visa Pilot Program to improve and 

speed up the visa process for certain categories of travelers. In select 

circumstances, qualified foreign visitors who were interviewed and thoroughly 

screened in conjunction with a prior visa application may be able to renew their visas 

without undergoing another interview. We have not assessed this program. 

If you have any questions about this letter or need additional information, please contact me 

at (202) 512-6912 or gamblerr@gao.gov. 

Rebecca Gambler 

Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

Page 10 
95 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

March 27, 2012 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MARTIN 

SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR 

FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM 

The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States 
96 

Chainnan Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of 

the more than 250,000 members and activists of the Federation for American Immigration 

Refonn (FAIR), thank you for this opportunity to share with you our perspective on measures 

designed to increase the travel of foreigners to the United States. 

I am Jack Martin, FAIR's special projects director. FAIR is a national, non-profit, public interest 

organization working to end illegal immigration, to restore moderate legal immigration, and to 

refonn our immigration laws to bring them into accord with long-tenn national interests. 

FAIR welcomes foreign visitors. We recognize that international travel to the United States is an 

important contribution to our economy. We also welcome the international friendships and 

international understanding that may result from international travel. 

At the same time, FAIR knows that the issue of international travel must not be looked at in a 

vacuum. It must be balanced with concerns about national security and illegal immigration. 

The Failure to Implement a Biometric Tracking Entry-Exit System Undermines National 

Security 

In the aftennath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 9111 Commission told Congress that an 

important step to improving national security was the implementation a biometric entry-exit 

system that would allow real-time infonnation on whether nonimmigrants leave when their entry 

pennits expire. This was not a radical departure from past practice. For decades, the government 

used a paper-based, manual-matching record system for arrivals and departures, but that system 

became overwhelmed by the volume of travel and the government abandoned it. Then, in 1996, 

Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Refonn and Immigrant Responsibility Act (JIRAIRA), 

which directed the government to set up an electronic entry-exit system in response to the 

international terrorist security threat demonstrated by the first attempt to destroy the World Trade 

Center in Manhattan in 1993. 

Congress responded to the 9/11 Commission recommendations by including provisions in the 

USA-PATRIOT Act (Sec. 414 of Public Law 107-56) that directed Homeland Security to focus 

on incorporating biometrics into the entry-exit system required by IIRAIRA. While biometric 

data is now collected as part of the entry portion of the system, biometric data is still not 

collected during the exit process. 

FAIR recognizes that national security measures taken to prevent international terrorism will 

never be 100 percent certain. Nonetheless, a balance must be achieved between the advantages of 

being a country open to international travelers and the need to protect the country from foreign 

nationals intent on entering the United States to do hann to Americans. In that regard, the 

recommendation of the 9/11 Commission remains as valid today as when it was first issued. 

National security depends on having a functioning and reliable biometric system for matching 

records of the departure offoreign travelers with the record of their arrival, and we do not have 

that system yet. In the absence of that security measure, it is unrealistic arid irresponsible to 

propose initiatives to increase international travel to the United States. Nor is there a dire need to 
97 

implement such initiatives: The Commerce Department just last week reported that a record 

number of tourists came to the U.S. in 2011 and spent a record amount related to that travel. I 

Department of Homeland Security senior officials have recently announced that they are on the 

verge of announcing the establishment of a new entry-exit data system. The limited information 

released regarding this development suggests that it will be based on the model tracking system 

established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks for international students (SEVIS) and the Arrival and 

Departure Information System (ADIS). While SEVIS is a useful system for monitoring longterm visitors, neither it nor ADIS collects and matches biometric data on departing travelers with 

the data collected when they arrived. As a result, the government has no reliable data on whether 

foreigners remain illegally after their entry permit has expired. It has no reliable data on how 

many such persons there are in the country, what type of visa they entered with, from what 

countries they came, their gender or age or any other characteristic that would assist in detecting 

a pattern of foreigners in the country who might represent a threat. 

Visa Overstayers Contribute Significantly to the Illegal Alien Population 

Visa overstayers constitute a significant portion of the illegal population in the United States. 

However, estimates of this visa overstay population vary considerably. In 2006, the Pew 

Hispanic Center estimated that the overstay population was approximately 33 to 45 percent of 

the illegal alien population.2 In 2004, the GAO estimated that the overstay population was 

anywhere from 27 to 57 percent of the illegal alien population.3 

However, the fact that visa overstayers originally entered the U.S. legally does not change how 

illegal immigration impacts the American people. Because illegal aliens are prohibited from 

working in the U.S., they generally either work in the underground economy or with stolen 

identity documents and for low wages. They often take jobs sought by American workers and 

depress wages and working conditions in any jobs where significant numbers are employed. As 

FAIR has documented, illegal immigration constitutes a fiscal drain of about $113 billion on 

U.S. taxpayers especially at the state and local level. 

The federal government therefore should track aliens who enter the country legally, whether they 

enter with a visa or without one, a critical component of its strategy to combat illegal 

immigration. So far, this has not been the case. 

The Visa Waiver Program Weakens National Security 

Like the 9111 Commission, FAIR has long warned that the Visa Waiver Program represents a 

serious vulnerability as long as there is no reliable biometric entry-exit system. In our view, 

national security is jeopardized by a system that presumes that all travelers from a participating 

country are neither a security threat nor likely to overstay their visas. There are numerous 

1 Commerce Department, U.S. Commerce Deportment Releases Data Showing Tourism Spending Increased 8.1 

percent in 2011, Supporting an Additional 103,000 Tourism-Related Jobs (Mar. 21, 2012) 

2 Pew Hispanic Center, Fact Sheet: Modes afEntry far the Unauthorized Migrant Population (May 22,2006). 

3 Government Accountability Office, OVERSTAY TRACKING: A Key Companent afHomeland Security and a Layered 

Defense, GAO-04-82 (May 2004). 
98 

incidents of individuals who have committed terrorist acts or plotted to do so in countries that 

participate in the Visa Waiver Program. These persons often escape identification by security 

analysts but are likely to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny if they apply for a visa. 

The major weakness of the Visa Waiver Program is that it removes initial screening by a trained 

U.S. consular officer whose job is to approve visas only for bona fide nonimmigrants. The 

program instead puts responsibility for the entire screening process on customs and border 

personnel at U.S. ports of entry under conditions that prevent them from doing anything other 

than looking for false travel documents or smugglers. While there have been improvements to 

the screening process since the 9111 attacks, such as the expansion of biometric data collection, 

improved intelligence sharing, and the advanced travel notification system for travelers from 

Visa Waiver countries, these improvements are still insufficient. 

In this situation, proposals to further relax the Visa Waiver Program are misguided for two 

reasons. The idea of increasing the number of countries in the program while there is no reliable 

way to monitor whether travelers from those countries tend to stay illegally ignores both the 

greater security threat as well as the likelihood that the number of visa overstayers will rise. 

Indeed, the reason the government prohibits certain countries from participating in the Visa 

Waiver Program is that a significant number of visa applicants from those countries have been 

judged by our consular officers not to be bona fide non immigrants. 

A common sense question will illuminate whether proposals to expand the Visa Waiver Program 

make sense. The question is: Does it make more sense to deny a visa applicant who is likely to 

become an illegal alien before or after arrival in the United States? If the government denies the 

visa applicant before the applicant enters the United States, it prevents the problem altogether. 

However, if the government approves the visa and allows that person to travel to the United 

States and become an illegal alien, it has the problem and expense of enforcing the immigration 

law by locating, detaining and deporting the alien. It should be clear that the latter approach has 

significant negative implications for the American people. 

Bypassing Security Measures During Visa Processing Increases the Risk of Fraud and 

Undermines National Security 

Initiatives currently underway to bypass security measures and increase the speed at which visa 

applications are processed increase the risk of fraud. In January 2012, President Obama issued 

an executive order that would weaken national security by seeking to waive certain safeguards 

used to screen foreign nationals coming to the United States.4 Among other things, the order 

directed the Secretaries of State and DHS to develop a plan within 60 days that would: (1) 

increase nonimmigrant visa processing in China and Brazil by 40 percent over the coming year; 

and (2) ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three 

weeks of the government receiving their application. In a release issued the same day as the 

order, the State Department announced that this will be accomplished in part by waiving the 

long-standing statutory requirement that aliens seeking to renew visas undergo in-person 

4 See President Obama Executive Order, Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force 

on Travel and Competitiveness (Jan, 19, 2012), 
99 

interviews with a consular officer.s Because the order applies to all nonimmigrant visas, it will 

relax the screening process for not only the tens of millions of tourists and business travelers who 

enter the U.S. each year, but also for hundreds of thousands of guest workers. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, FAIR would like to see an increase in foreign visitors as long as that does not 

increase the country's vulnerability to international terrorism or encourage violation of our 

immigration laws. We support making more resources available for the visa issuance process in 

order to reduce delays in obtaining visas. However, we adamantly oppose eliminating visa 

screening as the first defense against both security threats and immigration law violators. 

We urge the Congress to insist to the Administration that it complete its assigned work to 

implement a reliable and comprehensive biometric entry-exit system to provide greater security 

for the American people. Only when that data collection system is operational will it be possible 

to arrive at an informed judgment as to which characteristics of foreign visitors represent a 

security or immigration law threat. 

5 Department of State Press Release. Visa Pi/at Program (Jan. 19, 2012). 
100 

GLOBAL BUSINESS TRAVEL ASSOCIATION 

Prepared Remarks of 

Michael W. McCormick 

Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer 

Global Business Travel Association 

United State Senate Committee on Judiciary 

Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee 

The Economic Imperative for Promoting International Travel to the United States 

April 3, 2012 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Global Business Travel Association (GBTA), I appreciate the 

opportunity to submit these remarks on the economic imperative for promoting 

international travel to the United States. Your longstanding commitment, along with the 

commitment of the Subcommittee, to ensuing the nation's security while facilitating 

international inbound travel has expanded U.S. prominence in the global marketplace. 

Focused, sensible efforts to further open access to the U.S. will strengthen U.S. 

competiveness. 

GBT A and its members have a unique interest and perspective as we are the voice of 

the business travel industry - the nation's road warriors and the companies they 

represent. GBTA is the leading trade association for the business travel industry, with 

more than 5,000 members and a network of 30,000 business travel and meetings 

professionals, as well as travel service providers. Along with its forty local chapters 

across the nation, GBTA focuses on networking events, education and professional 

development, news, research and analysis, and advocacy. 
101 

We represent a global industry with $1 trillion in business travel and meetings 

expenditures annually, with over $260 billion spend in the United States in 2011. 

The hearing is particularly timely in view of the recently issued Executive Order 13597 

Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force on 

Travel and Competitiveness. GBTA fully supports the Administration's focus on the 

significant economic and cultural value of increased travel. Increasing the nation's share 

of the overseas travel market will accelerate the economic recovery. 

To ensure that American businesses retain their competitive advantage in today's fastpaced global marketplace, the government must create an environment that allows 

these businesses and their global partners to travel safely, sectJfely and efficiently by air 

to, from and within the United States. 

BUSINESS TRAVEL DRIVES ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOBS 

It is important to facilitate entry into the U.S. and align security concerns with efficient 

visa pOlicies. The reason is simple: unnecessary, unjustified barriers to travel dampen 

travel demand and slow economic growth. The trillion dollar travel and tourism industry 

- leisure and business travel - represents nearly three percent of the Gross Domestic 

Product (GOP). International travel to the U.S. supports 1.2 million of the nearly 8 

million jobs supported by the industry. 

The Department of Commerce has long recognized the importance of and the need to 

increase business travel to the United States. The International Trade Administration 

Profile of Overseas Travelers to the United States indicates: 

• nearly 22 percent of all visitors came for business/professional purposes 

and/or to attend a convention or conference 

• over 88 percent of business visitors stayed in a hotel or motel 

• 85 percent of business visitors were "repeat visitors" to the U.S. (average of nine 

trips in the past five years) 

• 49 percent of business visitors used taxis, 32 percent rented cars, 31 percent 

flew an airline and 15 percent used a company/private car during their visit 

Aligning economic growth and aviation security will increase business travel to the U.S., 

and increase the already significant impact of business travel domestically. 

• 23 percent of all trips are for business purposes 

• 33 percent of all travel spending is for business purposes 

By every measure, continued growth in business travel is essential to continued 

economic recovery. When confident in a growing economy, businesses send their 

employees on the road to secure even more business and to attend conferences, 

meetings and trade shows. This increases sales for companies. necessitating the hiring 

2 
102 

of additional employees to service those sales and additional employees to 

accommodate the needs of business travelers. 

The positive ripple effect throughout the economy not only spurs job growth - it is a 

leading indicator of U.S. employment: 

~ 

i= 

a:l 

~ a:l 

(9 

GBTA Business TravellndexTM and US Employmenti 

125 

120 

115 

110 

105 

100 

95 

Increased Business Travel = Increased Jobs 

GBTA Business Travel IndexTM and 

US Employment 

147 

145 

143 

141 

139 

137 

2005Q2 2007Q2 2009Q2 2011Q2 

Sources 

U> 

c 

~ 

5 

C 

<J) 

E 

0 '"' Q. 

E 

w 

(f) 

:::J 

Global spending on business travel is on the rebound due to improved intemational 

trade. For example, China is now the second largest business travel market and is 

poised to pass the U.S. as early as 2015. Between 2011 and 2015, business travel 

spend in China will experience a compound annual growth rate of 11.2 percent, 

compared to 3.8 percent for America. We must adopt policies to increase business 

travel for U.S. companies and their global partners. Global business travel maximizes 

competitive advantages for America, its businesses and the global business travel 

industry buyers and suppliers. 

Proposed visa program initiatives that increase access to the U.S. by business 

travelers, including expansion of the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and 

simplifying/expediting the application process in non-VWP countries, are essential. 

3 
103 

VISA PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS 

Visa Processing 

Increasingly U.S. businesses operate in the fast-paced global marketplace, growing 

their customer base to increase sales and networking. Their current and potential 

business partners around the world often need time-sensitive access to the U.S. to 

attend meetings, conventions and other events. That means lengthy delays in the 

application process - from scheduling the interviews to receiving final approval - are 

real barriers and result in lost business opportunities. 

On January 19, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13597 proposing 

numerous improvements to visa programs and policies. GBTA supports the short-term 

initiatives, including the Visa Pilot Program to be coordinated by the Departments of 

State and Homeland Security. Allowing low-risk, qualified individuals to renew their 

visas without going through additional interviews and streamlining visa processing for 

those with expired visas and some categories of younger or older first-time applicants 

makes sense. 

GBTA also supports provisions to increase the non-immigrant visa processing capacity 

in China and Brazil by 40 percent in 2012 and to ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of the receipt of their 

applications. These changes will boost international travel and, in turn, boost the 

economy. In 2010, travelers from China spent $6,000 per visit; travelers from Brazil 

spent $5000 per visit. Recent staffing increases in both countries have significantly 

reduced wait times. Further application process improvements and exploration of 

comparable trusted traveler programs to align with the Global Entry program 

requirements will increase business travel to the U.S.even more. 

Focusing on Brazil, the world's sixth largest economy, GBTA supports participation by 

Brazil in the VWP. But until this issue is resolved, enhanced efforts to facilitate visa 

processing are essential. In 2010, visitors from Brazil constituted nearly 5 percent of 

total overseas arrivals. For the first nine months of 2011, the number of visitors 

increased 26 percent compared to 2010 - nearly 1.5 million travelers spending over $7 

billion - constituting the fourth largest source of overseas visitors to the United States. 

Visa process improvements will facilitate even more business trips, meetings and 

conventions ... growing the economy and jobs. 

A multifaceted approach to increase international business travel, including visa reforms 

and other initiatives, works best. An excellent example of a government-industry 

partnership to encourage business travel to the U.S. is the annual VISIT USA Show 

hosted by the U.S. Commercial Service (USCS), Department of Commerce. With 2012 

events in Brazil, Argentina and other key markets, the event brings the travell meetings 

4 
104 

industry and government together to advance strategies to increase the inbound U.S. 

market. For the past twenty years, the U.S. Embassy in Brazil has spearheaded this 

well-attended, well-recognized event to promote travel to America. GBTA Brazil fully 

supports these efforts and this event, in particular, to encourage travel and grow 

commerce between the two nations. 

With the anticipated large increase in the number of visa applications in these and other 

vital markets, increased attention and resources in the next year are essential. The 

State Department and other impacted agencies must have sufficient funding to operate 

efficiently or the U.S. economy will pay the price. Moreover, consideration of new. 

innovative approaches should be on the table. 

Visa Waiver Program 

The VWP is an unqualified success and has opened the door for countless business 

opportunities. In fiscal year 2010, nearly 18 million visitors from 36 countries traveled to 

the U.S. under the program. representing 44 percent of all foreign travelers. 

GBTA and its members have long-supported the expansion of the VWP to include 

additional qualified nations that satisfy all security and safety protocols. We urge: 

• Continued consideration of Brazil. China and other key markets for participation. 

• If still unresolved. continued attention by the Department of Homeland Security 

and its agency partners to the issues surrounding Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization noncompliance and the lack of required information - sharing 

agreements raised in a recent report by the General Accountability Office. VISA 

WAIVER PROGRAM, Report to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Government Affairs. U.S. Senate (May 2011). 

• Strong consideration of options for increasing VWP participation described in the 

recent Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, including use of 

overstay rates rather than visa refusal rates for determining eligibility. VISA 

WAIVER PROGRAM, CRS Report to Congress. Alison Siskin (December 2, 

2011 ). 

GBTA welcomes the Administration's support for legislation pending in Congress to 

incorporate the visa overstay rate as a qualification for program eligibility. GBT A 

supports numerous bills to modify current program eligibility requirements to align better 

with key security concerns, including the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism 

Partnership Act, H.R.959/S.497 and the Visa Improvements to Stimulate International 

Tourism to the USA Act, H.R.3341/S.1746. 

CONCLUSION 

5 
105 

As the Committee moves forward with its review of ways to expand access to the U.S. 

consistent with security and safety concerns, GBT A urges serious consideration of visa 

application process improvements, expansion of the VWP through changes to current 

program eligibility requirements and, of course, sufficient federal funding for these 

programs. Investment in these programs is an investment in the nation's economic 

recovery. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

6 
106 

Æ